Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 2

Closing line - minor ammendments
User:Galobtter and others watching this page...

I'd like to propose 3 minor ammendments to the closing line in the article. I see this as a pure NPOV alterations to improve the general reader's understanding. This, I hope, can achieve consensus rather quickly. Currently the reads: "The Times said that it had reviewed her social media posts before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts."

1) "said" should read "stated" given the response was a statement and said implies a personal reply.

2) The Times statement reads as if it stands alone in this entire incident and not in response to the incident. It would make sense to add a prefix to the sentence along the lines of "In response" or "In response to the incident"

3) The Times response was to explain/justify their hiring decision in wake of the conservative criticism (and the media coverage that followed). They didn't just state that they "dont condone" but that while they dont condone... ultimately their hiring decision stands. I'm not sure best way to word this but the point/stated intent of their statement is currently absent from the present page.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Small article correction
Could someone correct this sentence near the lower half of the article -- capitalize the word "The" as in The New York Times and correct the link to The New York Times:

"Jeong has been appointed to the New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018."

So it reads like this:

Jeong has been appointed to The New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018."

Thanks! Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

""Sarah Jeong is joining The New York Times editorial board. Read more in this note from James Bennet, Katie Kingsbury and Jim Dao""
 * Support: Capitalizing the "The" is how The New York Times stylizes itself. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the current version is just proper syntax. The fundamental subject of the phrase in question is "the board", while the name of the newspaper is a descriptor for the subject. So, you can rewrite the phrase by saying " the editorial board of The New York Times", but if you want to put the name of the newspaper before "editorial board", the proper "The" has to get dropped because the sentence wouldn't work the other way. For example, substitute the actual name for "XYZ". You could say "she was appointed to the XYZ editorial board", but "she was appointed to XYZ editorial board" wouldn't make sense. Though it would sound exactly the same in this case, the proposed change would not be correct, in the exact same way the latter example demonstrates. To use the full name of The Times, the correct rendition would have to be "The New York Times 's editorial board". That's my understanding of how this should work, though I haven't delved into textbooks or anything. S warm   ♠  18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See their own printing of it here, where they do capitalize the "The": https://www.nytco.com/sarah-jeong-joins-the-timess-editorial-board/. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Maybe I’m wrong. HuffPost says “The New York Times’ editorial board”. New York Post quotes “The Times” but uses “the Times” in its own voice. National review uses the same syntax as this article currently does. Vox, The Washington Free Beacon and Salon use a lowercase “the” as well, and these different renditions have all presumably made it past professional editors. Perhaps RefDesk can provide a definitive answer as to what the most academically correct wording would be, because journalistic writing does not seem to provide a clear and definitive answer. That, or there is no definitive correct version. Honestly not sure. S warm   ♠  20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal/question
In my tentative read, in the above survey the rough order of support is 2>3>1 at this moment. Since the current article protection is set to expire very soon, my proposal is to implement option 2 for the moment and let regular (or possibly semi/ec-protected) editing resume for the rest of the article. The survey can continue to run in the meantime and can be formally closed by another uninvolved admin (ie, not me) once the discussion has wound down and that can decide what the stable consensus is. The only alternative I can see is extending the protection till the final consensus is reached (which may be a few days) and not have anything in the article about the tweet-controversy till then, which I don't believe is anyone's preferred choice. Can anyone think of a third alternative? Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding option 2 in for now and then changing it later. We just need to get something on the controversy essentially as soon as protection ends. Jdcomix (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in disagreement. Why considering only a survey that was put up only very recently, instead of all the contributions added in the full proposals above? XavierItzm (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So what's the alternative you are proposing? Extend the full-protection? Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think extending the full-protection may not be a bad idea. Since this is such a short article, there aren't too many edits that really need to be made overall, and those that need to be can be implemented by admins after discussion here; I predict there being a lot of editing but the sum total to be lot of edit warring and BLP violations and not much actual improvement to the article for the next few days. At-least ECP would probably be helpful to stave off those BLP violations. Of course, waiting a bit to see what happens and quickly imposing things as needed is fine too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd get a very different result if you considered all the contributions; the survey is the only thing that actually tries to compare the options. Since there seems quite an agreement to put something in even if there isn't agreement what exactly, I support Abecedare's solution (in my obviously highly biased opinion) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, so people contribute to something over a relatively long period, !voting on it, then a "survey" is put up and this is license to ignore all the previous people's work?  I think you would need to count each !vote from both parallel processes.  Tedious?  Well, should have thought of that before starting the second one. XavierItzm (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't ignoring all that work, the survey is the conclusion of that work, putting up the final options as decided from that work. It is hard to figure out if people would prefer Option 2 over Option 1 from those previous !votes, with many being from before even Option 2 was proposed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, in interest of time, I've done the following:
 * Implemented Option 2 for now ie, till the above survey winds down and is formally closed (I changed 'regretting to 'regretted' and corrected the BBC headline)
 * Imposed an discretionary editing restriction that editors are not to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion on talkpage.
