Talk:Sarah Jeong

0 views

Out of context?

[edit]

I actually am new to this discussion and corrected (or have submitted it for correction” a sentence used that left out of context that her tweet to who she perceived to be Bernie Sanders supporters was in her own words meant as a “hyperbolic joke”. The only reason I can see for someone to utilize that source for her statement and then leaving out that context is to give a very jaundiced perception about both her intention with the tweet and it’s connection to unverified and unreasonable (and now wholly unsupportable as independent studies have shown) determination that “Bernie Bros” were a real thing (they weren’t according to several independent study’s of the data) and thus gave the impression she was simply someone innocently commenting who received this Toxic attack by Sanders supporters.

1. Her tweet was meant to elicit a strong reaction (how hyperbolic jokes work)

2. The statement allowed that the people she tweeted her hyperbolic joke at were “Bernie Bros” (aka Bernie Sanders supporters) w/o any “alleged” or “presumed” to signify not only that she could have no idea if these trolls were even Americans let alone Bernie supporters makes the statement on Wikipedia intentionally inflammatory.

Anyways, while looking beyond I noticed that for some reason the description of her incident with her racially insensitive/racist/problematic tweets was allowed to imply that ONLY right wing outlets took issue.

Fact is EVEN NYTimes colleague stated the objective fact that yes the statements are racist (and they are, this isn’t debatable). But beyond that we had sources like BBC, Politico, Washington Post not too mention many pundits no one would call left stating in one way or another of course the tweets are racist but the point is, and I agree, it doesn’t mean either she is racist (context helps with that) or that she or anyone should be canceled for old tweets like that.

They should really remove that statement that implies it’s only a right wing fake outrage thing. Bc as is the article is hardly neutral and objectively it’s 100% counterfactual even to the source provided. JustTheT (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed many times already. See below. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Wu

[edit]

Sarah was invoiced in a huge controversy by Doxxing a Chinese women on Vice, and according to the victim breaching their written agreement etc

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5

I hope there are reliable sources beyond the victim's own blog Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times before [1][2][3] and no one has yet put forward any independent, reliable sources for this incident. Hoping, etc. won't change that, unfortunately. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] https://biohackinfo.com/news-bbc-undercover-to-expose-cyborgs/ , https://arcdigital.media/how-western-progressives-fail-activists-in-the-developing-world-fbfd91307da1 and https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ look to me like good sources (especially together). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] These are all obviously terrible sources; the idea that someone would propose using any one of them as a source in a Wikipedia article is somewhere between absurd and terrifying. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] arcdigital.media is alternative media which does have editors. Are you saying that all alternative media shouldn't be used as a source for Wikipedia articles? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I am saying that if you can't understand why "The internet’s best opinion page" isn't a RS for contentious factual claims in BLPs, you shouldn't be editing biographies on Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] All three of these sources have an obvious axe to grind, and definitely should not be used for any contentious BLP info. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/ is another source. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] It has come up on WP:RSN twice: 1 2. Summary of the comments there: [I]s this the best source for this? That does rather ring alarm bells. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] That source doesn't say anything about Jeong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

[edit]

Change: In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates

To: In January 2016, Jeong posted a hyperbolic joke tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to what she believed were online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates

(The context is vitally important in understanding both the issue and how Jeong herself described her tweet in the citation used for the provided line. Obviously the implication is dramatically changed when read without crucial context about Jeongs intent and also as important the characterization/blame imparted to Bernie Sanders supporters who were maligned by the event, even more so since we now know that data shows the “Bernie Bro” pejorative was a false claim not backed by the actual facts/data and in many cases directly contradicted by them. We also found out that Russian operations were acting as “Bernie supporters” in attempt to undermine our elections. With these facts and context in mind, along with the full context of Jeongs own quote which was not included, readers are left with several false impressions both about her intention and action and her claims something. It also is important to note that it was her belief that the attacks were being made by Bernie Sanders supporters, something many people along with independent study say were intentional troll networks run by opposition campaigns as well as Russian Troll farms, according to US Intel Agencies who warned about Russia also seeking to undermine election acting as supporters of Sanders candidacy. That the acts ascribed as being from “Sanders Supporters” directly contradict the entire platform of Sanders campaign as well as being incongruent with the tone/tenure/makeup of his movement lead to rational logical valid questions about the possible dirty tricks campaign meant to create the appearance of Bernie Supporter's creating a toxic environment which could then be used to force Bernie Sanders campaign to accept responsibility for the acts of these troll farms. Along with Salon, NYTimes and many others reporting which discusses the independent analysis showing that “Bernie Bro” smears were created as a “myth” and showing his campaign supporters were not creating the toxic environment blamed on them as well as the Russian Operation posing as Bernie Supporters.

