Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018
Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The line "Soon after being hired... was found to have posted a number of... racist messages directed at white people," is not in two important ways. First, it uses the word "found," which suggests a mainstream authority, preferably a scientific one. Second, ThePostOnline is an explicitly right-wing news site, according to wikipedia's own article on it, and therefore not a reliable source. I suggest one of three courses of action:
 * 1) Add a "needs a better source" tag to the citation.
 * 2) Change the line to something like: "Jeong has been accused of posting a number of messages on social media platform Twitter that are racist, hateful, violent, and aggressive."
 * 3) Remove the line entirely.

JeanLackE (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ per 3. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's another source, which could hardly be considered unreliable on account of being “right-wing”. There are several others, actually. Removing the line before checking other possible sources in addition to preventing some users from editing the article seems suspiciously like a cover-up. Exsurge Domine (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This is pure partisan bullshit and you know it. Jeong is all over the mainstream press. You have no excuse. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This article so far serves as a great illustration of Wikipedia's failures as an encyclopedia and how it is controlled by biased "editors" with more powers than a normal user. Wikipedia today is no different than any other Encyclopedia. A small group of people have all the control over what is to be included and how it will be phrased. This content needs to be added back to this article even if its a one sentence blurb. Removing and locking editing is such a joke. If anything it should have been INCLUDED and the article locked because those removing it are clearly the ones who need to justify their position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.57.41 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a politically biased tabloid and completely untrustworthy.39.41.55.164 (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Offsite efforts
Since the subject joined the NYT, offsite efforts from conspiracy theorists and their ilk to cherry pick social media quotes have begun. Examples:

Looking at the history page this has already led to some bad faith edits to push an agenda.Citing (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * example 1
 * example 2
 * example 3

Jeong made a number of RACIST tweets with regards to "White people." The New York Times, Jeong herself, the Twitter archive, and Fox News all admit that. anyone with a brain took offense to the tweets. The New York Times replied to their concerns. This was a newsworthy happening.

So I have a question.

First: what right leaning site is acceptable to Wikipedia? If Fox publishes a story on it, can that be used as a citation? Second: Obviously the New York Times and the Washington Post lean left. Why would they be acceptable sources if Fox is not? Third: If the tweets themselves exist, why does it matter what source points to them? If Wikipedia only accepts left wing sources, then all the left has to ever do is not report on anything ethically problematic for the left, e.g. embargo leftist racism.


 * http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-editorial-board-just-hired-virulent-racist/, https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-hires-writer-racist-past/ , must be "conspiracy theorists" attacking a sweet innocent woman out of nothing more than bad faith. How dare anyone get upset about racial hatred directed towards whites! 174.52.219.29 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living people must adhere to very high standards. If you are curious about sourcing please see Identifying reliable sources. In this case there is a clear-cut effort to push an agenda using unreliable sources (see examples above).Citing (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All the tweets in question are archived on archive.is which is considered a reliable source on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_archive.is 195.138.52.26 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally you're not supposed to link to primary sources, especially in a biography of a living subject. Their archival is not the problem. The problem is this is clearly part of an effort to discredit someone and Wikipedia is not the place for this.Citing (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this the right way to edit? It seems my last set of questions did not come through.2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time Twitter behavior/ abusive tweets are included in someone's biography. Quick random example I could find browsing I just wonder if a well known conservative journalist or politician had made similar remarks on black people ie. referring to genetic inferiority as Sarah Jeong did and National Review a 62 year old publication published a story on it. Would you object to an edit too? 195.138.52.26 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That guy got arrested for tweets. The policy on biographies of living people is to be very careful with what gets added as this is an encyclopedia and not a source of breaking news. Don't give undue weight to minor topics. This biography is, what, three paragraphs long with one of those dedicated to some tweets, with absolutely no context? This does not look like a good-faith effort to improve the article.Citing (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not an "effort to discredit her", Wikipedia is for factual information and this is just stating the facts. It's not discrediting her because of the tweets, she discredited herself when she made the racist tweets. Luchador619 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's up on Fox now. Here is a comparable Wikipedia article. Notice the controversy section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_D._Williamson

The left leaning NYT has acknowledged her tweets now, so it's fine to add to this article under a controversy section.
 * Many sources   are covering this controversy as well as the response of Jeong and the NYT which are starting to also be included in new articles . I think its unavoidable at this point that this must be included in the article; whatever we include will be contentious and it should be hashed out of the talk page instead of in a pointless edit war. Also, by waiting a bit more articles from a wider variety of sources will probably come out, to satisfy those who have an intense dislike of fox/NR/WT. SWL36 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is placating people who dislike RS because they (the editors) are biased something we really should be playing along with? Demigord (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Can also add the SF Chronicle and Reason to sources publishing on this. Daily Telegraph, too, apparently.Demigord (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Obviously I am learning. While I lean right (classical liberal, Locke/Mill), my main interest is with internal consistency between Wikipedia articles. I think it would be possible to eliminate more of the inherent bias by simply requiring different types of articles to be consistent with each other. In this case, by looking at the Kevin D. Williamson article above, we can see there is a controversy section which outlines a situation very similar to what we have with Ms. Jeong's bio. I am not experienced enough yet to directly edit the article. Hence my several formerly unsigned comments. Again, I am trying to work in good faith to help improve Wikipedia. Other editors have made some suggestions about sources. I want to reread the article on Wiki bias as well, and do what I can from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias Other suggestions are welcome. I have a lot to learn, but I believe I can sign now. Thanks again.2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Williamson example is not at all commensurate given that he was fired over the issue (thus it is much more significant to his career and an encyclopedic biography of him), but additionally that section of his bio is very poorly done and does not reflect the kind of encyclopedic summary of reliable secondary sources WP content policies ask us to aim for (WP:QUOTEFARM among other issues). I don't have time just now but I will go improve it as soon as I can. In the meantime, no one should take its current version as a model. For those new, please read WP:Other stuff exists on the care to take with reasoning by comparison to other entries--Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress and just because one entry looks a given way does not mean it has been brought up to standard or should be emulated. See also WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Some comparisons can be useful but it is often more advisable to consult content policies and the WP:Manual of style for best guidance. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Williamson example is not at all commensurate given that he was fired over the issue(thus it is much more significant to his career and an encyclopedic biography of him)". I would think that since she is actively working on the editorial board of the New York Times that makes her a far more significant influencer. That is, her position of power in our society relative to Williamson would seem to indicate the opposite of what you have said; she merits a more thorough entry. Nevertheless, thank you for attending to the Williamson article if the quality is poor by Wikipedia standards. Also, thank you for the help pages. I will create a username soon. 2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, questions like, 'what is the relative influence of the Atlantic versus the Times?' are judgment calls that WP policy (developed by community consensus) explicitly forbids users from making on their own; we should only follow what reliable secondary sources say about the topic at hand. The main content policies WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research go into this in much more detail and are worth a read as well--I know a lot of WP policy can be very counter-intuitive (or at least it was to me when I started editing!) and operates very differently from journalism, academic research, and so forth. (There are whole sites, like Everipedia, created entirely because some folks strongly disagreed with, e.g., Wikipedia's relatively high bar for what's permissible to include here). But in any case welcome and happy editing! Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions getting oriented that I can help with! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Again here are her tweets (I don't understand why someone would delete them):


 * https://archive.fo/byEMf
 * https://archive.fo/yXccF
 * https://archive.fo/3JXbr
 * https://archive.fo/QyWKK
 * https://archive.fo/CIlmU
 * https://archive.fo/HTSXh
 * https://archive.fo/HYPOI
 * https://archive.fo/BmBJ0

It's not about politics. It's about truth. Those are the things she said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.64.68 (talk • contribs)
 * Tweets are fine for the talk page. Editorializing about them (as happened previously) is not, per WP:NOTFORUM, and as the notice at the top of this page reminds us, all WP policies on WP:Biographies of living people apply here as well as to the entry itself; violations will be deleted. As for the tweets, WP:No original research as well as other content policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUEWEIGHT govern what may be included in the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, but someone deleted them from the talk page and wrote something about "white genocide conspiracists". I'm not sure this is what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.64.68 (talk)
 * I didn't see anyone removing the tweets from this talk page (though correct me if I've missed it). Someone did remove my comment about conspiracy theorists trying to get her fired and edit the article.Citing (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw them getting removed. Thereafter your comment appeared. I was like "Holy shit, there are some strongly biased people here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.64.68 (talk)
 * Please sign your posts with ~, it makes the conversation easier to follow. I can't find what you mentioned. Point me to a specific revision in the page history.Citing (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If all you new editors who are so interested in dropping these tweets and blackballing a living person without secondary sources could pay a little attention to Wikipedia's policies, that would be great., you could start by reading WP:SECONDARY, and while you're at it, please SIGN YOUR MESSAGES. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversial tweets
I've added a new subsection on the controversy. The information is sourced from reliable sources and I went out of the way to include who found the tweets, what the tweets said, what context the tweets were said within, and the response from the NYT and Jeong herself. SWL36 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * one of these tweets included her saying “Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.


 * Oh how harmless. Another tweet included her saying: "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" and another one "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.64.6 (talk)

Here are some reliable sources discussing this issue. Truthsort (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's undue weight and inappropriate for the article. This article is a stub and most of it is about the tweets and as I mentioned above this is part of an effort from many online communities. Mentioning them only makes sense in the context of her work and research on online harassment and the fact that she is often on the receiving end of it. Oddly, I don't see a lot of volunteers to add that content.Citing (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I'd start the sentence with --


 * On August 2, 2018, Reason Magazine published the title, "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People", after FOX News, and the National Review, reported on her controversial Tweets. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong would be hired to write for the Editorial section.


 * cheers ESparky (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, and ; I did not feel the first version had sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion and so I have removed it until we can find consensus here, per WP:ONUS, but I will read the new sources now and then weigh back in. Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A few new RS ABC News, NY Daily News, and NY Post. Plus the NY times has now talked about it via twitter PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The initial version, cited to the tweets themselves, was contrary to WP style and a poor BLP addition. The revised version, citing to RS sources, was a definite improvement. A single sentence cited to multiple independent articles on the subject is a reasonable addition to the article. Neutral wording is important, but given the amount of coverage, we certainly have enough significant secondary source coverage" for a brief, factual mention of the tweets.Dialectric (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was one of the editors removing the original section due to WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR (as you note). The number of reliable secondary sources are an improvement and we should have at least a sentence. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, so, the Post has limited credibility (by WP standards) in general; The Hill fouls up theirs seriously by claiming she's 49 which is just factually wrong by about two decades; and the NYT covering itself we would never use to evaluate something's significance (i.e. we don't use NYT reviews of books by NYT writers). I think the thing to do is give it a few days and see what happens. All should keep in mind that Wikipedia does not aim to be (nor is equipped to be) a news outlet: this entry is meant to gather an encyclopedic biography of this individual and it can be hard to tell how encyclopedically significant an event is (especially something like Twitter outrage) until later. What Wikipedia should not do is place a thumb on the scale by imposing our own opinion in violation of WP:NOR before reliable secondary sources are clear enough--most of all, we categorically are not here to make the news. (Can be frustrating, I know, but sometimes WP is just not the right venue.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah the post is iffy. But Fox, ABC, and NY Daily are solid. The importance of the NYT twitter responding is validation of issues, not something to be put in the article directly. The sources listed above mention the response from NYT and those can be sources for that to help balance the view. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed those are the better sources; but a few legit sources doesn't necessarily imply encyclopedic significance. Per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS, we definitely don't chronicle every Twitter dustup even that gets some press; for many of our living subjects, that would shift our account from an encyclopedic summary to a Borgesian map. This is in the news right now so it can feel pressing for WP:Recentism reasons, but we need to make sure it's an event of biographical significance. I don't think it's possible to know that just yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with slowing done a bit, articles are still being churned out and we will know more about where this stands by the day's end. This hour we now have articles from leftwing newblogs like splinter, thecut, and the marysue coming out in defense of of Jeong. I think by the end of the day we will have a better idea on how important the section is. I think that the coverage right now from just WP:RS is more than enough to warrant at least a sentence on the controversy, and if it lasts more than a day, a second might be needed. SWL36 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh wouldn't hurt to give it a day or two and see if it keeps running or dies. PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the tricky bit is that in truth some media sources look at Wikipedia and it can influence how they cover a topic, while our entire content policy is premised on following their independent, professional editorial judgment on something's significance (WP:NOR), since we don't have our own experts to make that evaluation reliably (RIP, Nupedia). For the WP model to work, we really need RS to decide independently how to deal with it first, and then trail behind to develop our version accordingly (we're a lagging indicator of significance, as economists would say), in the context of our other policies. So I think a few days' breathing room and then look at what we have would work well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The one-sentence approach seems fair for the following days. If you allow me a suggestion, what about using Template:Current on the following days? This alerts readers about eventual pitfalls and seems like a possible stem towards consensus. --Brandizzi (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The current template is good for when something unquestionably merits inclusion in the encyclopedia and there's debate about how to cover it (say, an on-going coup). Twitter conflict is more in a category of things that may or may not merit inclusion at all--for instance, if it ends up being in the press only one or two days, I'm really not sure that's encyclopedic material. So while it's accurate the entry's subject is currently in the press, a "current" tag puts weight in the subject's biography on that particular bit of press--and we don't have consensus yet that this is in fact material for an encyclopedic biography. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree strongly. The article barely mentions her work, giving undue weight in a biography of a living person for something that could be completely irrelevant in the long run. For context, she has done a lot of work on online harassment and the gamergate controversy, making herself known to many communities that are known for bad faith engagements and attacking women and minorities via distributed harassment. I've linked some example conversations about her/this article. I doubt it's a coincidence that suddenly her article is getting a ton of attention, and that so many of the edits are purely negative.Citing (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd be correct to say you are concerned many of the editors adding this content have negative opinions about Sarah Jeong? --Brandizzi (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that is not correct. I am concerned many of the editors are not acting in good faith. Here is a user removing my comment about outside communities. Here is another making false claims that I removed talk page material and then wrote my initial comment.Citing (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe we do not even need to use the NYT tweet as a source, since ABC is a secondary source to the content of the tweet. --Brandizzi (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we have a couple secondary sources that mention NYT's tweet. Using it as a source on it's own would be a primary source issue. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit drafts