 * And by discussion, I do mean establishing consensus. Violations of the above restriction may lead to immediate blocks and/or topic bans. If there are any objections, my actions can be appealed at WP:AN, but I hope this proves to be a satisfactory (tentative) compromise for all involved. Abecedare (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would enforcing that restriction on editing the content on the tweet controversy be exempt from edit warring restrictions (that is often the case with these sort of restrictions requiring consensus for changes..)? Also I think you'd see imposing semi-protection would already be extremely sensible. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC) (added the missing "not". Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Yes. Reverting editors who are not abiding with the restriction, would not count towards 3RR (use common sense though, and please don't try to come up with some clever ways to game this exemption). Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if you revert editors ignoring the restriction, please drop a BLP DS alert on their talkpage (ie, blp ) if they haven't received the notice within the past year. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I assume that's supposed to be "not to edit". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! :) Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I oppose this idea. I don't think it's a satisfactory resolution of the problem, and generally it is my opinion that the page is being handled poorly. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018
Sarah Jeong is infamous for her strongly anti-white tweets, which many interpret as being racist, as well as tweets suggesting "kill more men" and "kill the police." Despite this controversial history of inflammatory tweets she was hired to the Editorial Board of the New York Times where she will be able to write as an editor without specific attribution of her comments. 73.42.35.173 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read upthread which will reveal that this discussion is in progress.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the current version
This came in the middle of a discussion, before opposers had time to oppose every single FPER filed. I propose that the current version is removed. w umbolo  ^^^  20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. w umbolo   ^^^  20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I removed it myself, see the edit summary for the explanation. The next time someone adds it without consensus (since Abecedare admits consensus is required) I will report it to ANI itself.  w umbolo   ^^^  20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're removing per BLP, you have to show that it is problematic in someway; while we certainly must get BLP articles right, the material inserted scrupulously follows V and etc.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:NOCON, if there is no consensus on BLP content, it has to be removed. w umbolo   ^^^  20:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support Wumbolo's comment on this. This article is insane, and the behavior of almost everyone here is abysmal. Might as well delete the damn page at this point, this is outright shameful. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose obviously. While there is no deadline, I don't see anything wrong with helping our readers by describing the controversy while they are going to be most looking it up, and this currently has the most support in the survey. Of course, if something different gains consensus, then the text can be changed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe has the "most support" but that does not indicate consensus. w umbolo   ^^^  20:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. See the thread Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. w umbolo   ^^^  21:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In this diff it would appear that contributing editors directly canvased an active arbitrator, even while there was an open discussion and unanswered Request for edit snapshot under discussion. Am I understanding this situation correctly? ESparky (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * not sure which arbitrator you're referring to, but fyi the list of arbitrators is at WP:ARBCOM. w umbolo   ^^^  21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps arbitrator a poor choice of words. Never mind I misread the edit summary "(text courtesy User:Jytdog and User:Galobtter))" it looked like there was an additional unannounced discussion somewhere. Regards ESparky (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not participated in any discussion about this article outside of this talk page. I strongly doubt that any such discussions have taken place, but I can only represent what I have done. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the "courtesy X" is for proper "copyright attribution" purposes since the text I was adding was not my creation. As you can check Option 2 is marked as "Jytdog's/my tweak of it" by Galobtter; hence their names were included. Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Curious to know why "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Protected_edit_request_on_5_August_2018_2" wasn't addressed before your temporary consensus determination on another submission. I thought we had an 11 to 4 consensus. What is published now came nowhere close to that. ESparky (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because in my judgment that proposal is not BLP and NPOV-compliant (additionally it has numerous grammatical errors, misformatted citations etc, but those are secondary and easily sorted issues). So I would not add it to the mainspace article myself, but given that that is a judgment call I left the request open in case another admin thought otherwise. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my intention at all, the passage started out the the opinion that she should not be fired for her free speech. This is the way most conservatives feel. The problem is that the left has weaponized the term racist and it only applies to white people.  The controversy here is Jeong's treatment compares to similar cases where the offender is white in employment related matters. As for citations, I use Yackyard, so perhaps the interface is out of date.  ESparky (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support the original idea Ikjbagl (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Major concerns with how controversy/criticism section is shaping up
While obviously Wikipedia should not be a place for axe-grinding or demonizing, I have some concerns with how the inevitable controversy or criticism section is shaping up under Wikipedia's model of reaching consensus.

The proposed texts seem to not be accurately capturing the heart of the controversy or its relevance.

First a few observations:



That last point might prove most contentious, and it's worth discussing. Other important elements in the controversy worth noting are NY Times not condoning the comments and calling them unacceptable, while standing by Jeong in terms of employment. Jeong also "deeply regretted" her comments while explaining them as "counter-trolling". Many people have rejected her excuse but it's still worth mentioning.