Many other sources available but I thought these gave the best overview of the issues. I don’t think it is correct to definitively ascribe the actions/attacks as coming from Bernie Sanders supporters as the evidence not only doesn’t justify that belief, Sanders movement/platform actually discredits the notion that supporters of Bernie Sanders would be likely to have taken the stances the troll accounts in question took. Likewise, Although I believe the discussion deserves critical consideration of the facts especially now that we have a clearer view post election, I am not suggesting we take the opposing viewpoint and categorically dismiss the notion that someone might hold belief that these were in fact Bernie Sanders supporters. Seems the reasonable, correct, accurate description would be; “Alleged Bernie Bros”. But as for Jeongs tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”, this should not be debatable either as it’s importance in giving context or necessary for proper understanding of the event in question.

For her description of her tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”; https://www.wired.com/2016/09/inside-googles-internet-justice-league-ai-powered-war-trolls/

Various sources describing belief and data discounting the narrative that the toxic views and attacks were supporters of Bernie Sanders (or even people at all):

https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/bernie-sanders/selective-feminism-and-the-myth/

https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html

https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/09/the-evidence-that-makes-the-bernie-bro-smear-look-all-the-worse/

https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/03/the-bernie-bro-line-cant-make-clinton-a-progressive/ ) JustTheT (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the “sign your changes” but assume as you can see who wrote these that wasn’t necessary, please tell me if I am mistaken. JustTheT (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] arrow Reverted. The Wired source says the tweet was "meant to be a hyper­bolic joke" (my bolding). How a thing is meant is not the same as how a thing actually is. Hyperbole is a subjective quality as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Sangdeboeuf: Would you be OK with In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros [...] She claimed the tweet was meant to be a hyperbolic joke.? While I do agree with the concerns you brought up about avoiding stating it in wikivoice, JustTheT's concerns about the tweet being taken out of context seem to also be valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Seems WP:UNDUE. Just state the facts. "The lady doth protest too much" and all that. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2022 (2)

[edit]

Change: The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014.[23][24][25] Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology,[26][27] saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color.

To; The hiring sparked a strong reaction across social media and news outlets with some journalists and commentators highlighting her previous tweets, which the NYTimes editorial board described her racially insensitive as “unacceptable”, while others including NYTimes journalists as well as BBC and TheHill labeled them as derogatory, and racist toward white people. The Washington Post, and NYTimes wrote a piece stating the tweets in question were “certainly racist” but questioning if racist or bigoted tweets making fun of white people, like Sara’s which included;

“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

“Dumbass f—ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

"white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants"

“White men are bull—”; “#CancelWhitePeople”; and “f— white women lol.”

Should be a firing offense especially as Jeong posted many of her tweets under the hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople” and were mostly made in 2013 and 2014 in response to her perception that minorities were treated differently with respect to the issues being discussed.[23][24][25]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534.amp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/08/03/an-asian-american-womans-tweets-ignite-a-debate-is-it-okay-to-make-fun-of-white-people-online/