 * Harassment campaign? None of the RSes mentioned characterize this as a harassment campaign (though I'm sure there are more unreliable sources that characterize it as such) and instead discuss the contents of the tweets and the response from the NYT. Mentioning that the controversy was started when the tweets were unearthed by conservative commentators is fine, because several sources characterize it in that fashion. The controversy is not about her being harassed, its about her making racist statements in the past. SWL36 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Her current outlet is considering it a coordinated harassment campaign.Citing (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are any neutral sources saying that? I can't find any news organizations she is not currently or soon to be employed at saying she is the target of a "harassment campaign". I only see sources talking about the "harassment" that was the Tweets this conversation is the subject of. I looked through all of these articles from major news organizations:


 * BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45052534
 * Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor/2018/08/02/48e2bfd0-968c-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.6f612920d4c8
 * New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html
 * The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/400121-ny-times-defends-hiring-of-editorial-writer-after-emergence-of-past-racial
 * Washington Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/sarah-jeongs-racist-tweets-spotlighted-after-nytim/
 * CNN: https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/02/media/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-twitter/index.html
 * FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html
 * NY Post: https://nypost.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-editorial-board-hire-despite-racist-tweets/
 * US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2018-08-02/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor
 * ABC: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-times-stands-hire-sarah-jeong-twitter-furor-56994680


 * Ikjbagl (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's one agreeing with the portrayal as harassment. Give it a few days and there will be a bunch of thinkpieces and talking head interviews too because that's the nature of the beast. I'm repeating myself but we need to be careful with biographies of living people.Citing (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece in a magazine is hardly a WP:RS. This conversation is still largely pointless as we still want to wait a bit before drafting a statement. SWL36 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with SWL36 that that is NOT a reliable source. Not to sound like a parrot myself, but every major news organization seems to agree with the overall story and none of them characterize this as a "harassment campaign". Reporting that this person has tweeted racist things does not equate to harassment, and no reputable sources have claimed otherwise. In fact, the BBC openly characterizes this as "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter". Ikjbagl (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are giving an overall story. A package of out-of-context tweets was posted this morning and a bunch of partisan sources ran with it. Various people are tweeting about it, and now news sources are talking about that, including many who think this is a bad faith attempt to get someone fired. A Wikipedia biography is not the place to sort this out. Biographies of living persons is quite strict about this.Citing (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find any reputable sources that characterize this the way you do. I linked articles from ten major news stations and none of them are talking about this being a "bad faith attempt to get someone fired". No reputable sources that I've seen are characterizing the Tweets as out-of-context. Many of the news stations I linked are praised for being non-partisan (and are accordingly frequently cited on Wikipedia, including BBC), and I haven't seen reputable sources claiming that this is a partisan attack. The news sources pretty unanimously state the same story. I don't mean to attack you here; it would really help if you could provide some reputable sources that support what you're saying. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The CNN source you provided cites the Editor in Chief of HuffPo characterizing it that way as well as a few others. The Verge characterizes it that way (again per your CNN source). The section above about offsite efforts links examples of people trying to get her fired over this as well as trying to edit this article. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator and the community has a responsibility to write about living people very carefully. Given her history of writing about online harassment movements (including ones that have trolled Wikipedia!) there is good reason to approach this very cautiously.Citing (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The only place in the CNN source where it characterizes the current controversy as harassment is when it direct quotes The Verge's editorial. SWL36 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, the HuffPo Editor In Chief described it as a bad faith effort to get someone fired....Citing (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Can't a Controversy section be added with just a few sentences stating something simple like: "Major news outlets recently covered tweets from Sarah Jeong from 2013 through 2015 purportedly attacking white people. Her soon-to-be employer, The New York Times, released a statement on Twitter defending Miss Jeong, stating they were in response to racial harassment she had been receiving. Other news outlets such as the Washington Post pointed out that another hire of the NYT, Quinn Norton, was fired just a few months ago for similar statements." Or even just something like the first sentence not even getting into either side's sentiments. I feel like all eyes are on this page now and a quick, short-term mention should happen before people figure out what to write in the long run. Iridi (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As predicted, the thinkpieces are beginning to roll in, from Columbia Journalism Review, Vox, and The New Statesman. Here's a sample from the esteemed CJR: "[Jeong] joined the small but growing club of journalists who’ve been labeled as the real racists in certain corners of the internet ... It’s bad faith, as many digital journalists have come to call these criticisms, and it willfully ignores historical nuance and context ... Does Fox News and the pro-Trump internet really want The New York Times to improve its internal culture and journalistic ethics? Or is painting “the media” as enemy of the people central to their business model and political mission? [emphasis in original]" The controversy will likely endure, but it may end up taking on a different cast than many users here seem to think. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if your singular prediction that this scandal (and for all honest intents and purposes, referring to this as a scandal is a perfectly legitimate approach) will be framed in this partisan manner- and it is just as partisan as the opposing viewpoints, perhaps just provided by what you have declared an "Esteemed" organization- it won't be even permissible to mention in this article, let alone discuss in any meaningful way, and that is due to the protectionist and biased handling of this issue by the editors on the whole. It will be interesting to see how many threats of banning or disciplinary action come from suggesting that the racist tweets are relevant and should be included in the article, or from suggesting that sympathetic takes in favor of Sarah Jeong are as a result non-allowable. I suspect they will increase exponentially if a hypothetical editor tried to enforce this even-handedness...Scriblerian1 (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Protection note
I have temporarily protected the article from editing given the recent edit-warring over content that raises BLP concerns. Please gain consensus on what exactly to say about the recent controversy, where to include it in the article, and what sources to cite and then use the for the edit to be implemented. If editors here cannot reach a consensus among themselves, consider asking for help at BLP noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Do this as soon as possible, There are already a lots of blogs and videos about this Wikipedia war and longer that page doesnt mention this controversy, more people will be convinced that WikiPedia editors took a side and try to protect this journalist. 46.164.17.219 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

For all the articles with "righ-wing bad guy" in the intro and no protection after longer edit wars over less publicized news, this... What a joke of a project. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think other pages are poorly done, by all means go fix them. Per the discussion of whether this compared Williamson, I went and did my best to improve it. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with the IP user here, this whole edit war makes Wikipedia look awful, and it makes it seem like we're trying to censor the subject. We should get at least **something** regarding the controversy on the page ASAP, and then discuss it from there. As it stands right now, an outside observer may see this as politically motivated censorship (even though it isn't, this is just what the average person might see). Jdcomix (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean but it doesn't mean our content policies are wrong; it means WMF is failing to communicate to the public at large that really, this is an encyclopedia not a news source. We're pretty good at being an encyclopedia, but we are in no way equipped to do journalism responsibly. The opinions of people who are not involved and don't really know anything about how the site operates or what its resources are (or aren't) really don't change what we're equipped to do. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the way this has been managed, it does look like a news source. It even narrates the very latest facts: that the subject was hired by the NYT.  However, it makes itself look like a biased news source that will stubbornly not cover a politically inconvenient fact.  Reminds one of how the state media in Germany repeatedly failed to cover certain politically incorrect events in the last few years until it got called out for it, losing reputation each time it had to come out and finally acknowledge the reality of politically inconvenient facts. XavierItzm (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the controversy of Jeong's Tweets should be mentioned.
Both the backlash to her tweets and the history of the tweets should be mentioned. Its obvious that this issue won't be forgotten, and its a significant part of her career due to the recent rising. Its the entire reason why this discussion exists.

Her response to the tweets surfacing should be mentioned. - AH (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Her racist tweets should be mentioned because it is the primary reason she is notable to most news outlets. Richard Spencer would not have a Wiki entry if he wasn't a white supremacist. 142.196.43.164 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's ridiculous to say that this isn't notable at this point, every news station is covering it and this will be the only reason people come to this wiki page for several months. I am aware that she is "notable" for appearing in earlier news articles, but anyone learning of her in the coming days will be learning about her because of this controversy, not because they are interested in a random journalist. I'm having a hard time understanding why it's not on the page already, maybe just because nobody has written about it neutrally yet. There is no shortage of reliable sources:


 * BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45052534
 * Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor/2018/08/02/48e2bfd0-968c-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.6f612920d4c8
 * New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html
 * The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/400121-ny-times-defends-hiring-of-editorial-writer-after-emergence-of-past-racial
 * Washington Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/sarah-jeongs-racist-tweets-spotlighted-after-nytim/
 * CNN: https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/02/media/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-twitter/index.html
 * FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html
 * NY Post: https://nypost.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-editorial-board-hire-despite-racist-tweets/
 * US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2018-08-02/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor
 * ABC: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-times-stands-hire-sarah-jeong-twitter-furor-56994680


 * Ikjbagl (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that eventually after the article becomes unlocked, CNN, for example, could be cited. XavierItzm (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Birthplace
I suggest removing "south-Korean-born" from the lead section. Jeong immigrated with her parents at 3 years old, and is a U.S. citizen. We don't mention the immigration issue in the body of the article at all. According to the Manual of Style, "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Endorse this request. It could fit easily and much more appropriately in the Early life section, e.g. "Jeong was born in South Korea and moved to the U.S. with her parents when she was three years old. She attended..." Innisfree987 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a sentence describing her book
Proposed sentence to elaborate on the subject matter of her book (following that sentence), with ref:


 * The book discusses active moderation and community management strategies to improve online interactions.


 * Seems okay to me.Citing (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ May I also suggest that you, User:Innisfree987 and other interested editors work in one of your userspaces to expand/improve the non-tweet portion of the article, and then post one substantial edit-request? (preemptive note of warning to anyone thinking of this as a loophole; WP:BLP applies in userspace too) Abecedare (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much for the suggestion--happy not to have to ping for every sentence I might suggest! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So her book, which has no particular significance aside from making her actual significant story more ironic, gets a sentence, but the real story still can't be included.Demigord (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Demigord, are you just trolling here? Isn't the matter being discussed above, the way it ought to be? What do you think this place is--not an encyclopedia, written in collaboration? Please see WP:NOTNEWS. What's the rush? Is there an agenda that tells you to get something negative in this article pronto? Drmies (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I see that this user has made pretty slanted claims about Wikipedia's supposed bias before, and this time you were on the receiving end: Talk:Alicia_Machado/Archive_2. Demigord, you're showing your hand a bit too obviously. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the book received no significant media coverage and is hardly notable. Identifying reliable sources would probably say not to include this blog from Gizmodo:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * This is just a blog asking people to look at a book; it is basically a promotional advertisement for these books, whether paid or unpaid. Why are we adding more information about a hardly notable book right now while the subject is contentious? I think it's strange that people are editing this page without waiting for consensus on any issue other than the only subject for which this person is currently notable in reliable, secondary sources. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gizmodo is a tech-focused news site with editorial oversight and no history of issues with accuracy. They found this tech-focused book worth recommending. That’s generally what we look for in book coverage; not seeing the problem. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove this fluff from the article - This isn't relevant at all, it's literally just free promotion for her book, and yet the real reason she's notable isn't even on the page to begin with. Jdcomix (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing "notable" with "temporarily famous". The book has been mentioned by reliable third-party sources, . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 08:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC))

How is Forbes a third party? They published the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.44.244 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2018

Protected edit request on 3 August 2018
Needs to be updated to discuss controversy around her openly racist tweets, and NYT defense of her. See link:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 Proustfala (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please discuss above w umbolo   ^^^  10:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 August 2018
Too many unneeded and in the second sentence of the lede. Change
 * She has previously written for The Verge and Vice's Motherboard section, and has also written articles for Forbes, the Guardian and The New York Times.

to
 * She has previously written for The Verge, Vice's Motherboard section, Forbes, The Guardian and The New York Times. --Gciriani (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, it's just a grammatical fix     Ikjbagl (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