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at-new-york-times-editorial-board/amp/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/12/social-media-facebook-twitter-google-youtube-bias-conservatives-republicans-column/1250893002/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/new-work-times-thinks-anti-white-racism-doesnt-count/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/ny-times-newest-editorial-board-member-doesnt-seem/ JustTheT (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Previous discussion on quoting even one of Jeong's tweets (let alone a half-dozen or more) failed to reach consensus, which effectively means to exclude the disputed material. The phrase negative reaction in conservative media is based on several published, reliable sources and none of the many proposals to delete it have found consensus either. Explicit consensus is required for any changes to the hiring-controversy paragraph, which means a proper discussion, not just an edit request. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of quotation

[edit]

@JayBeeEll reverted my edit which included a quotation from the Guardian. The text I added material to was: "The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology, saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color. Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate harassment campaign."; I added simply

"oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy i get out of being cruel to old white men"

which is outright sourced in the Guardian source. How on Earth does it make sense to have a 3-line long description of accusations of racism against her based on her statements, without any inclusion whatsoever of said statements? The source mentioned is here[1], and my quotation is verbatim. Why then is no quotation included, when many of them are sourced? Specifically the above quotation was one that the Guardian specifically pointed out. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wolfson, Sam (August 3, 2018). "New York Times racism row: how Twitter comes back to haunt you". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 September 2022.
Have you read any of the (many) past discussions of this question here? Talk:Sarah_Jeong/Archive_9#Actual_language_from_her_tweets, Talk:Sarah_Jeong/Archive_8#RfC:_Separate_section_on_tweets?, Talk:Sarah_Jeong/Archive_7#Proposal_to_include_quotes_in_the_article, etc. --JBL (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] There was no consensus from a discussion from 6 years ago, arguing WP:RECENTISM etc. Considering we are 6 years on, and that turquoise text above still seems very incomplete, I would sincerely doubt the strength of the standing. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Six years on, the people who argued that it was undue have been proven correct: there is no continuing coverage of this kerfluffle. --JBL (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The turquoise text above has remained the same, mentioning "highlighted derogatory tweets...", "tweets as being racist...", "tweets were meant to satirize...", and "tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context..."; well, the tweets are certainly missing a key element of context in this article; the tweets themselves, which seems like a pretty fundamental thing for "context", don't you think? Four mentions of her tweets in those 3-or-so lines, yet never a quotation. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:CONTENTAGE is irrelevant whether it's six or sixty years. As I wrote previously, no consensus effectively means to exclude the disputed material; see WP:ONUS. There is still an active arbitration remedy (see note at top of page) requiring explicit consensus for any change to the material on the Twitter controversy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Avoiding WP:RECENTISM means focusing on long-term significance, and can affect sources of any age. If anything, the absence of later interpretation and analysis from secondary and tertiary sources would suggest reducing the material even further. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Let's follow what you said simply. Via WP:RECENTISM, we focus on long-term significance. It seems like it is consensus here, by the fact that every one supports it, that the turquoise text above meets the criteria for long-term significance. Jeong was widely reported in the news for her tweets, and that is still relevant today. No one in this talk page has justified how they think the turquoise text is in full context whatsoever; thus, tweets ought to be included alongside the current four mentions of "tweet" in 3-or-so-lines. Going by the rule of consensus is difficult, obviously, but what many editors are doing here is not arguing at all, only adding to the lack of consensus by using the very lack of consensus as an argument. That, I would argue, is much more unproductive that what you have absurdly criticised me of in my talk page. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Long-term significance is determined by later coverage in published, reliable sources, not WP:CONTENTAGE on wikipedia, as I've already said. Things can be widely reported without having long-term significance. A reliable, independent source published since 2018 that quotes one of Jeong's tweets might actually support its relevance today. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] With repsect, I think we, being 6 years on, can have a much clearer view of how the sources have described this issue. What we can undoubtedly agree upon is that mentioning of the furore of tweets is relevant to the article, being adundantly sourced. What I am saying is to consider those very sources. In all such examples that describe the controversy: So every sourced source in this article - especially important in hindsight - quotes the tweets, including one in the very title. I suggested the first quotation as it is quoted across 4 different sources. Zilch-nada (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] In other words, no new sources since August 2018 when this kerfuffle happened. To me that suggests the tweets themselves are not relevant to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The way in which they are sourced 6 years ago universally mention and focus on her tweets, quoting them. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] You are one of those such editors who has edited this article over the past six years; there is absolutely no need for pompous, self-aggrandizing reasoning here; "I was right and I am still right", without ever actually bringing up what is being debated. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:NPA and retract this remark. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please read WP:OWN as you've clearly made your opinions up 6 years ago. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Nothing in WP:OWN forbids a person from maintaining the same opinions over time, particularly when nothing emerges in the interval that might prompt changing them. XOR'easter (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] There was no consensus for the proposal, with a numerical majority against it, in a context where an affirmative consensus explicitly in favor is necessary (WP:BLP). And the passing of time has not made the quotation (or any other aspect of the kerfuffle) more relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Do you seriously think that the turquoise text above is fully and sufficiently in context? Zilch-nada (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] A slight majority; I quote: A slight majority of respondents are in opposition to this proposal, without assigning weight to arguments. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I quote: However there is substantial policy-based opposition to including the content, with little in the way of policy-based refutation that would warrant assigning the supporters greater weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I agree, I'm a deletionist for that reason, I am saying that the turquoise quotation above is exceptionally incomplete; what should be done is either, a) the tweet(s) is rightfully added, or b) the turquoise wording is shortened to read less awkwardly. It is outright incoherent to use "tweets" four times in a row without actually quoting them, especially when they are reliably sourced. What is absurd is that users in this discussion are not particularly opposed to the tweet I quoted from the Guardian, but the mention of any tweets in general. That is what I am arguing against, for the purpose of CONTEXT. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] So we should add context by including a tweet that was originally taken out of context? I'm struggling to follow the train of logic here.
This is the first I've heard of any suggestion to shorten the description of the Twitter controversy. In any case we would need a wider discussion such as an RfC to achieve consensus for that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Goodness me. Just about every source that describes the quotes being taken out of context, quotes the tweets. It's hardly complex. Zilch-nada (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] And additionally, I did not even remotely suggest to add a section on her tweets, nor tweets in the plural; only one tweet that was specifically used as an example by a reliable, established source - the Guardian. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The Guardian article also discusses how the quotes were dredged up in bad faith and weaponized by political opponents, antisemitic trolls, and white supremacists. Does this biography really need to repeat their claims (especially given WP:BLP)? Given the full context the specific quote[s] aren't really relevant to the biography at large. Citing (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] But the Guardian article quotes the tweets in the first place; I am suggesting to quote what she said, then describe, as reliable media has, how her tweets were obscenely weaponised in bad faith. Simply put: Guardian = quotation of tweets + explanation. This article = no quotation of tweets + explanation. This article is not living up to the inclusion of reliably sourced, relevant and contextual material. I'll say it again: the turquoise text above is lacking context. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The Guardian article quotes the tweets because it is an article about the tweets. This is an article about the person. We're under no obligation to include everything mentioned in a source; we are, however, under obligation to be careful about biographies of living people. The subject is a fairly minor journalist (which is reflected in the length of the article) who had things she said taken out of context, sparking a harassment campaign against her. She has, incidentally, written about this and its impacts on her, and one tweet required a few paragraphs of explanation thanks to context collapse. So we have to consider several things: the subject was the target of a harassment campaign; her words were deliberately taken out of context; a full explanation would would be lengthy (and probably tedious, frankly--these are tweets, after all), giving undue weight; including quotations would risk causing or furthering harm caused by a bad-faith effort to attack the subject's reputation. You can't just write "Her tweets were taken out of context by bad-faith actors. Anyway, here's one of them: [quote]".Citing (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] My opinion is that the full explanation of the tweets is there already, over three lines. The only thing that is absent is the tweets. You can't just write "Her tweets were taken out of context by bad-faith actors. Anyway, here's one of them: [quote]"; except I am evidently arguing for either a) the inclusion of the tweets upon the current wording, or b) the shortening of the current wording to appear less awkward. " written about this and its impacts on her"; with respect, this is a public figure; we need secondary reporting. Zilch-nada (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Furthermore, The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/ny-times-journalist-sarah-jeong-racist-tweets-white-people-trolls-verge-a8475596.html not only quote multiple tweets, but quote one ("Cancel white people") in the title, showing that quotations themselves are hardly tangential to the topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] A news WP:HEADLINE is not a reliable source. It is written to grab readers' attention, not to inform. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I didn't suggest otherwise. I was explaining that reliable sources - even if their headlines are unreliable - abundantly focus on quoting the tweets, such as in the headline. It would indeed be wrong to quote a headline. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] And I would further emphasise that multiple of the sources quote multiple tweets; clearly not tangential. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that it's a completely unreasonable argument. Currently eight of the 27 sources in the article are about the tweet controversy. It's even more weight if you discount the less-than-stellar sources used, like non-secondary bios and things like the Sherlock Holmes piece in Smithsonian that aren't really about Jeong at all, but just mention her for a quote about copyright. Searching around (because WEIGHT isn't just about WP), coverage of the tweet-thing is still a giant chunk of the existing coverage, and seems to be a big part of why she is so widely known outside her direct readership. That also weakens the BLP counterargument significantly. BLP doesn't mean WP can't say anything that casts someone in a bad light, but just that it needs to be particularly well sourced, which doesn't seem to be wanting. The sources also generally provide direct quotes, presumably because they felt it was important for context.
Yes, I know OTHERSTUFF, but I find it hard to believe we would cover someone like Roseanne Barr's comments about Valerie Jarrett without actually including the text of the tweet. Yes, I know many have defended Jeong, and that's important to include also, but I have a hard time believing there would be much debate if any public figure tweeted out "dumbass fucking black people" but then claimed it was taken out of context. GMGtalk 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The relevant section of Roseanne Barr is pretty gross imo (especially the fake embedded tweet is indefensible); it would be pretty easy to write that section without quoting the tweet, and the result would almost certainly be better than what's there now. Barr is also an extremely bad analogy for Jeong in all sorts of ways; among them, she's a much higher-profile individual (so BLP concerns are reduced, and her article is not overwhelmed by focus on controversies) and she was not one of the targets of an absolutely deranged harrassment campaign. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Jeong wasn't AFAIK a part of GamerGate proper. People just drew comparisons. Jeong's thing came years later. GMGtalk 17:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes, sorry, of course. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Jeong has described the context behind the "dumbass fucking white people" remark, saying the tweet came the week after 12-year-old Tamir Rice was killed by police, and countless numbers of said white people came out of the woodwork to justify the killing by pointing out that the child was holding a toy gun. It's debatable whether a journalist is a public figure (Jeong was yet to publish her book, become a Poynter Fellow, or join the New York Times), but a similar remark about Black people would not be comparable IMO. Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but Black people are a historically oppressed minority in the US and white people are not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The only question for WP is how the sources treat the subject and whether they include quotes because they feel it's necessary to adequately explain the situation to readers. GMGtalk 00:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I agree that there is such assymetry; that is OTHERCONTENT. I would be open to the inclusion of your turquoise quotation of her reasoning. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I did a quick check for more recent sources and found a work on sociology and social justice published this year by Taylor & Francis that does quote some of Jeong's infamous tweets in passing, but devotes far more space to analyzing others' reaction to the tweets in order to make a point about civility and political polarization. Unless we want to expand the article to include some of this commentary, quoting the tweets themselves still seems WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] As I mentioned above, I'm open to either a) expanding the tweets and including more context, or b) shortening the current wording. Because either way, the quadruple mention of particular tweets over 3 lines without quotations of them, reads awkwardly. I usually veer on deletionism, but, as I also said above, I think the inclusion of quotations is ideal as they are fundamental to all 9 of the cited news sources, including one in the title of the Independent. So I would support (a), and perhaps include your suggested academic contextualisation of the significant backlash. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] As mentioned already, news headlines are not reliable sources. So we can't infer that a given tweet is WP:DUE from its presence in a headline. Nothing has changed about the cited sources from six years ago, when the notion that the content of the tweets themselves are relevant context that are important to the reader, and that the Wikipedia article should reflect the fact that the Tweets have been widely quoted by the media failed to gain consensus. Continuing to argue the same point here is a waste of time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please see comment (reply) above. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I see nineteen replies by you (not counting one that has been struck through) in the last week alone on this page. Please be more specific. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • under "A news WP:HEADLINE is not a reliable source. It is written to grab readers' attention, not to inform."
  • I agree with GMG's response; the headline is for emphasis; it is notable that the tweets were emphasized in the first place.
Zilch-nada (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Just to referee a little, there's a difference between headlines themselves and a body that covers the same content but felt it was so relevant that something should also be in the headline. GMGtalk 12:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes, well, the difference is that one is a reliable source and the other isn't. The purpose of a headline is to grab readers' attention, which is not the same as relevance, let alone encyclopedic relevance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure I follow why we're arguing about headlines. I don't know that there's been any suggestion that WP cite a headline to the exclusion of the source as a whole. This seems like a digression that doesn't hold any central relevance to the question at hand. Fine I guess. I wholly concede that headlines shouldn't be used as a stand-alone source. That doesn't really advance your argument that the content is undue when even if you blank out the headline entirely, you're still left with what appears to be a preponderance of sources that quote the original text in their reporting. Also yes, to the above, Jeong is a public figure. It's an existential state-of-being, yes or no. It's not a temporal dividing line where before X or Y you weren't a public figure but now you are. If I put out a book, or album, or run for public office, etc. then I become a public figure, full stop. I don't become a public figure from that point forward in time only. GMGtalk 11:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I suppose it makes sense that when someone becomes a public figure, their past statements become open to scrutiny. However, the context of that scrutiny matters, and the available sources make it clear that Jeong's tweets were dug up in a bad-faith attempt at character assassination to which Wikipedia should not be a party, even unintentionally. The preponderance of sources that quote the original text was discussed at length six years ago, so there's little point rehashing the same arguments. What do you think of summarizing the academic source I linked above? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Focus. The core issue is including a direct quote or not. The discussion from six years ago is neither here nor there, because WP:CCC. The counter argument you have to make here is whether it's really UNDUE when a preponderance of the sources include direct quotes, and you now have to do it without an appeal to RECENTISM. GMGtalk 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] As I mentioned before, WP:RECENTISM deals with long-term significance and is unaffected by the age of the sources themselves; see WP:AGEMATTERS. Consensus can change, but that doesn't mean it has changed here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] You don't get to argue RECENTISM when the "recentness" is almost as old as my daughter. Stop making this argument. It doesn't get traction. Also please edit your original comment instead of adding an additional comment. This makes threading difficult. GMGtalk 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:AGEMATTERS: Sources of any age may be prone to recentism. It's not as if WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS have an expiration date. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Are you not the one citing a 2024 publication that quotes her verbatim at least four times? Surely you see how this is self-evidently self-contradictory in a pretty major way. GMGtalk 23:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] That source is not currently cited in the article. Should we summarize it in the article or not? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The approach here seems to be throwing out all of WP:ABCDEFG, while you yourself offer a source that is in fact not news, not a headline, not part of a recentist burst of transient coverage, and does the very thing you are trying to argue is undue weight, and itself includes multiple vertabim quotes because presumably they felt it was relevant for readers to understand the situation, which is the same thing that most of the other sources also do. Then when you work yourself into a rhetorical corner you try to change the subject. I'm not accusing you of bad faith. I expect you are probably genuinely convinced of your stance, but if you were arguing in bad faith I'm not sure I could tell the difference. I'm working forward from policy and practice and reaching a conclusion. You seem to be working backward from a conclusion and trying to find a way to justify it. We've both been around the WP block a few times, and I'm not intimidated by a bunch of ALL CAPS links, some of which I probably helped write. If this is the quality of argument we can expect moving forward, then we're better off if we just cut our losses, go to RfC, and go do something more productive while it runs. GMGtalk 11:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I am offering p. 17 75 of How to Think Better About Social Justice as a potential source to be cited in the article, not as a justification for citing other sources differently. I have asked several times whether you think this is a good source to use, but you keep dodging the question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Because that question isn't the question that this discussion is about. GMGtalk 11:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] In that case I don't know what you expect to gain from a new RfC, since literally nothing else has changed about the sources in six years. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] "Are you not the one citing a 2024 publication that quotes her verbatim at least four times?" Come on now. Do I need to explain how DUE works? And that it's about the sources that exist and not the sources in the article? GMGtalk 12:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] No problem, here's what WP:DUE says (my bolding): Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. As I already said, the 2024 source devotes far more space to analyzing others' reaction to the tweets then to the tweets themselves. Cherry-picking only the quoted tweets and leaving out the analysis by others would be UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] And most sources seem to have a viewpoint that providing quotes is relevant to understanding the issue. The 2024 source commits all of three paragraphs and provides direct quotes in all three. GMGtalk 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes, and only one of those paragraphs directly quotes Jeong. Quoting her tweets in the article while ignoring the other two paragraphs would be UNDUE. Neutrality means fairly representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, remember? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] only one of those paragraphs directly quotes Jeong Nope, try again. Thanks for playing on this episode of Read the Source You've Been Arguing About for Days. GMGtalk 15:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] See new subsection below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Once again, long-term significance is determined by later coverage in published, reliable sources. So we're back to whether to summarize p. 17 75 of How to Think Better About Social Justice or a similarly authoritative publication. Feel free to suggest another. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Frankly it's absurd that anyone thinks that anything a journalist randomly tweeted out a decade ago should be relevant enough to posterity to be included in an encyclopedia. I really wish people actually considered This is a literal ten-year test here. And the truth is, 10 years on, it doesn't matter and nobody cares. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell, 2024