❌ The sentences have different shades of meaning. The current versions (despite its awkward construction) potentially implies that she was a regular contributor to The Verge and Vice's Motherboard section (I don't know whether that is true or not), while occasionally being published by the other outlets. The newer version, flattens this distinction. Can editors please check the facts, and then rethink on how best to present the information ? Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 August 2018
Categorize in Category:Twitter controversies. Apokrif (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Apokrif (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ Lets wait for the current discussion on the subject to conclude, before getting into this. Abecedare (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The category looks like it's intended for events related to Twitter (Twitter Joke Trial) or people known entirely for tweeting (Bana al-Abed).Citing (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Add image, please
To beginning of article, please. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you! Here, let me make up an infobox quickly, and we can add that all at once. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, there's an infobox in the version I've been working on in my sandbox. I don't know if I should paste the source in here or if an admin wants to just paste it in directly? In addition, I've made what I expect to be uncontroversial revisions to the body of the entry (correcting titles, moving refs out of lead, etc.) that could be added now, or later, as I'm still continuing to make bigger additions. Just let me know how best to proceed. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I am a fan of infoboxes, I am not great at making them. If reviewing admin wants to put the image in Innisfree987's infobox, great. If they just want to add the image by itself, that works too. --GRuban (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, the image is already in the infobox I made! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you still working on the draft, or can it be substituted for the article as it stands? Also, if anyone has any objection to me doing so (aside from the draft not talking about the recent controversy, which is still being discussed above), please speak up. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything in it currently is solid, so it can be substituted as it stands. I may have more additions later so no problem if you prefer just to add the infobox; that said, it may make sense to do these changes now, as they are only to make it read more cleanly and improve some minor points of accuracy, without making anything major changes to substance. Then I can propose any big additions separately for discussion. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the additions and improvements. Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why No Mention of Racist Tweets?
I thought Wikipedia was "not censored".2605:6000:6947:AB00:AD2E:C4D3:781E:7FE3 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss in one of eight discussions above. w umbolo   ^^^  20:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the WP rulers can't have a negative comment in any article about anything left leaning. And if you think there are no rulers here with their own agenda, you are fooling yourself. If she had said the same thing about minorities, it would be accepted in 30 seconds. At this point, this is the only thing she is notable for.. it is a sad joke.  2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the article content; don't discuss generally about Wikipedia on this talk page. To answer your concerns, WP rules made their rules years ago, and they rely heavily on newspapers. This is one of few unintended consequences of relying on newspapers, where journalists always defend each other. But yes, she would probably be fired if she said the same thing about a minority, except the Jews, maybe someone LGBT, Shia Islam, but I'm rambling... w umbolo   ^^^  21:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should certainly be discussed here because some editors are using their interpretation of WP "rules" to deny inclusion of information that is incredibly well sourced, even the subject does not deny the content of the tweets. But rather than have a discussion, the article is reverted to a whitewashed version with no information and then locked. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems like her virulent racism is a key feature of her notability and that discussion her racist tweets should be included in the article WinstonKap (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggest closing this off-topic, trollish thread. The above griping about how horrible this site and/or the subject of the article are has nothing to do with building consensus within WP's policies and guidelines. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is smearing us conservatives. When are you admins going to stop censoring conservatives but not liberals who are constantly killing us. She hates cops, she hates white people and its disgusting --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is not neutral because it doesn't show any of the criticism of her, in mainstream publications by authors with reputations in the printe media, like Andrew Sullivan. Wikipedia is not propaganda. If there's a controversy, or early work, it should mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.68.55 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User Galobtter deleted user User:Mantion's contribution to this page, with the edit summary "unecessary, remove per WP:BLP". But were there no WP:RS for Mantion's argument?  Here, let me quote Andrew Sullivan, who wrote the following in well-respected New York (magazine|New York magazine):

“White men are bullshit,” is one. A succinct vent, at least. But notice she’s not in any way attacking specific white men for some particular failing, just all white men for, well, existing.
 * [Emphasis added]. So perhaps the deletion of Mantion's comments ought to be reconsidered, especially in consideration of WP:TPO?  Cheers and a happy Sunday to all and sundry, XavierItzm (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed it per "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed". That comment was both unhelpful in improving the article and had BLP issues in being derogatory toward her Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Add infobox please
This subject is in need of a person infobox that should be added to the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person

Thanks! Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On it! See: Talk:Sarah_Jeong Innisfree987 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for administrator attention Re: article protected status
I am requesting that an administrator step in to handle this page. Currently what I would consider controversial edits are being pushed through and changed on the main article page without any discussion or consensus. As soon as one person proposes an edit, it gets pushed through, so long as it is not related to the reason this person is actually noteworthy right now. Non-noteworthy information keeps being added to the page without discussion. A lock on the page should mean a moratorium on all potentially controversial edits until a consensus has been reached, and that is not happening here. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Between January 9 and August 2 there were no edits to this article. It used to be a stub.

Since then there have been dozens and dozens of edits, all ignoring the sole reason why Sarah has everyone's attention. The rationale seems clear: to puff up the article and insulate Sarah from the inclusion of criticism given her actions.

If there's one and only reason why someone is famous or infamous, then it should feature prominently in their article, if they're going to have an article at all. When editors play favorites like this (notice no such protection was ever given to anyone accused of #metoo misconduct) then it erodes the trust people have in Wikipedia.2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Clearly there is WP:Disrupt taking place on the article and the talk page. Editors that are actively engaged in active WP:Censorship need to be noted by the community and be banned from editing the article and talk page. Nodekeeper (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support This is very telling. kencf0618 (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong support - OP makes a very good point, I haven't seen this happen for many, if any, other locked articles. Jdcomix (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Protection expires tomorrow so I'm not sure there's much to do here. Requests for non-contentious changes will usually be accepted by admins whereas they will judge if consensus exists for requests that are contentious or touch upon contentious areas. Pinging so they're aware of concerns. --Neil N  talk to me 15:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the issue is that the article is protected, the issue is that the only changes being made to the article are changes that don't have any relevance to the reason the subject is notable. Jdcomix (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is to be expected as coming up with suitable and properly balanced text describing why the subject is notable is going to be contentious. --Neil N  talk to me 15:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To avoid repetition, see the discussion and my response at my talkpage and at ANI. Abecedare (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 August 2018 1
Sarah Jeong is infamous for her racists tweets on twitter, most of the people who know her name will know her by her tweets. Because of this, I think it is misleading to not say a single line about her racist tweets and simply label her as "an American journalist specializing in law and technology topics". This is at best misleading so I strongly believe her tweets and her hiring controversy should be added to her Wikipedia page. I understand if the page is locked momentarily because this is a hot topic, but hopefully this change get passed sooner or later.

Overall: I suggest that we add a "controversies" section after her career section. This section should contain information on her tweets and her hiring controversy. IUsOppa808 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please join the ongoing discussion in earlier sections on this talkpage, where editors are trying to craft what to say about the recent controversy. However, I would suggest that you read wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV and especially WP:BLP, so that you don't err into breaching them. Abecedare (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 August 2018 2
Please explain the abnormal high level of protection on this page in a rational "non-partisan" way. Paradise coyote (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Paradise coyote
 * To answer your question: please see the article's revision history around Aug 2, its protection log, and the note on this talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is utterly ridiculous. The administrators are being unreasonable and showing their true colors for censorship.
 * Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by 'racist tweets' reporter - BBC
 * New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface - Fox News
 * New York Times stands by new hire amid Twitter backlash - CNN
 * New York Times defends hiring Asian reporter who mocked white people in old tweets including 'White men are bullsh**t' and '#CancelWhitePeople' - Daily Mail


 * There are countless more articles and as it stands the Wikipedia one doesn't even MENTION any controversy. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * By now the NYT saw it fit to react, the BBC, CNN and the Guardian report on it, obviously something is terribly wrong with WP right now. --tickle me 00:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Admins have never hid their bigotry and censorshipMantion (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request, one about choice of image
Two requests. The first one's minor. First: right now, at the top of the page there is excess white space between the infobox and the start of the first paragraph of the lead section. I'm not an admin, so I can't fix that really quick.

Second: I've taken a second, alternative screenshot from the same CC-licensed YouTube video used for the first image of Sarah Jeong. Compare the images at right. From a pure metadata perspective, my screenshot gives a precise timestamp and an accurate date and coordinates (see image info page at Commons). The date and coords can be ported to the original image, but I have no idea where the timestamp for the original is and I won't go hunting for it in a 23:55 video. From a photographic viewpoint, the original screenshot is much blurrier than mine and was taken at a moment when the subject is slightly overexposed. Further, frankly, the original image captures her at in an awkward pose (in the sense that you could take arbitrarily take screenshots from almost any video of a human moving while giving a presentation and they would look "awkward" in 99 out of 100 screenshots). On balance, with most factors equal (source, license...), I think the image I uploaded is preferable and should be substituted for the original. —BLZ · talk 08:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support second image – shows subject in more relevant context (i.e. public speaking rather than just standing in front of a screen) and doesn't have distracting background text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The second image has a bit more flair. kencf0618 (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Pinging User:GRuban, who had uploaded the earlier photograph, to see if there is anything they'd like to observe, or if there are any other objections to the particular image. Abecedare (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I admit I prefer the one I uploaded, mainly because she is upright, and smiling, instead of her head at an angle and seeming less happy. But it's not a huge deal; if three people think this new one is better, go ahead and change it, this one isn't terrible, and I do agree it has a less intrusive background. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Agree about the head-tilt, but I believe the other factors overcome that one. Hopefully, we will have better photographs available soon and won't have to rely on screen-caps for too long (may be the one silver-lining of the recent controversy and raised profile). Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

ARB-GG?
Since there is talk of gender-related harassment, and there is plenty of BLP concerns, Gamergate sanctions might apply. I'm neutrally proposing applying ARB-GG on this article and this talk page, and extended-confirmed editors are welcome to support/oppose. w umbolo  ^^^  14:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: multiple independent, published sources make explicit reference to GamerGate when talking about Jeong: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article already falls under BLP discretionary sanctions and I cannot see where Gamergate discretionary sanctions come with automatic editing restrictions. Please explain what you want. --Neil N  talk to me 15:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad. It only applies to the Gamergate controversy talk page. With regards to BLP, it is separate from GG, and BLP and GG topics can intersect. w umbolo   ^^^  15:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe User:NeilN's point is that we already have the ability to formulate discretionary sanctions under the arbcom's BLP ruling, so application of arbcom's gamergate ruling may be unnecessary. The main advantage of the latter that I can see, would be to possibly enforce existing topic-bans from the Gamergate topic area to this article too but (1) I don't know if we can do that yet, and (2) I haven't checked to see if there is significant editor overlap although I do see similarities in the observed conduct. See also this post at arbcom noticeboard, which may be a better venue to resolve some of these questions. Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 August 2018
Put up the racist tweet information, people aren't forgetting and Wikipedia is starting to seem ludicrously biased. 74.14.25.194 (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems pretty close to reaching a consensus, I think we'll have something about the controversy on the article by tomorrow :). Jdcomix (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The issue is being discussed above, and once there is a policy-complaint version that has consensus, it can be added to the article. Abecedare (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Spacing of stub listing at bottom of article
This is a not very important detail -- but aren't stubs tags supposed to be double spaced down from the bottom of an article? Right now the stub just looks like it is single spaced down. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about that! In any case, should we remove the stub-tag altogether, since the article has IMO developed into at least a start class. I can also fix the extra spacing issue at the top of the page that BLZ had mentioned earlier, unless there are any objections to either of those changes. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

What's with the admin-level protection?
Is this normal, that a person's BLP gets HEAVILY curated of any criticism and immediately after the article gets promoted to admin-level protection? It's "strange" to assume good-faith when somebody this much in the media focus gets this kind of treatment. FFS we don't even protect main-page articles that get millions of views, and we admin-protect a stub that has every ounce of criticism whitewashed away? Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The reason there isn't content on the controversy yet is because the discussion on how to include it is still ongoing. It WILL be there, but what form it will take is still unknown at this time. Jdcomix (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Translation: You're going to wait for the controversy to "go away", then leave the article in a whitewashed state. SOP for this kind of tribal crap.


 * Uh, no, the protection ends today and there's going to be something there that people agree is representative of the controversy. It sucks but that's the way it is. Jdcomix (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E
Looks like this article does not pass the notability requirements established by BLP. This person is ONLY known for a single event, and the current form of the article does not even mention it. I can't fathom a neutral, encyclopedic rationale why this article should exist when BLP1E itself discourages it, the 1E part is selectively whitewashed from the article, and the talkpage is more than 100x in length than the current article dedicated almost in entirety to a debate about a single sentence. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are free to nominate any article you think warrants it for deletion. While this article remains fully-protected, you can use FPER to request it, specifying your deletion rationale. Alternatively, you can perform the entire nomination yourself tomorrow when the protection expires. If you are unsure of the deletion process, there are a number of administrators and experienced users who are clearly watching this page who I am sure will assist you. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone want to start?? I mean at least try to pretend this site is unbias. JC7V -constructive zone  21:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)   sorry she was right to go after online trolls, she was doing it in self defense. JC7V -constructive zone  21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though she was justified for fighting about against trolls, maybe when her actions are ever added to her article they mention that she was only making those tweets in response to harassment by trolls?? It needs to be stated clearly and in context.<em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V <em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone  21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone justifying her tweets, or claiming that they were aimed at the trolls (only that they were tweeted because of the trolls). Your DYK proposal will feed the trolls (just like adding anything to the article); there's nothing to prevent that, but it's not your fault. w umbolo   ^^^  23:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When or if the info about her tweets is added in the article, to prevent edit warring over how to present them, I believe that adding why Sarah tweeted what she did would help quell the anger of some of the right wing POV pushing editors. When i heard why she did what she did, i understood it and moved on. If you don't put in her article (when and if the tweet incident is added) why she did it, tons of right wing POVers will frame it in a negative way and her article will be a mess. Trying to show why she did it would help curve that. I also believe that we should wait awhile to get more secondary sources before adding her twitter incidents into the article and do so in a way that doesn't violate BLP1E. <em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V <em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone  00:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support deletion of the page so long as there remains an embargo on actual, notable information. This person is notable for a single controversy and it does not appear on the page. The whole page is a fluff piece at this point that looks designed to prop up Ms. Jeong's career. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * voting already ended, article is a keep <em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V <em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone  00:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, even the AfD was a sham. It was speedy "closed" by somebody clearly involved in the topic after just 3 votes. This article and its talkpage is a shithole in development, that continues the bias that wikipedia has established in the past few years.  Only agenda-pushing and non-neutral POW pushing. Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018 1
"Jeong has been appointed to the New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018.[17] She will be the lead writer on technology.[18]" should be updated to include the discussion her hire has spawned; leaving this information out seems like a stretch considering the multitude of sources that have reported on it, not to mention the NY Times released a statement affirming her hire. Hope to see this corrected immediately. Thanks. 73.167.72.149 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (Basically, please have the new text written before proposing an edit request.) Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   06:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be something about the recent Sarah Jeong controversy on this page.
Requesting someone add the following line or something similar to the page.

Sarah Jeong was the subject of a media controversy regarding tweets by her which some considered to be racist.