[edit]

Here is all the material relevant to Jeong in Bradley Campbell's book How to Think Better About Social Justice.[1] I've bolded the parts that are direct quotations of Jeong's tweets:

[T]he New York Times [...] hired journalist Sarah Jeong as part of its editorial board in 2018 despite her prior statements denigrating whites and men. These included tweets such as "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," "#CancelWhitePeople," "white men are bullshit," and "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants."

The New York Times expressed regret over the tweets but support for Jeong herself. Jeong likewise expressed some regret, but others defended her and her tweets more forthrightly. According to two writers at Vox, Ezra Klein and Zack Beauchamp, Jeong's tweets weren't racist, sexist, or even uncivil. According to them, the tweets didn't mean what they appeared to mean, but instead were innocuous criticisms of injustice—if only you know how to read them. Klein talked about how it had become popular in some of his circles to tweet the hashtag #KillAllMen. But of course, he said those people didn't really want to kill all men. "Kill all men" was their way of saying "it would be nice if the world sucked less for women." He argued the same was true of Jeong. When she talked about white people, he said, it was a shorthand for talking about the power structure. So, to say "cancel white people" was just a way of "challenging the dominant power structure."

Similarly, Zack Beauchamp argued that Jeong's tweet that "White men are bullshit" satirically "emphasize[s] how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color" and points to "the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist." And he said that the tweet "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" was Jeong's way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on ssocial media—a way of pointing out how nonwhite voices often don't appear or get drowned out in social media discourse."

The Vox defense of Sarah Jeong was rooted in ideas of critical social justice, but the right has its own equivalent. [...] If you see the world the way some social justice activists see it, people like Nicholas and Erika Christakis and Samuel Abrams aren't just people with different ideas; they're people who are harming the oppressed by refusing to join in their struggle. They're worthy of contempt. On the other hand, the racial invective coming from someone like Sarah Jeong isn't the same thing at all. It's a way of fighting oppression, or at least an understandable response to oppression.