The following may be a good starting citation.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/03/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-twitter-posts-racism

Respected news sites like the Guardian and NYT have reported on it extensively; it is shameful for Wikipedia to have no mention of the controversy.39.41.55.164 (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There's been a lot of back and forth on this issue. I'll just add my "vote" that this page really ought to have *something* on the issue of the controversial tweets, however brief and sticking to basic facts.  Even "In August, 2018, a controversy emerged regarding potentially inflammatory tweets Jeong had previously released following her hire by the New York Times" might do as a placeholder.  Not having anything reflects badly on wikipedia and is kind of becoming a news item of itself.  StoneProphet11 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two proposals being discussed above. See Talk:Sarah_Jeong and Talk:Sarah_Jeong Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed it has become news; it is what brought me here. Three thousand retweets about the silliness of not being able to update the encyclopedia in a timely manner. https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/1025943952661381120   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Examples of non - "Counter Trolling" tweets?
There are some additional tweets from the anti-white male racist tweets time period that could be an example of tweets that are not "imitating her harassers" as the New York Times has lazily posited. There are, ironically, tweets where she hates on her future employer (and future colleagues there);

Source. So in the statement about Sarah Jeong's "counter trolling" explanation there can be some examples of tweets that were not addressing so called harassment. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In terms of balance, the NYT's explanation, which is referred to by multiple independent, reliable sources, would be given much greater weight. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which the partisan blog American Thinker is not (and in fact seems to be just another self-published source). You would need multiple high-quality publications claiming that any of these tweets are relevant. The "counter-trolling" rationale was in response to accusations of Jeong's supposed racism, remember? These tweets appear to have nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but once again, it's a moot point without a published source mentioning it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sarah Jeongs tweets possibly could be considered a primary source see WP:Twitter-EL. As such, the WP:Weight is not always needed or applicable. Many of Sarah Jeong's tweets can be used as sources according to Wikipedia policy see WP:Twitter. I would submit that you stop trying to come up with excuses to not do so. I have posted some on the talk page in order to collaborate with other editors to develop relevant topics and specific prose for them.
 * Actually they do, as they show her state of mind during and after the period that she claims she was being harassed, which was in fact the supposed reason for her wide scale tweets of hatred of a specific race and gender, if not her call for genocide. This is actually extremely relevant, because sitting on the New York Times editorial board she could be help making important decisions concerning coverage of the white genocide in South Africa. I personally don't think that's joke material, but maybe that's just me. Nodekeeper (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually they do, as they show her state of mind during and after the period that she claims she was being harassed, which was in fact the supposed reason for her wide scale tweets of hatred of a specific race and gender, if not her call for genocide. This is actually extremely relevant, because sitting on the New York Times editorial board she could be help making important decisions concerning coverage of the white genocide in South Africa. I personally don't think that's joke material, but maybe that's just me. Nodekeeper (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This talk page is strictly for discussing existing content and generating new content. It is not for general discussion of the subject matter. Please see WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM.  This section should be closed unless a content proposal is brought. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018 3
I strongly recommend that we add a "Criticism" section to Jeong's biography in description of her recently discovered racist tweets. Why? A vast majority of the reporting on Sarah Jeong has been focused on these tweets. In fact countless reliable sources, such as NYT, Washington Post, FOX News, and CNN all found this controversy more than worthy of reporting.

Here are some links for starters: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.html https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/04/new-york-times-new-writer-sarah-jeong-anti-white-tweets-ctn-vpx.cnn 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://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/4/nyts-sarah-jeong-slammed-police-officers-men-twitt/

She's infamously known for this now. It has to be mentioned. Walle637 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please use the edit request template only when you're ready to describe the exact changes you want to make (e.g. insert "example text" in a new section named "Example Section"). This is a good place for discussion, but it doesn't look like the edit is ready to be added until the new text is actually written. —  Newslinger  talk   06:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018 4
The page's lack of any mention of Jeong's racist tweets is bizarre and inexplicable. Something needs to be added ASAP. Proustfala (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —  Newslinger  talk   06:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The version under discussion is Alternate proposal (section) Lokiloki (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already an edit request for that edit in this section of the talk page. —  Newslinger  talk   06:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep! Looks like we have consensus for that too. What are next steps? Lokiloki (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait for an administrator to respond to the edit request, since only administrators can edit fully protected pages. —  Newslinger  talk   07:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018 5
Implement short lines to avoid edit conflicts when this extremely busy article becomes unprotected. w umbolo  ^^^  12:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  12:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Let me know if something's not correct, . S warm   ♠  13:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's draft a few sentences about the ongoing harassment campaign against her

 * So as the editors above noted, her page currently states no information about the topic that got her into the attention of the media - the ongoing harassment campaign against her. I've already posted the following above a few days ago, but of course that comment was removed by trolls. Here's what I wrote:
 * "(...) the harassment campaign against her should be mentioned in the article, however we have to remember the Undue weight rule. 1-2 sentences would be enough for an article this small. I propose the following: 1 sentence to explain how she became a target of the harassment campaign, and 1 more to describe the trolls/bots/influencers/etc who were behind the campaign."
 * What do you people think? I would have written a more precise draft but I am not a native speaker and am afraid of going against English rules, but I think we should absolutely mention the harassment campaign., including the right-wing personal participating in it and the possible russian involvement Openlydialectic (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This smells of Gamergate controversy, which if I recall correctly was the worst emic Wikipedia controversy & crisis since Climate change. You would think that Wikipedia would have protocols in place to deal with, or at least assuage, these troll-ridden clusterfucks, but that, both apparently and patently, is not the case. kencf0618 (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, there is no secondary source information about a harassment campaign, only that her old tweets have been reported on. Reporting that someone has made racist statements does not equate to a harassment campaign, and no reliable secondary sources have described it that way (I think someone posted a blog from Huffington Post? That's not a reliable source). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to blog or post opinions or original research; please come back with reliable sources. Ikjbagl (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Her allegations of a harassment campaign can be mentioned as this is part of her apologetics and explains her position. We shouldn't present this as fact unless, as Ikjbagl notes, there are reliable secondary sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some do frame it as harassment, or at least cite others who do: • The Independent: "[Jeong] has been targeted for harassment by dishonest trolls, her former employer has claimed"

• Vox: "Jeong’s detractors organized to deploy a system of performative outrage ... launching a torrent of violent, racist, and misogynistic speech at both Jeong and the New York Times" However, a greater number characterize the media response as more of a bad-faith concern trolling campaign: • CNN: "Jeong had more than a few backers, who argued that the tweets were being highlighted by bad faith actors who were only interested in getting a journalist fired"

• The Guardian: "The result is a situation in which antisemitic trolls and a blog with a history of defending white supremacy can accuse an Asian writer of racism. When her employer defends her against the charge, figures on the right use that to stoke racial tensions and claim liberals are racists"

• Columbia Journalism Review: "The notion that a few tweets from one young writer is evidence of an emerging front in institutional racism is proof enough that nothing can satisfy such arguments. It’s bad faith, as many digital journalists have come to call these criticisms"

• The Cut: "Today, the Times declared that it was standing by Jeong — but also issued an apology in response to the bad-faith criticism from the right" (opinion, needs attribution)

• The New Statesman: "some of [Jeong's] responses were unearthed and paraded as evidence, in a mind-bendingly paradoxical exercise in hypocrisy, that Jeong herself is a racist" (ditto)

• Fast Company: "Now, over the last day or so, bad-faith online trolls have dug up her past tweets ... and have deemed them 'racist'" (ditto) Multiple sources also quote The Verge's editors' statement, which says much the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the links. I think we are talking about two different things. I was commenting on her claims of harassment prior to her "counter-trolling." Here most take her claim at face value or assume it must be true. Vox says "As a female journalist on the internet as well as a woman of color, she is no stranger to harassment." This suggests that they assume her claims must be true. The second matter is the reaction after her hire at the Times. This is also being referred to has harassment. I wasn't commenting on this but I see you were. This does have a number of sources with examples. I have no problem including this as long as we make a distinction between honest criticism and vicious harassment. For this we may have to wait until the dust settles. But perhaps not. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I'm not sure how you'd discern which criticism is "honest" or not, but it isn't our place to make that kind of evaluation. The above sources at least don't seem to give much credence to the idea. However, I see that The Independent does also support the later harassment claim: "Since the tweets were uncovered [Jeong] has suffered a wave of abuse, including racist language". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Every public person gets vicious harassment including white men. Unless it causes the person to take unique actions (such as hire a bodyguard) it isn't notable. The conservative writer Michelle Malkin gets anti-Asian hate constantly. On her BLP it mentions she had to disable the comment section on her blog because of the racism. Let's wait until there's more of a story that make her harassment notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources mentioned earlier and the subject's current/future employers are framing dredging up out-of-context tweets as part of a bad faith harassment campaign. It's relevant to the situation and there is no need to race to include content.Citing (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If the controversy is ever mentioned on her page, I could see potentially supporting a sentence at the end of the controversy that said: Ikjbagl (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Some groups, including Jeong's employer, claimed she was the victim of "[o]nline trolls and harassers."
 * Strong oppose unless we write like that on the James Gunn article. w umbolo   ^^^  12:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody's stopping you from suggesting improvements at James Gunn (or Roseanne Barr for that matter). But it's irrelevant to what we do on this page unless reliable, published sources suggest an equivalence between the two. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - The majority of reliable sources have zero mention of a "harassment campaign", and The Verge has a conflict of interest since she worked for them at one point. Also, a HuffPo opinion piece isn't reliable, and I'd argue that Vox isn't even reliable. Jdcomix (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Vox is a reliable website, as they've won a Pulitzer I think, except if you can prove they have a COI. w umbolo   ^^^  14:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Vox Media owns The Verge, her former employer. I think their objectivity here is at least questionable. Oren0 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Reliable sources are not framing this as a "harassment campaign", but being about her tweets. Framing it in the way you describe violates WP:WEIGHT Oren0 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - This is nothing more than a last-ditch effort to control the narrative reminiscent of the last days of the soviet union. 99.255.143.22 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until there is citable source they remain only "claims of harassment." Nodekeeper (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See both links to The Independent that I posted above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I could only find one link to The Independent and that article stated that her former employer "has claimed/claims". I can't help but truly wonder if the "harassment" claims are just the general internet "meanness" that everyone sees on the internet and not specific to Sarah - and what Sarah Jeong herself appears to have generated an abundance of. I wonder if it would be easier to state the things that she doesn't hate! I have added a new section with a couple examples of this. Nodekeeper (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - There are relatively few unbiased sources out there (HuffPo and Vox certainly don't fit that description), and none of them have discussed this as part of a "harassment campaign". Instead, it looks more like the fraying of online civility, which I expect that many of us have witnessed personally. - AyaK (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BBC says (Headline): "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter"
The BBC, which is generally considered a WP:RS around these parts, reports: The New York Times has defended a new member of its editorial board who wrote racist tweets about white people. I fail to see why this would not be included in the article. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * *** I have changed your comment, since the BBC changed the article today. For anyone wondering, the BBC used to say "racist" but now says "inflammatory". You can see somewhere below where I criticize this decision by the BBC, but if they changed it, we have to respect that.  w umbolo   ^^^  16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this Orwellian change. Changing someone else's comment on a talk page is not acceptable.2600:1012:B147:F1EA:F559:8E27:8070:B4CB (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone disagreeing that the tweets are in fact racist. At the very least, we could insert a sentence that says: "Sarah Jeong become the subject of widespread criticism in the media in early August 2018 when, upon her hiring by the New York Times Editorial Board, it was discovered that she had posted a series of racist Twitter messages disparaging white people." I don't think any of that is disputed in any way at this point.Ikjbagl (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of your sentence as proposed and using the BBC as source. Remember, the page has been locked up and a condition has been imposed that consensus on the sentence and source must be reached.  XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)  Whereas I still think the above contribution would have been fine, its simple one-sentence statement of fact was never greenlighted by the powers that be and instead got derailed by suggestions of having an entire paragraph.  So now I support an alternate proposal below.  Cheers to all. XavierItzm (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just adding that my response here could be used to add two or three more sources to back up that the criticism was "widespread", with no fewer than 10 major news organizations reporting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#I_think_that_the_controversy_of_Jeong's_Tweets_should_be_mentioned%2E   Ikjbagl (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that additional sources could be added later. However, let's not muddy the waters and see if consensus can be reached. XavierItzm (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sentence proposed Conveys what occurred concisely, with the article in the BBC I think its nigh impossible to describe the event as not noteworthy. SWL36 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding noteworthiness, the story is now on the Front Page of BBC.com/news, archive link here https://web.archive.org/web/20180803003558/https://www.bbc.com/news        Ikjbagl (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above stated reasons for waiting to decide whether this should be included at all, and if yes per the sources, then how it should be characterized. We remain WP:NOTNEWS. We look at how a group of sources deal with a topic; decide if it merits inclusion in an encyclopedic account of, in this case, the subject's biography; then summarize the significant viewpoint or viewspoints. Reiterating the BBC's version is what news aggregation sites do. We're not that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the not news point about Wikipedia, but I disagree with your characterization. All of the reputable sources linked so far deal with the subject in the same way. This single news event is more notable by Wikipedia's own (secondary-source based) standards than the rest of this person's career. The other secondary source mentions of her up to this point have all been in blogs, University blogs or lesser known websites (though she was cited by Forbes), and she now has an article on every major news website related to this incident. She has also had a multitude more edits to her page in the past day than she has had in her career. Waiting to see if the event "becomes" notable makes less sense when the event is already more notable than the rest of her page so far constructed.         Ikjbagl (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I sure would like to work on expanding the rest of it but unfortunately I'll have to do so by edit request for now! Meanwhile. The number of edits has no bearing, really. We don't make decisions based on popularity. Other points: the term "racist" is definitely not being used universally; ABC, WashPost, and USNews use the expression "derogatory". CNN calls "disparaging" and notes many people defending Jeong call them "satirical". Who knows where it will land when the dust settles--if anywhere worth noting. Beyond word choice, your note above saying I don't think any of that is disputed in any way at this point is just the issue: as WP:NOTNEWS, we're not aiming to post an update "at this point" (which would be appropriate, for a news site!), we're trying to decide if an event is rates a mention of an encyclopedic bio, which I don't think we can see on a subject like this after one day. I'm not saying this should definitely never be addressed; I'm only saying WP:CRYSTAL applies in understanding the significance of this, or not, in the bigger picture. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Innisfree987 argues that "Reiterating the BBC's version is what news aggregation sites do," as if the BBC were unique in reporting these facts, as if the Beeb were somehow fringe, when in fact, up until yesterday, the BBC was considered a gold standard among WP:RS around the Wikipedia. Innisfree987 also implies that the BBC is somehow unique, when there are other WP:RSs saying the exact same thing.  For example:

Jeong’s Twitter feed is filled with a host of messages that could be construed as racist and offensive. Jeong compared “dumbass f-g white people” to dogs, said that “old white men” were “lemmings,” opined that white people would “go extinct soon,” and used the hashtag #CancelWhitePeople.
 * [emphasis added] Bottom line, Innisfree987's objection lacks merit. XavierItzm (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is a demonstrable range, perhaps just include that? "The tweets were described as racist by some, and merely derogatory by others." Mracidglee (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support see Alternate proposal ESparky (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC) There has to be something about this incident, otherwise the article does not meet WP:N (virtually none of the references are independent -- connected by school or employer), I've seen a lot stronger articles get deleted in AfD. I think the story here is that some feel it is racism (half of the headlines) and the NYT has discounted it as rhetoric. ESparky (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , do you have a second account? The AfD counter doesn't show you have participated there at all. Additionally, I note the user page for this account discloses you are being paid by "Media Aggregators". Are you being paid for edits to this page? If so, you should please disclose that to this page with the template . Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but thanks for asking, that work is exclusively in the music industry and I don't edit any prose in the article space regardless of topic without a COI mention. Now, on this topic, I will disclose that I am a white male, otherwise, no COI. We have a woman with a self-published book, book published by her employer (Forbes), where her college allowed her to make a presentation and a video about it, she won a 30 under 30 award from her employer Forbes, there is something about a blog she started but the references don't mention her.  There are two articles where she is mentioned but she is not the subject of the story. As it stands, this article does not pass WP:N. Her racist comments are what makes her notable. ESparky (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose nothing racist about her tweets, no reference for the tweets being racist either. Openlydialectic (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Openlydialectic vandalized my comments above on this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jeong&diff=next&oldid=853211687 . Editing other people's comments is not acceptable.  Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) That's not a ocunter-argument to anything that I've said above. Thats' your original research that her comments were racist - they were not. 1.1) You have to provide arguments why her claims are racist, preferably some good sources, you didn't cite any. 1.2) You can't be racist towards the so-called "white people"
 * 2) That's not vandalism. Read what vandalism is before making new comments.
 * 3) It was an accident. I have no idea how that stuff happens, your contribution that got removed was published 3 minutes before my contribution that, apart from adding my comment, somehow removed yours. I assume the comment that you've added and that was removed was added AFTER I started editing the page but before I published it, but when I pressed to publish the page I didn't receive any warning about edit conflicts or else. To that matter, one my comments (specifically, this one: ) disappeared from that talk page too, and I've seen other people complaining about their comments disappearing there. So I have no idea what happened, but it's probably a wiki glitch ot something along those lines.
 * 4) Based on the two talk points above: assume good faith ffs.
 * 5) See my talk page Openlydialectic (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few RS references who use either racist or hate in the title:


 * "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter". BBC News
 * "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People". Reason.com
 * "Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets". National Review
 * "New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface". Fox News
 * "New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets". The Federalist
 * "NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS". The Daily Caller
 * "New York Times defends newest hire Sarah Jeong amid controversy over racist tweets". Daily News
 * "New York Times stands by editorial board hire despite racist tweets". New York Post
 * "NYT Recent Editorial Board Hire Sent Hate-Filled Tweets About White People — Now the Paper Responds". Independent Journal Review
 * "Sarah Jeong's racist tweets spotlighted after New York Times hiring: 'White men are bulls--'". Washington Times
 * "NY Times defends hiring of editorial writer after emergence of past racial tweets". The Hill
 * "NEW YORK TIMES HIRES RACIST". Herald Sun
 * This is Five pillars -- WP:5P2 -- Due weight, this is more coverage than she has had in her life. ESparky (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "No source for the tweets being racist" is patently false, I have linked to many sources multiple times and in multiple places on this page. Here's an archive link to yesterday when the BBC had this story as a front page story with the headline: "NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter": https://web.archive.org/web/20180803003558/https://www.bbc.com/news   Ikjbagl (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mild Oppose The sentence misleads by omission. We must add her "defense" that it was "satire" and that the NYT accepts it otherwise it reads that the NYT accepts the expression of anti-white racism. I'm sympathetic to those who see WP:NOTNEWS but there now seems to be diverse reliable sources and comments from both critics and defenders. A tentative line or two could be considered although I usually to prefer to wait (and I'm usually ignored in this request.) Jason from nyc (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support a multi-sentence paragraph. This is how Wikipedia works: it has articles, and articles have paragraphs, and paragraphs have sentences. Sentences in a paragraph have to make for a cohesive paragraph. Jeong was employed by the New York Times and a paragraph in her biography should describe her job at the New York Times. It's unlikely that she will receive this much coverage in the future (I really hope something like this will not be repeated). This has gained international coverage in the UK. Therefore this should receive WP:DUE coverage in the article. So more than one sentence. Especially more than one sentence since there's the harassment context which is crucial information. Since there will be multiple sentences on this incident in one paragraph, the paragraph shouldn't contain any other information on her NYT job (and future coverage she gains on her NYT job). So a decent three-sentence paragraph should be perfect.
 * I've only read this source so I'm not the most informed; please correct me somewhere if I'm wrong. The fringes on the left and the fringes on the right jumped on "it's not racist because of WHITE PRIVILEGE " and "she was hired BECAUSE of her racism", respectively. The paragraph must contain the fact that the Editorial Board defended her (her not the racist whatever). If we ignore the sensationalism and attempt NPOV, we should clearly state that it was considered racist (not "racially-charged" or whatever) by this, this, and those sources (as per WP:RACIST). w umbolo   ^^^  11:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I support the sentence as proposed. I fail to see why this is an issue stating fact here. Numerous statements were made that disparaged white people. At the time she apparently had no problem whatsoever with publicly broadcasting them, and her statement now that she was "counter trolling" falls on its face by analyzing the context with which they were made. Also, she is not a comedian, so she can not claim that she made them in the "joke" context. Is there some sort of mystical-magical ceremony that someone goes through that removes all traces of previous racial hatred because suddenly they want to get a paycheck from the Times? I do not understand the apparent multiple standards that Wikipedia appears to be embracing with these apparently biased editing decisions. As such, I think I could also support the statement somewhere "The New York Times has decided to hire a known anti-white racist." Perhaps maybe in the article for the NYT even. Nodekeeper (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It can be argue that she is/will be more notable for such a controversy than for everything else in her career.93.36.191.55 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support a second sentence I support the sentence proposed but we should also include the NYT response to the

controversy to address WP:NPOV concerns. SWL36 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of event but do not use the word 'racist' to describe the tweets. Racist is an opinion which should not be done in Wikipedia's voice. I wager to include This version of the events as it is the most accurate according to WP:RS. It should be noted that the reliable sources do include examples of the tweets themselves. Per WP:DUE weight with all the of the WP:RS, this is a significant event for the subject and deserves a mention in the very least. We have to word it correctly to abide by WP:BLP of course, but it does not deserve to be excluded. Tutelary (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I sympathize with most of the comment, it is quite a slippery slope to start saying that racism is a matter of opinion. In this particular case, we have the BBC reporting it straight that the subject "wrote racist tweets".  There is no opinion: it is news reportage from what (up until yesterday!) was considered by many to be an unimpeachable WP:RS.  But as this very thread and threads above show, the BBC is far from being the only one straight reporting racism.  Consider, for example, the preeminent news organisation in Australia:

A JOURNALIST who tweeted racist abuse about “dumbass f***ing white people” claims she was only “counter-trolling”.
 * [emphasis added]. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * actually, the BBC is no longer "reporting it straight" that the subject "wrote racist tweets". They changed "racist" to "inflammatory" and provided this explanation:
 * Update 3 August 2018: This article and its headline were updated after reflecting on Sarah Jeong's statement explaining her actions.
 * It's really depressing how journalists find defending their journalist friends more important than facts. Seriously, someone "apologizes" for something you think is racist, and then you no longer think it's racist?! But the BBC still describes harassment against her as including racist slurs. w umbolo   ^^^  16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Two points. 1, This is actually exactly what WP depends on RS to do for us: exercise editorial judgment in making and revising a professional analysis as they gather increasing information, since we do not have experts to do so (RIP Nupedia). For those who don't think that's a good standard, or no better than the average person's opinion, there's Everipedia or you know, literally any other platform. But it's what we work with here. 2. Within that model: I think this exemplifies why it is wrong to rush to incorporate breaking news, especially on something like this: the first wave of news reporting may really not be an accurate picture of the ultimate story, or, whether there's any lasting story at all. That it was in the news for a day or two is not enough to decide it rates inclusion, and it's definitely not enough to decide how the encyclopedia should describe it retrospectively, for the problem the changing BBC coverage illustrates. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The kindest thing to do here may be to delete the article. Before this episode, the article references are either not independent of the source (college or employer), or mentions in articles that are not about her as the subject. Even her book is self-published published by her employer (Forbes). Even with this coverage, it could be considered one event, so though notable, her notability is not sustained. Seems a shame to ruin her life when the real problem is with the way the NYT has treated Jeong vs. Quinn Norton episodes. ESparky (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can certainly agree that this episode as it stands to date (coverage of tweets, nothing more) would never form an adequate basis for passing AfD; that's why we're having an conversation about whether it should even be included in the article, which is a lower standard than "notability" for having a standalone entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If the article were legitimately pruned, what would be left would not meet WP:N. I threw out a bone here, a compromise suggestion. If it is notable enough for the lead that the NYT offered her a job, WP:DUE would indicate that it is notable that the NYT confirmed an openly racist journalist for a job.  Not only does this deserve a mention, it deserves a mention in the lead. It is the only thing she is legitimately notable for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESparky (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, if it were not for this event then she would not be notable at all and probably should not have a Wiki article. It's silly that we're having this big debate about whether to include the only notable thing about the person on her encyclopedia entry. As mentioned elsewhere, the sources on her page so far are blogs, university blogs, interviews, and things she, herself, has written. But, as the world stands, this event DID happen and she IS notable for these tweets now. It was on the front page of BBC news for like twelve hours. It should therefore be recorded on her page. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is one feature article about her naturalization that could go to notability, if Vox (publisher) and Verge (employer) were not the same company. The only way the article can sustain is with this episode in it. ESparky (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A biography that exists solely to disparage its subject for a single event definitely violates policy. She's been on Forbes' 30 under 30 - claims that she should only be known for tweets (instead of her work) are specious.Citing (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a single event. She published multiple tweets on different dates on a public forum which most news sources agree are racist.  There are also tweets where she is hateful towards police officers which should also be cited in her article. TexasGermanGuy 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to move discussion forward
Since I have protected the page and requested editors to arrive at a consensus for what to include, I guess it falls on me to help move the discussion forward. So If someone knows the help-page or essay (which I'm sure exists) that explains this, add a link. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A proposal followed by a bunch of support, support buts and oppose votes, as seen above, just leads to stalemate and preservation of status quo (even if almost every participant disagrees with the status quo!)
 * To make progress try following the proposal → feedback → concrete revised proposal → feedback/counter-proposal → ... cycle, till you (hopefully) converge.

New proposal
Including this sentence on her article has 8 supports and 3 opposes but many supports want more information as well. However, all of the supports and the mild oppose agree that this information should be included in the article. To address the concerns of those that want more context on the controversy I propose that this section be included after the sentence noting that she was hired:

In August 2, 2018 conservatives commentators on social media drew attention to tweets that Jeong made in 2014 that were disparaging to white people.'The New York Times' issued a comment noting that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets and that Jeong regrets her approach to responding to harassment.

I trimmed down the section I originally proposed by stripping the quote and using some of the more encyclopedic wording that included in his take of this section. I have maintained two key distinctions from his diff though:

One: using "drew attention" instead of "criticized". The reliable sources were replete with criticism of Jeong's tweets and their involvement magnified the controversy, it was not just conservatives on twitter complaining about her.

Two: I stated "disparaging to white people" instead of "criticized... as disparaging to white people." The reliable sources are in agreement, whether they label the tweets as racist or not. This CNN article is a full throated and unequivocal defense of Jeong. In it they say: "Jeong, who is Asian, had drawn scrutiny after the resurfacing of a number of years-old tweets in which she spoke disparagingly of white people." The inclusion of "disparaging to white people" should be uncontroversial, it avoids having to use the word racist and sources on both sides of the issue use the phrase or a variant to describe her tweets. SWL36 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I could agree with the way you've written this. Citing "conservative commentators" and not mentioning that it was a large news story in mainstream news makes it sound more partisan than it actually was. I also don't know if avoiding the word "racist" is the right thing to do at this point; certainly we shouldn't describe her as racist, but when the BBC has a headline up for 12 hours on their front page characterizing the tweets as racist, and when many (if not every) other major news networks have done the same, it seems most appropriate to characterize them as racist. Still, if you want to avoid the word, I would change your first sentence back to being something about receiving widespread criticism in the news media, because we have plenty of sources to back that claim up. Maybe make it:

In August 2018, Jeong received widespread criticism in the news media in response to tweets she had made in 2014 that were disparaging to white people. 'The New York Times' issued a comment noting that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets and that Jeong regrets her approach to responding to harassment.


 * And I would append the following three sources as citations:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-times-stands-hire-sarah-jeong-twitter-furor-56994680 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html


 * Ikjbagl (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support 1&2 I'm fine with mine or with yours, I thought my version might be a bit more palatable for those that feel this is some sort of "harassment campaign." The "drew attention to" wording also is similar to the section that was included in James Gunn. SWL36 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * i'm a right-leaning white guy who actually DOES get the satire she was going for. i don't find the tweets inherently offensive really unless u don't get the joke.  and i doubt she's actually racist.