The author directly quotes Jeong only in the first paragraph. The later quotations are of other writers quoting Jeong and interpreting her words for themselves (and repeating tweets that were already quoted in the first paragraph). In any case, the quotes themselves make up only a small part of the text, with the majority made up of Klein's and Beauchamp's explanation of the context behind the tweets. Klein isn't even quoting Jeong herself, but some of his circles (and no, "cancel white people" isn't the same as "#CancelWhitePeople"). In any case, quoting the tweets and leaving out the analysis by others would be UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents is to simply quote the tweets, with additional context, such as your quoted source. That's all. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] There is a great deal of context in the quoted source. Which parts do you propose to add? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Extrapolating to wikivoice, perhaps these elements: [T]he New York Times [...] hired journalist Sarah Jeong as part of its editorial board in 2018 despite her prior statements denigrating whites and men. These included tweets such as "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," "#CancelWhitePeople," "white men are bullshit," and "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants." The New York Times expressed regret over the tweets but support for Jeong herself. Jeong likewise expressed some regret, but others defended her and her tweets more forthrightly. According to two writers at Vox, Ezra Klein and Zack Beauchamp, Jeong's tweets weren't racist, sexist, or even uncivil...similarly, [] Beauchamp argued that Jeong's tweet that "White men are bullshit" satirically "emphasize[s] how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color" and points to "the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist." And he said that the tweet "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" was Jeong's way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on ssocial media—a way of pointing out how nonwhite voices often don't appear or get drowned out in social media discourse." The Vox defense of Sarah Jeong was rooted in ideas of critical social justice, but the right has its own equivalent The key elements of the source are the ones that explain a) the tweets (such as her intent, and justification), and b) the backlash. Perhaps, more context could be added upon the backlash. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Campbell, Bradley (2024). How to Think Better About Social Justice: Why Good Sociology Matters. Routledge Advances in Sociology. New York: Taylor & Francis. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-003-84586-7.
  • The long quotes here are too lengthy IMO to both include unless this article gets way more content overall. The last sentence second para could be removed or at least severely shortened. Something more like He said Jeong's commentary was way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on social media." The last sentence can be taken out entirely. It's reaching too much "up and out" from the subject of the article to 1) philosophical underpinnings of a source (the source itself is not the subject here) and 2) broader social commentary not necessarily directly related to the subject or the incident. WP can only reach "up and out" to a very limited extent. GMGtalk 11:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More recent sources

[edit]

A quick search of Google Scholar reveals a couple of peer-reviewed, open-access papers analyzing the reaction to Jeong's tweets:

Another recent academic work mentions the controversy without directly quoting the tweets:

  • McVey, Alex (2021). "'The Definition of Racism' – A Critique of Racial Deduction". In Hample, Dale (ed.). Local Theories of Argument (1st ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 97–102. doi:10.4324/9781003149026-17. ISBN 978-1-0003-6164-3. When a number of old tweets by New York Times writer Sarah Jeong criticizing and mocking white people resurfaced, it ignited a firestorm amongst conservative pundits who called for Jeong's termination from the Times. Goes on to analyze opposing reactions from Symone Sanders and The Daily Wire editor Frank Camp as an example of debates over the definition of racism itself.

Once again, if we want to quote Jeong's tweets it seems like we should also summarize these additional responses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if we want to quote Jeong's tweets it seems like we should also summarize these additional responses. I agree with that. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, "figleaf" here is not being used in a positive way. GMGtalk 11:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Also being clear the Journal of Controversial Ideas is a fraught source within academia. Particularly thanks to the deep involvement of Peter Singer - who has previously espoused views that are seen by many as being eugenicist and who is one of the luminaries of the effective altruism movement. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'll give the article this:

    "At the same time, and in stark contrast, Americans have become more ideologically polarized and intolerant, with some studies indicating that partisan discrimination exceeds racial discrimination,"

    certainly is a controversial claim. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also citing a single source three times and then acting like that represents a general trend isn't the best academic practice. I promise I'll stop with the blow-by-blow of this source review but I'm dubious about how much weight we should assign it. It's not, so far, great scholarship. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm glad someone else said it. Been out of town. But yeah, you should always be naturally skeptical of open access journals. As good as how this movement could be, it's just hasn't been. GMGtalk 22:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.