 * either way, tho, they DO need to be mentioned. what are all the comments above about "i added a section..." "i changed the section to..." etc etc?  i don't see ANYTHING on the matter!  vandalized? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Same problems I've mentioned before. Undue weight in a relatively short biography contravenes policy on biographies of living people. Basically every sentence is loaded in some manner. Whether the tweets were disparaging in the first place (e.g. articles linked above have characterized them as tongue-in-cheek). Dredging up the tweets has been described as a bad-faith effort to harass/discredit/fire a journalist. To discuss all this would require a lot of original research and misusing the site since Wikipedia is not a news aggregator.Citing (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:UNDUE argument was well addressed by the first proposal, few agree that this does not merit inclusion as the RS coverage of this even dwarfs any previous coverage she has had before. Her taking this high profile job (as a lead writer at the NYT!) increases her standing from "niche psuedo-blog journalist" to notable writer for one of the most respected publications in news. The idea that this is WP:OR is laughable, the proposals and past diffs have been well sourced and communicated what those sources said accurately. — Preceding

unsigned comment added by SWL36 (talk • contribs)
 * Focusing a biography on a single negative event, especially one that has been characterized as taken out of context and in bad faith, is against policy. It is definitely undue weight in terms of a person's entire life and career. News sources are still changing their headlines so it's pretty hard to avoid OR here.Citing (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't a "small" negative event. It has been major news by just about every news source out there. Plenty of people only have Wiki pages because of a negative event. I hardly think this is undue weight. 50.35.49.65 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose the watered down version Google reports "About 66,400 results (0.56 seconds)" for a search of "racist" on en.wikipedia.org.  There is no evidence an embargo of the term "racist" on Wikipedia.  Additionally, the proposed references do not include the RS sources who are doing the criticism. And the prose does not mention that the NYT rescinded an offer for the very same position for the very same reason to another journalist. "New York Times slammed by critics for 'hypocritical double standard' after standing by Sarah Jeong".  IMHO the only neutral source includes racist in the title, "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People", Reason Magazine. ESparky (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:RACIST as to why I wanted to avoid using it. Also, you should specifiy whether you support Ikjbagl's proposal because I think it does address concerns about not including the RS criticism of the tweets. SWL36 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have to use the word in our prose, it is in the title of a dozen articles. ESparky (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC) removed content moved to Alternate proposal below. ESparky (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ESparky, I'd wonder if you'd reconsider the "New Proposal" instead of your "Alternative Proposal". Newspaper rhetoric is not optimal for encyclopedia writing. The phrase "disparaging to white people" might seem like an insipid replacement for "racist" but it moves us away from headlines into more scholarly prose. Why not take this compromise given the vast spectrum of opinions here today? Perhaps we can get a consensus for this. The links still provide ample details on the story. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the use of euphemisms is not scholarly prose. We have a word for the practice, it is called racism. She was called out for racist statements in at least dozen RS headlines, not disparaging remarks.  The following is state of mind, “oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men", it is not disparaging remark, there is no target, just a race and gender. The terms "disparaging" and "rhetoric" is the apologetic spin that came later. Your version even avoids citations with "racist" in any of the titles. Racism is the actual accusation levied. I think my alternate explains the entire story concisely, to include the previous woman who was fired for the same thing. The apologists can tack their spin to the bottom going forward. ESparky (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jeong&type=revision&diff=853293682&oldid=853293554
 * Support 1 with some copyediting. This is basically the same as James Gunn and Kevin Williamson, except they were fired. And to everyone saying racism requires inline attribution, please see Roseanne Barr. But I don't care about the racism label, since "disparaging to white people" is simple, accurate and sourced. And I don't understand the mega-panic surrounding BLP here, since harassment is legal. w umbolo   ^^^  20:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 1 - with bbc, abc, and nytimes sourcing, and neutral, encyclopedic wording covering the issue, this version is a reasonable addition to the article and, given the significant coverage, a valid addition to this BLP. None of the WP:NOTNEWS critera apply here, or are a valid argument for avoiding this well-documented issue in the article.Dialectric (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as TOOSOON for the reasons I enumerate here and the discussion of the changing BBC coverage that immediately precede my comment, which are just one example of the moving target here. WP is not a news ticker (and that is for the better, as we'd do a very bad job of it). Innisfree987 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 1 or 2 with a slight leaning towards 2. These add context and defense, which is important especially in a WP:BLP. It's also brief enough without losing sight of the context. I don't support adding a comparison to others (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF) that may be in a similar situation with or without a similar outcome (as has been suggested by some.) Jason from nyc (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's at least one example of a quote being taken out of context. There's no rush to make changes or assume significance.Citing (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 1 or 2. Both of these proposals seem to reflect the WP:RS nearly to the lettering. The distinction of conservative commentators can definitely be left out if that's what it takes for WP:CONSENSUS. Either way, they only reflect what's in the sources, does not unduly disparage the subject, and complies with WP:BLP. Tutelary (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1 & 2. Observe that all three cited sources mention the parallel case of Norton, whereas the proposed paragraphs omit it entirely (why?).  Second, note also that the NYT cit. is not a secondary source and ought to be deprecated in favor of something else that is simply not an apologia of itself and of its recent hire.  Third, look at how #2 says the subject "received widespread criticism in the news media," which actually contradicts the first and second source that only make reference to "social media".  In fact, only the NYT, which is inescapably partial and partisan on its own behalf, makes a reference to actual news media, and in attack mode to it, to boot (partisan!).  But then again, I already explained why the NYT cannot be considered WP:RS when reporting on its own mess.  I could continue on and on, but the larger point is that these paragraphs withstand no scrutiny.  Pity, that.  XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Over the years I've opposed the insertion into BLPs of criticism that originates from hostile sources until either neutral sources or the subject have a chance to respond. WP:BLP encourages special consideration due to fairness and liability concerns. As her apologetics and her employers statements are available, we should allow them to respond. I have done this even when only primary sources were available as this has been common practice in the case of BLP controversies. However, their response is being discussed by other sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, and precisely "because their response is being discussed by other sources", it must be a selection of these other WP:RS sources that is used instead of the primary source. XavierItzm (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose the initially proposed variations. To source these criticisms as coming from "conservatives on social media", without mentioning other widespread criticism, including from the BBC, is not a reasonable telling of these events. Something more in the realm of Ikjbagl's suggestion below 1&2, perhaps softening the language, is more in the ballpark IMO. Oren0 (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, does not accurately reflect a need for comprehensive documentation of this now widespread issue. Lokiloki (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support Why on earth is there no mention of perhaps the sole notable episode in the life of Sarah Jeong? Does 48 hours of international news coverage by literally nearly every media outlet of record not warrant one sentence in an article that mentions such trivialities as the fact that she and someone called 'Peter Higgins' launched a newsletter? Jeong's open racism, and the supposedly liberal-leaning (but suddenly 100% fine with racism) NYT's defense of her *is* the reason she is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, to most of the world. --Proustfala (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current form: "widespread criticism" is misleading, given that multiple independent sources published since the initial furore, such as CJR, Vox, CNN, WaPo, The Guardian, and The Independent, describe the criticism/backlash as coming almost exclusively from right-wing figures. Several also explicitly paint the controversy as a bad-faith trolling campaign, including The Guardian, Vox, and CJR. The stuff about regret/not condoning etc. is The kind of PR boilerplate we would expect from any public figure, and their employer, in such a situation; by themselves, those statements don't add much to readers' meaningful understanding of the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
There are over 60,000 instances of the term "racist" on the English Wikipedia. There is effectively no embargo on the word and at least a dozen RS articles use the word in the title concerning this event. Suggested prose:

On August 2, 2018, Reason Magazine published the title, "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People", after FOX News and the National Review reported on her controversial Tweets, noting that the New York Times had rescinded an employment offer to Quinn Norton, for a similar position, under similar circumstances. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong's hiring process would proceed.

I think this covers the controversy section and avoids editorial injection. Reason Magazine is a libertarian publication. ESparky (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The damn thing has been talked to death already. At this point, the fact that there is no mention on her Wiki says more than if the event were included; it looks weird that it's not there. As someone else pointed out, she was given an award by Forbes, but this is clearly a more noteworthy event by secondary-source standards than anything else that has happened in her career so far. I would prefer slightly different wording that makes it clear that she was criticized across ALL major news outlets, not just on Fox and the National Review, but this might have to do for now. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was an accounting of the controversy as it was happening. It started in social media, Fox, National Review and Reason had he earliest articles published. ESparky (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Emphasis on 'Reason Magazine' should be avoided here given that there is significant coverage by more mainstream press.Dialectric (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have an obligation to use "more mainstream press", especially while both sides of the mainstream have an agenda, Reason Magazine is the most neutral of the RS references. We do have an obligation to be neutral and not sugar coat it with verbiage that would not describe the controversy. The next closest word would be bigoted Tweets, but that word is not in the titles of the sources. ESparky (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging interested editors from last 100 Sarah Jeong talk page edits.  -- ESparky (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Mild support I'm not sure its necessary to use the reason article or mention the other new hire writer who was fired in a day. However, I think this proposal is fine as any mention of the most significant event in Jeong's career should be mentioned. SWL36 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what we're doing or voting on here, but "most significant event"--wut? are you talking about the tweets? because being hired by the NYT is kind of a big deal too. {{U|ESparky]], we're not on 4chan here: "the fact that there is no mention on her Wiki says more than if the event were included" is conspiracy stuff. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is clearly the most significant event of her career. These tweets and their associated controversy are headline news in CNN, BBC, ABC, etc. I'm sure she's thrilled to be hired by NYT, but that by itself didn't merit mentions in almost any press. Oren0 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * {{U|Drmies}} I don't believe the quote is attributable to me.ESparky (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ESparky, if I misattributed the quote, my apologies. With all the "new editors" coming out of the woodwork, editors who seem to care more about turning Wikipedia into the NEWS than working within our guidelines, including for talk page etiquette, it can be difficult. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as the passage of three hours has not resolved my TOOSOON concerns. I additionally share SWL36's sense Reason and Norton are being shoehorned in here. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your too soon concerns don't make sense at this point. The event is over, the news stories are done; it's yesterday's news. This topic is unlikely to receive more coverage in the secondary sources, so I'm not sure what is left for you to wait for. Still, by secondary source standards, it is more notable than the rest of her career and should be included on her page as such if she even deserves an article, which several people in here have argued that she is not noteworthy enough to warrant an article in the first place. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. If it's yesterday's news, then we can look at it tomorrow or the next day or later next week and see how significant, or not, it looks; see WP:10 year test. "People were mad for one day about tweets" is not encyclopedic. It certainly wouldn't pass AfD as an WP:NPERSON claim and I'm still not persuaded it even rates mention. And if it turns out your prediction isn't correct that it's over and in a few days there's a different aspect that does seem encyclopedic, then we'll write something more appropriate. The hour-by-hour rush to dash something off so it's there, whether or not it's encyclopedic, is just not what WP is for. There are plenty of places on the internet to do so. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we're in agreement with the other people on this page who say that the article should be deleted as being about a non-notable person. Why don't you go nominate it for deletion and I will come support you. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I said the tweets wouldn't establish notability, not that the entry wasn't notable. Please don't put words in my mouth, it won't help us get to consensus here. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't misquote you, I misunderstood. I really don't understand how you can claim this event is non-notable in secondary sources, but I'm not going to argue with you over it, I've provided no fewer than a dozen completely valid secondary sources from major news organizations. How many times can I state that the BBC had this as a front page story for over 12 hours? What else in her career has been this notable? At this point, she has done nothing else really notable (no- being hired by the New York Times is not WP:Notability; plenty of people work for the Times and don't have their own Wiki article, and have never occupied a front page space on BBC News), and it really doesn't seem likely that anything in the rest of her career will be as noteworthy as this event has been. It would be completely appropriate at this point to have a Wiki article on her containing only this event. I've already discussed numerous times how poor her current page is, with nothing really for sources other than blog posts and things the subject has actually written.


 * In any event, I'm personally done with this article. These replies feels too stubborn and partisan for me to care anymore. To say that this event is not notable and shouldn't be on her page is incomprehensible, it defies logic; I've never seen elsewhere someone claiming that a story run by every major news organization is not notable. I've already told you why I disagree with your too soon characterization, it feels silly; anyone coming to her page in the last two days would have been looking for information on this event, and probably left disappointed. Additionally, administrators don't seem to be respecting the rule to wait for consensus before making edits. What a circus show, this is really something special.Ikjbagl (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the misunderstanding, I do appreciate it. And I think at some point we just have differing views on what rates inclusion; to me the "BBC had this as a front page story for over 12 hours" is really a WP:NOTNEWS assertion that won't stand up to WP:10 year test, rather than a robustly encyclopedic one, but I get that you see it differently. So it goes, hence the consensus process; one view or another (or some other altogether!) will prevail. As for notability for the entry, I'm working on sourcing as I can. Agree completely being hired at the Times is not alone a claim of notability. I work on entries on journalists for WP all the time, so, I'm familiar with common sourcing issues. I don't have a firm view as yet. We'll see. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest you go and refamiliarize yourself with WP:10 year test which certainly does not decree that current, breaking events should not be documented contemporaneously, even if the "dust hasn't settled" or there is not unanimous consensus, and particularly, as in this case, there's abundant, neutral sources:

After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites?
 * As such, feel free to come back in a few months and revisit all of this. But, until then, don't deny others the ability to properly and contemporaneously document an important and evolving issue. That you might not consider 12 hours on the front of BBC (and pretty much every other major, neutral news site) sufficient for durability of this topic is irrelevant to the need to properly document. In future, with the benefit of hindsight, you are welcome to revisit. Lokiloki (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong Support The article should of course have a section mentioning her controversial tweets. Add some various sources to this section from Reason Magazine, BBC, The New York Times. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Strongest possible support - At this point, having just something here would be fine, but this is a well sourced, neutrally worded section that absolutely deserves inclusion in the article. As many others have said, it says more that there isn't something covering the controversy than if it were just biased. Thank you for the excellent proposal. Jdcomix (talk)

Strong Support This wording seems to have a lot more traction and is neutrally worded. It also includes the media response, which is the meat of this criticism. In this respect its an improvement over my wording and the previous suggestions. SWL36 (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why quoting Reason or mentioning Norton represent an encyclopedic summary rather than cherry-picked examples? Innisfree987 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Norton is relevant because the sources question why the double standard between this candidate and Norton. Same employer, virtually the same position, same offense.
 * "Back in February, the editorial board fired Quinn Norton hours after touting her as its next lead opinion writer to cover the "power, culture and consequences of technology" when old tweets she'd sent were unearthed. Norton had sent several controversial tweets, once claiming she was “friends with various neo-Nazis” and retweeting a word deemed derogatory to African-Americans."Fox News
 * "Jeong’s comments, which have drawn considerable backlash among fellow journalists on Twitter, emerged months after the Times fired another new hire, Quinn Norton, over racist and anti-gay language in her old tweets." National Review
 * Nothing is cherry-picked, sources collected and composed as the press emerged, check the timestamp on this.diff Cheers! ESparky (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - I agree that the text as proposed 'tells the story' of the controversy and why it became such a hot topic in media from the UK to Australia, as opposed to laying out a defense of the the tweets, which was the emphasis of the previous proposals. XavierItzm (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - I really do not understand why we have to go through this rigamarole by stating accepted fact - by all parties and numerous news sources. If the New York Times does not have a problem with her tweets (and Sarah herself does not deny any of them), then surely none of the editors of this article should not either. The article and talk page is now being actively WP:Disrupt by a small minority of editors who are not working towards WP:Consensus and actively deleting comments against WP:TPG Nodekeeper (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support to talk about the issue as it is notable and widely controversial and talked about but for what it is, that means explicity referring to her comments as racist as they have been called in multiple sources cited above. No self-censoring or POV here, only sources. 93.36.190.141 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This is a bio about Jeong and not a general article on bias policies. Talking about other cases, hypocrisy, or past actions are not appropriate to this biography. Besides, not all sources discuss the comparison. Let's stick to the facts about Jeong and her response. I'd leave out references to Norton. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. I would add a few more sentences even, including the BBC's description of her tweets as "inflammatory" and at least one group that has defended her (The Verge, as her former employer, might be a decent choice?). This article definitely has to say something. Oren0 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Good choice of source, well-worded, neutral.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support, it's better than nothing, and certainly better than a stripped-down version that doesn't reveal anything of substance about this issue. Lokiloki (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Lokiloki said it best: the wording may not be perfect, but it's better than the minimalist version and way better than the current silence. &mdash; Lawrence King <sup style="font: small-caps 10px arial; color: #129dbc;">( talk ) 05:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. She's already a meme everywhere for her tweets. Obviously they should be mentioned now. The proposed language is perfectly fair.Paul Siraisi (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Though there does appear to be a new definition of the word 'racist': (adjective) that which the editorship of Wikipedia agrees that Sarah Jeong is not. --Proustfala (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: breathless summations of commentary by various talking heads are not good BLP material. The stuff about Quinn Norton is off-topic for the article. As explained under {{xt|{{slink||New proposal}}}} above, we now have multiple reliable, independent sources commenting specifically on the media furore. More may emerge in the next few days; these are the sources we should use to write up a balanced summary of the event and the various parties involved, while keeping things duly weighted. Or maybe this will turn out to be a storm in a teacup. In any event, we will soon find out, so there's nothing to be gained encyclopedically by dashing something off as soon as possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Clearly the main focus of the article should be on the controversy about her tweets, nothing else about her is remotely as important. In the meantime at least something should be added, exactly what is less important as long as it properly sourced and neutrally phrased like the sentence above. MathHisSci (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose much worse than the previous proposals. w umbolo  ^^^  11:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

opposesources are from within the fray; too much detail, too close to the events. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - an alterantive proposal is below, at Talk:Sarah_Jeong. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose While I disagree with User:Innisfree987's TOOSOON concerns, which are actually what seem to be shoehorned in here, I see no reason to discuss Quinn Norton in this article. Technically, this is just an article on Sarah Jeong, not on the NYT's reactions to allegations of racism or bias. Let's stick to the point. - AyaK (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support The tweet controversy has clearly been the most important moment in her career thus far. At least some details need to be added. The sentence above is neutrally phrased. FreeEncyclopediaMusic (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support There is now a story out about how her wikipedia page has nothing on the racism issue that probably hundreds of thousands of people are talking about. The fact that there is already this level of delay in any mention of it is proof to readers that wiki is biased. GreenIn2010 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC) {{archive bottom}}

Random suggestion: wait two weeks
Only coming from BLP/N, given that WP is NOT#NEWS and we avoid RECENTISM, I strongly suggest holding off on any of the criticism of her past social media stuff for at least a week, if not two. Since the NYTimes has said they aren't changing their hiring decision, then there is no impact yet on her career so there's no need to rush to add this if it this is just a storm in a teapot. If it still is a subject of discussion then in RSes, then we can consider adding, using the degree to which it is still covered by sources. This might blow out in a week, which means encyclopedicly it wouldn't be appropriate to include. --M asem (t) 15:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose waiting. This is a subject who was barely notable before this event. Any reader visiting this page now is highly likely to be coming here to learn about this controversy, and not mentioning it at all appears to be a whitewash. While the language will not be easy to agree upon, the article has to say something. Oren0 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP is not required to be up to date, and with this being a BLP and a controversial topic, we want to make sure it is presented as neutrally as we can, which means we need the initial dust to settle to figure out how to present it. (This should be applied across all WP topics). It's not a whitewash to wait and see what the situation is. --M asem  (t) 19:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose waiting. WP is not required to block editing to an article to non-admins either. Not mentioning any trace of criticism while the iron is hot implies WP IS biased and keen on whiteknighting for somebody who has explicitly talked about the controversy herself.  Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Wikipedia is not a news source. Policy enjoins us to be fair to our subjects at all times, and this means avoiding breathlessly documenting faux scandals driven by partisan trolling. Reliable sources have already begun to emerge questioning the “critics”’ narrative here. Let's wait a week or so longer; that will allow us to take the time to put together a neutral summary of the events based on the most authoritative published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons I've elaborated at length up stream. I'd only add mine is not an ivote never to include, just an ivote to wait until we have something more settled to evaluate. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The best way to be compliant with WP:BLP/WP:NPOV is to approach the article patiently and cautiously.Citing (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, by not having any information at this point it looks like Wiki has taken a side and is supporting Ms. Jeong. Anyone coming to this page isn't looking for information about her books; the edits with non-notable information should stop and the actual controversy belongs on the page. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask the proverbial question: if there is no further coverage of this in two weeks, then the controversy was just a tiny blip on the overall radar from this person, and should not be included per numerous policies. If there still is significant debate after two weeks, then we have a better way to judge how to write it in a manner that meets BLP, NPOV, and other policies. We are not required to be up to date, readers coming here to think this is a newspaper with up to the minute information are sorely mistaken. --M asem (t) 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot disagree more strongly. You characterize this as a "blip on the radar", but the reality is that this person was not otherwise on anyone's radar. She was not notable at all before this event, and likely will not be notable afterwards. This could be the only event for which she's ever really notable. Additionally, the story is over; all you'll get now are political commentators throwing their two cents out, which is not something that belongs on Wikipedia anyway. The information is out there and should be on the page right now. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Oppose This is a standard applied to no other article. Waiting two weeks is absurd, there is no reason we cannot include well sourced and neutral information on the most newsworthy (thus significant according to WP) event of her career right now. We have many good suggestions with neutral wording that adhere to the WP:BLP policies, any one is acceptable to me, and we have plenty of support for the most recent wording. SWL36 (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it doesn't make sense to have a two week lag on current events, particularly those that have abundant sources from major, neutral publications (such as NYTimes, BBC, etc). Lokiloki (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as this seems a completely unprecedented move. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, so keeping up with current events is not our top priority.  But neither should we freeze an article for two weeks, for the sole purpose of not keeping up with current events. &mdash; Lawrence King <sup style="font: small-caps 10px arial; color: #129dbc;">( talk ) 05:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An ad-hoc policy for a fellow traveller. Ha! Where were these voices for "two week holds" when it was other people who made "inflammatory" tweets (to use the exquisitely "reconsidered" BBC term)? Sorry, but must oppose this proposed ad-hoc policy unless it is raised on the proper forums and until it is made a Wikipedia-wide policy. XavierItzm (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Edited to add the word "tweets" that was missing. XavierItzm (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We know most of the facts already they won't change two weeks from now. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not news but there is no policy to deliberately not keep pace with news coverage. Such a policy would be damaging to Wikipedia by making it less interesting and relevant for users and by discouraging edits when editors probably feel the most motivation to make them. MathHisSci (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had originally shared your view . At the time the only sources were hostile and right-wing. Eventually we heard her side of the story and from her employer. Reliable sources are now diverse and we can write a line or two. A quick search shows few new articles aside from a stray editorial or two. Enough exists to describe the controversy. Let's consider the 3 proposals above and see if we can reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support By then trolls will have abandoned the article and we'll be able to re-write it properly and include all the info about the harassment campaign she's been enduring Openlydialectic (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose On the one hand, Wiki is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia doesn't need to be up to the moment. On the other hand, most of the arguments that I'm reading here (both pro and con) are infused with partisan spin, and the idea behind waiting seems to be that one group of partisans hopes the other group of partisans will go away so that they can provide their preferred spin without opposition.  That's not a rational editing decision; sorry, but this should be resolved now, while so much attention is focused on it. - AyaK (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed content
The article currently says:

"Jeong has been appointed to the New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018. She will be the lead writer on technology."

The Politico ref is just churnalism, linking to the NYT announcement, and adds no value. We should just go with the NYT announcement. We should date that per RELTIME. We should have a bit on the subsequent blowup. So...

We do not need to go into the weeds. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

If we can agree on content and sourcing (the sourcing should be outside the fray and describing the fray - not from within the fray) we can post a "protected edit request", but we need consensus first.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think your proposal is good. That said, I don't think "conservative media" is accurate.  I just watched today's episode of CNN's Smerconish and it also had a negative reaction, although perhaps not a strongly negative reaction.  Perhaps drop both "strongly" and "conservative"?  Also, part of the controversy is that she Tweeted anti-police statements that were clearly not "counter-trolling", at least according to CNN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Surely ref 1 can be replaced with a secondary source? And I simply do not agree with putting BBC as a source. The BBC has already issued a correction, and it may change again. w umbolo   ^^^  00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would also be nice to have some counter-balance to the "counter-trolling" defense as it doesn't make much sense to fight racism with more racism, although I'm not sure if we have a source for this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not cite any "talking heads" as sources for this. We do not want commentary. No Smernish or the like.  Just reporting on facts and high level, not in the weeds. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting Smerconish as a source, but as evidence that left-leaning CNN also had a negative reaction. In any case, what do you think of my suggestions?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You brought a poor source and have suggested that we go into the weeds by having a response to the response to the response. I am not in favor of either. We summarize reliable sources, and we aim to keep this high level.Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here, I'll try again and number my suggestions so that they're easier to follow:
 * I don't think "conservative media" is accurate because there have been negative reactions from liberal media, too. Perhaps drop both "strongly" and "conservative"?
 * Part of the controversy is that she Tweeted anti-police statements that were clearly not "counter-trolling". This should be included.
 * It would also be nice to have some counter-balance to the "counter-trolling" defense as it doesn't make much sense to fight racism with more racism. I do understand that you like including this reaction, but if you check out a similar controversy of a notable person making racist Tweets, Roseanne_Barr, you'll see they do include Ambien's manufacturer's response, "While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."  So, there is historical precedence for this.
 * I hope this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Proposed text doesn't reflect concerns that the tweets were dug up in bad faith or that in context are anti-racist.Citing (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't use Salon as a reliable source on Wikipedia, they are essentially a blog and their credibility has been questioned a few times. Jdcomix (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant part of Salon article is fine for demonstrating how context reverses the interpretation of a statement. Here's another article framing this as bad-faith interpretations and part of a harassment campaign.Citing (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this content is pretty good with the exception of adding the "conservative media" part. As for the concept that this "goes into the weeds," I'd prefer if you actually gave a real Wikipedia guideline, policy, or even essay to argue against its inclusion. It's notable, relevant, cited, and does not receive undue weight. Nuke (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Independent, reliable sources that I have seen are near-unanimous in attributing the uproar to conservative/right-wing sites and personalities. The AP (also picked up by USA Today and U.S. News & World Report) and BBC cited above are among the most solid, mainstream sources we could use for current breaking news. But also see: • The Independent "After being uncovered [the tweets] quickly spread and were picked up by conservative media including the Daily Caller and Gateway Pundit websites"

• The Guardian "The response has infuriated those on the right, including Mike Huckabee and Rod Dreher, who have accused Jeong of being racist against white people ... Jeong’s experience in the last two days has highlighted the way the 'alt-right' is unearthing problematic social media posts in order to try and get opponents fired"

• The Washington Post "At right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, Breitbart and Infowars, Jeong’s tweets were skewered as 'racist,' 'offensive' and 'anti-white' ... To some conservatives, her hiring, and the subsequent defense issued by the Times, was an example of how liberals get away with their own brand of racism — against white people"

• CNN "Faced with criticism and indignation from conservatives, the New York Times on Thursday said it is standing by a new hire ... the backlash, mainly coming from the right, was matched in intensity by a show of solidarity among fellow journalists"

• Vox "The New York Times announced this week that tech journalist Sarah Jeong will join its editorial board — and the ensuing outcry from right-wing Twitter was both swift and familiar ... the alt-right used her old tweets to accuse her of being racist against white people"

• Columbia Journalism Review "Right-wing media outlets dredged up a series of inflammatory tweets Jeong sent between 2013 to 2015, in which she appeared to demonize white people ... The Times and The Verge both put out statements Thursday following the uproar among conservatives over Jeong’s tweets" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with most of the paragraph as it attempts to perform a slight subterfuge by saying "The critics characterized her tweets as being racist against white people;" Do we really need "critics" to define the tweets as racist when everybody agrees that they are. Or, is it because that they happen to be against white people, then they aren't really racist? Also, saying that they were "mostly in 2013 and 2014" ignores the fact that her twitter was active through 2017 when her anti-police statements appeared. Were those "counter-trolling" as well because of harassment? Harassment from who? I think we need to separate the so called "counter trolling" tweets from the others. Perhaps two or three sections. Her anti-white anti-male "counter trolling" tweets in one section then another section describing her other anti-police tweets at later dates. A paragraph describing her first tweets, then the New York Times response, then a paragraph describing her later twitter statements. Nodekeeper (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable, published source for "everybody agrees that they are". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You only need a reliable source for article content, not talk page comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the paragraph, its not ideal but it does the job as its pithy and is backed up with RS. The lack of mention of this global controversy is undermining trust in Wikipedia as a neutral source.  Keith Johnston (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is good, much better than "" above; I've modified it a bit to make it read a bit better:
 * Sorry if this is redundant, but someone rearranged the article and I don't think it was clear that I am going to strong oppose both this and Galobtter's versions. It makes no sense to call mainstream sources like BBC, CNN, NBC, The Guardian, the NY Times itself, and others "conservative media and social media". It's worse than misleading, it's flat out wrong. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not everyone knows what the tweets are about so a description in the form of "tweets derogatory to white people" is necessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Galobtter I would accept "about white people". I don't believe that "to white people" is supported by the sources. Otherwise your proposal is fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "of" which is what AP uses Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is just weird grammar which is why, I am guessing, you had changed it to "to". "derogatory tweets about white people" is OK...  Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good suggestion, reworded Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, the reliable sources such as BBC (which had this story on the front page for 12 hours) are not right-wing hate groups harassing her. EVERY major news organization ran this story- are you saying that every major news organization is "conservative media and social media"? No, that's just silly. The story was not about hate groups attacking Ms. Jeong, the story was that Ms. Jeong wrote horrible and racist things about white people. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The content says nothing about "right wing hate groups". How odd. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, must have seen that elsewhere. Still, it's ridiculous to start calling the BBC and CNN "conservative media" or "social media"; your proposal is just as wrong in my opinion for the same reasons. Literally every mainstream news network reported on this, not "conservative media" and "social media". For that reason, I maintain a strong oppose.
 * Support either Jytdog or Galobtter. I would add "initially" so that either reads "strongly negative reaction initially in conservative media ..." This should satisfy those who note that reports aren't limited to conservative venues. I would still prefer that both paragraphs be more terse but these are good enough. BTY, we should reframe from commenting on her defense (as some have suggested) or other tweets as these are not universally discussed. We report the essential story common to most reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is redundant, but someone rearranged the article and I don't think it was clear that I am going to strong oppose both this and Jytdog's versions. It makes no sense to call mainstream sources like BBC, CNN, NBC, The Guardian, the NY Times itself, and others "conservative media and social media". It's worse than misleading, it's flat out wrong. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This page is sprawling -- just noting here that there is an edit request below, to implement a different proposal covering this above. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Tweak of proposed content:

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Submission is evolving to bury the word "racist" from the prose, the latest version has no attribution for "Criticism of Jeong's tweets" sentence. Not mentioning the Quinn Norton firing from the same job at the same firm for the same offense is highly discussed -- Norton is discussed in both references submitted (BBC and ABC-AP), leaving the comparison out is tone deaf.  Alternate proposal (above) currently has 16 support and 8 oppose with no revisions. ESparky (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose, This is one of the better descriptions on the page, but I think there are better alternatives. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't know what further wordsmithing of this will accomplish. As I posted previously, there is no reason to discuss Quinn Norton in this article; it's an article about Sarah Jeong.  Let's get this done. - AyaK (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to say "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist" then we need to include the tweets themselves. They are clearly incredibly racists remarks and the language used strongly implies her tweets are open to interpretation, which no fair minded person would agree with. So just include the facts, all the facts, and let the readers make up their own minds. Publish her tweets. Abwillingham (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fellowships
This likely merits a mention in the article. According to the Yale release, "The fellowship brings to campus journalists from a wide variety of media outlets who have made significant contributions to their field."

Jeong was a Poynter Fellow in Journalism at Yale University for her work covering cybercrime trials.

I recommend putting this after the newsletter bit for chronological order. I don't know the significance of this other position, but she's a fellow at the Internet Law & Policy Foundry.Citing (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * How are two fellowships, that aren't notable enough to have WP articles, notable enough for bypassing the administrative page lock? Why not wait two weeks like for everything else? 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The admin lock is for policy concerns. The Yale fellowship is recognition from a major institution for significant contributions to a field.Citing (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: these are of negligible additional biographical value. Lokiloki (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A journalist receiving a journalism fellowship from Yale is perfectly relevant for a biography.Citing (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is WP:TOOMUCH purposely designed to introduce biographical fluff into this bio to out-shadow the inevitable inclusion of the most germane details about this person's bio in terms of third-party readers. Instead of delaying w/ procedural rules, and dilly-dallying w/ minor esoterica, perhaps you can help work out a way to properly amend this bio about the current controversy, vs fellowships not notable enough to have WP articles from years ago? Lokiloki (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The fellowships are mentioned in sources for all of her positions listed. Fellowships don't need to be notable enough to have their own articles.Citing (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there is already WAY too much fluffery going on here. This is not notable, and neither are the edits about her books that have been recently made to the page. As Lokiloki said, this is way WP:TOOMUCH. This edit should not be made and the edits about her book should be undone. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Moderate-strong oppose - Bordering on fluffery and isn't notable enough for inclusion, same with the book edits. Jdcomix (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018 2
The most recent wording on the twitter controversy has attracted 11 supports (assuming ESparky supports his own proposal) and just 3 opposes. The inclusion of this controversy is widely agreed on, the reliable source coverage of the event is staggering. Proposals to wait hold little water, this is not still a churning controversy- article creation about it (of which there was plenty, this being a major event!) has slowed significantly and consists mostly of opinion pieces and their takes on this event which by all appearances has taken its course. ESparky's wording and the wording of the previous proposals adhere as strictly as possible to WP:BLP.

Therefore, I make the following request: Add 's proposed paragraph after the sentence about Jeong joining the NYT. SWL36 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Moot. Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: it's unfortunate that this article has zero reference to ongoing and well-documented controversies emerging from the hire. People come here to understand what's happening; this article currently fails. Lokiloki (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the opposite of the argument SWL36's proposal is predicated on: is it ongoing or has the dust settled? That it continues to be a question is why I don't think we're equipped to write an encyclopedic summary. And many more people have made similar points than the 11-3 nose count mentioned above; and still others have objected elsewhere to this wording. All of that reflects on whether there's consensus here. Worth keeping in mind consensus is a discussion not a vote. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That a situation is evolving should not preclude substantive documentation early and often. To the extent that the "dust settles" (whatever that means), then the wording can be changed at that time. The Trump Administration is still on-going and the dust certainly hasn't settled there. Same for the Russia investigation. Should neither of those be documented contemporaneously? Ridiculous. Lokiloki (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Early and often" is just what we should not do--on all of the topics you mention. Some of them are immediately clear as having encyclopedic worth so there won't be the debate we're having here about whether tweets rate mention in a bio at all. But even when an incident clearly will have some mention, we have many policies (whole projects!) in place prioritizing deliberate care over speed in describing sensitive subjects, as the goal is to write something robustly encyclopedia, not a newsticker. Editors who want to do the latter should seriously consider a different venue (take to Twitter, apply for a journalism gig, start a podcast--the options are endless). I think there is really misunderstanding about this on the part of many people editing this page. Which is fine, I get that it's counterintuitive and that WMF does not do a good enough job explaining to readers what the mission is here--so when readers become new editors, they have understandable misconceptions. But seriously, please read the numerous policy links that have been provided throughout this page. They've been developed over close to two decades with an eye toward what volunteer editors can do successfully and what really not; wanting the site to be something else is not going change those policies (though you're welcome and encouraged to make suggestions on the policy talk pages). Innisfree987 (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 12 years, so I do not need policy guidelines from you as a means to obfuscate and WP:GAME. I do not believe you are acting in good faith. Lokiloki (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well my comment wasn't solely meant for you, but your contributions looked as though you mostly haven't edited in twelve years, in which time the site has evolved dramatically. In any case, no one has to take my word for relevant policies; I'm hardly the only one pointing to these pages. I'd ask you take care with the accusations tho please; I take it you know the policy on personal attacks. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I encourage reading WP:RSBREAKING as there seems to be some confusion as to the stability and reliability of the sources referenced in some of the proposed edits. This is the main thrust and caution within WP:DUST after all: that WP should not be a "breaking news" or "scoop" resource. Fortunately, as in this case, there are abundant neutral and well-established sources, and we can pick and choose from them to properly document this notable event. Lokiloki (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The version under discussion is Alternate proposal (section) ESparky (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support adding the best (declared as) consensus verbiage while under protection and then Jeong's motives and extraneous logic can follow under normal editing. ESparky (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this should be added to at least start to bring the article current. There is no good reason not to. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I would support any mention of the controversy since it is widely reported in reliable sources. Not to add it just smacks of censorship. Hzh (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm listed as "opposed" in the discussion of ESparky's "alternative version" because I think it should be improved but as consensus is not unanimous, it appears that his/her version has a consensus if any version does. We can still tweak it later if outstanding problems remain. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I personally think this version is somewhat misleading because it implies that only a couple of news outlets ran the story. In reality, it was a story run by every news organization and received a high amount of media coverage. Still, I am not going to oppose at this point because it is ridiculous that there is nothing at all on the page. If the only thing we can get on the page is a version so incredibly watered down that it's now inaccurate, I guess it will have to do. I would give full support if we changed  "after Fox News and the National Review reported on"  to  "after major news organizations, including CNN, BBC, ABC, and Fox News reported on" . I don't know why we have to cite the National Review when there are literally dozens more reputable news organizations we could be citing. Further, citing only Fox News and National Review makes this look like a partisan attack since both of those organizations are known for leaning to the right; in reality, EVERY news organization ran this story, including those known to be non-partisan (BBC) and those known to lean left (CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post). Ikjbagl (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support - As stated earlier by me, this is the best proposal.Jdcomix (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose for an edit request to succeed it needs clear consensus and this is far from it - my alternative and a variant of  it by Galobter at Talk:Sarah_Jeong has also garnered support. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per the oppose votes in that discusion. w umbolo   ^^^  15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This talk page looks like a rehash of the bitter partisan disputes taking place around Jeong's appointment, not like the reasoned discussion of encyclopedia editors. Simply put, there needs to be some mention that takes into account the views of both sides, because there isn't going to be one objective position that everyone agrees with. Wordsmithing this issue into oblivion is also not likely to happen, so I'm not going to argue over clauses or phrases.  But there isn't any reason to use the language referenced above, if that's the language under discussion.  It's time to move on with something reasonably neutral, as in the original Jytdog/Galobtter proposals.  (NOTE: I originally supported this, because I thought that's what was under discussion.)  - AyaK (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the most appropriate thing might be an RfC proposing some versions.  We should have clear consensus on whatever gets added... Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this; the more of this thread I read, the less clear it is what everyone (including me) is supporting in those votes. - AyaK (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose no idea why this proposal quotes the entire headline of a Reason blog article, or why it is so supported, when we have multiple high quality sources that we can summarize as Jytdog has done and I've revised. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * now that there is a new consolidated discussion I suggest this specific edit request be closed as "no". Once consensus is reached that  proposal can be edit requested. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons given under above: too detailed, sources too close to the event, strays too far from actual subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

note about closing sections
I am in the process of closing sections that are done or where they duplicate existing sections to generate actual content. In my view these sections should be archived as the page is becoming unmanageable. If anybody disagrees with the section closings by all means revert me. The intention is just to help people focus on where the actual content discussions are.

I won't do the actual archiving but suggest that admins watching this page do so. Also it would be useful if admins would close (with the "archive top/bottom" tags) answered edit requests to help folks be able to see what sections are "active"more clearly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly support closing and archiving those sections. The repetitive "add something about the controversy" sections only clutter up the page and hinder constructive discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure an involved non-admin should be doing this. In any event, I reverted where it did not seem appropriate. XavierItzm :::(talk) 15:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed Lokiloki (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good plan. I'll start manually archiving section where either (1) the discussion has closed, or (2) are not focussed on proposing improvements to the article. If you believe I've made an error,just bring the issue to my talkpage (so as to not further clutter this page with such meta-issues) and I'll be happy to resurrect archived sections for any borderline cases. Abecedare (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you archived the Anti-Police section which I had reverted as per request from Jytdog and to which he had commented that not a forum and something to the effect that specific content proposal... this back and forth of it within seconds of you archiving it, result in me having to open a new section with a specific content proposal to be added/appended to the consensual text that's under discussion for the 'racist tweets' (as formulated by the BBC) section..


 * XavierItzm (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I resurrected it already (see below). Does that work? Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. The archived discussions can be seen here. Please don't add comments to or edit that page yourself (if you are an involved editor). Instead ask me or any other admin for help, if you want to revive a discussion from there. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, continuing what I did above, i have closed the initial proposals since there is a new section consolidating all the proposals, seeking to reach consensus on the "tweet" content. Again, this is to focus discussion to facilitate consensus building. And again feel free to revert.  Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)