I hope some sensible text can be created which doesn't water down or ignore the heart of the controversy or its notable details. Please support or oppose with additional comments if warranted. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this cites any reliable sources. Please don't post any further content about any living person anywhere in WP without citing reliable sources. What we do here is summarize reliable sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'm not proposing any text and my comments are meant for discussion. I'm not involved in the editing so finding the RS would be responsibility of the editors. Thanks. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you don't understand. It is your responsibility to cite sources for what you post about a living person, anywhere in WP.  Discussion about content is anchored to sources. Always. I am not being so bold as to remove your post but it should be removed, and my comments on it with it. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, for example, I need a source for Jeong calling it "counter-trolling" even though its been cited here many times in the past days and is common knowledge? I am trying to build on what came before. If I only need RS for some things and not others then be explicit about which. I have spent much time in the past finding RS only to be told it doesn't matter anyway because of some other reason. So I'd like to see if there's merit to my suggestions before I waste a lot of time. Feel free to oppose but I'd like to hear from others before any unilateral action. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "None of this cites any reliable sources." This is the talk page, not the article and user 2600:... has posted an accurate and useful analysis. The talk page is meant to be used to develop and edit useful ideas into the article. I just do not think your criticism is valid in this instance. Nodekeeper (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Nodekeeper please be aware that BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. Talk pages are not open game for unsourced content about living people. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From your point #1 onward you have unsourced claims about a living person. Don't do that in the future. I have now redacted all of them. Don't repost them without reliable sourcing If you do that, please do it below. Please be aware that there is almost no chance that any "primary source" (like a tweet or an opinion piece) is likely to win any consensus to be used on a controversial topic like this. Please see WP:Controversial articles and please also be sure to read WP:BLP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We had a whole talk page of sourced material about Sarah Jeong's tweets between 2013 and 2017 that was hastily archived here by admin Abecedare that supported directly what user 2600:... commented about. Maybe we should revert all that back? Nodekeeper (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28: With regard to your point #3, note that a section on sex, i.e., speech against men, used to have its own section, but its title was found to be "contentious" and renamed "Talk at Harvard." So #3 is already being addressed, and you can contribute there, or not.  Note: As I don't want to have my comment likewise deleted or altered, (see warning here) I am supporting it with a citation. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems you have retracted the entirety of this great analysis as well as my commentary. While you are right to remove unsourced material not all points fall under BLP. In addition, by removing the points you prevent relevant sources from being brought to light.
 * Please sign your posts. WP:Sign You're entirely right though. Maybe we need to take it line by line and find sources for it all. Nodekeeper (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I noted if there is any part of your analysis that does not make an unsourced statement about a living person please feel free to restore it. Otherwise you should only restore it with a reliable source (as defined in WP:RS.) Wikipedia is not reddit. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request August 5, 2018
Regards, ESparky (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this tagging. This is encyclopedic content, not a newspaper. We summarize at a high level. So with regard to the "who" tag on "who criticized", we don't need to list all the individuals who criticized. I have no idea what you mean by "'Critics' does not pass the ten year test".  "Critics" here obviously refers to those who made the "strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media"  Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." WP:RS Regards, ESparky (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Summarizing reliable sources =/= WP:OR. At all. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: ESparky, the semi-protection is not preventing you from making the edit yourself; the editing restriction is. The remedy for that is to establish consensus for this or any other proposed change. is not fit for that purpose. Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of issues still with this section. First, if we are going to be so generous as to treat the NYT self-interest statement as a reason to give her the benefit of the doubt regarding racism, (a clearly defined, objective dictionary word) then we cannot include the line about "conservative media", which appears somewhat political, not to mention contrary to sources. Also, the "mostly in 2013 and 2014" seems unsure, like we are purposely omitting something. Fix that.

I propose the following changes:

Change the line: ″The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014."

To: "The hiring sparked strong public reaction after numerous disparaging tweets, made by Jeong between 2013 and 2014, began making the rounds in the media and social media."

Or a variation thereof. Bnmguy (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not "political" to summarize the contents of published, reliable sources, such as CJR, BBC News, Associated Press, Vox, CNN, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and The Independent, that attribute the backlash to "conservative media". Nor do we take a stand on whether or not anything Jeong said was "racist" according to the dictionary; we can only say, as reported in multiple published sources (not just The New York Times), that certain people saw the tweets as racist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It "appears" political (to the reader) when we subjectively decide that only conservative media had a problem with this, or to even make the judgement about wether or not a source is conservative or liberal. Like you say, that's not our job. As you can see, my suggestion would eliminate that. Your remarks did not address anything in my suggestions, but seemed more focused on proving a point somehow. There is no reason to include the "conservative" reference here. —Bnmguy (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is subjectively deciding anything. We summarize what reliable, published sources say without injecting our own biases. Where sources disagree, we rely on secondary and tertiary sources that describe the dipute from the outside. I've added a list of sources above; you're welcome to check for yourself on how they characterize the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that we shouldn't add the "conservative" statement, just like we aren't using something like, "Jeong posted racist tweets", even though valid, accurate reports attributed that to her. Let's not be selective in our standards. And yes, it is being subjective, even if we are refusing to see it. —Bnmguy (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment "strong public reaction" is a better choice of words NPOV, if you don't think the left is reacting strongly, you haven't been keeping up with this discussion and the spin doctors on damage control. ESparky (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ESparky, I agree. I'm not seeing a valid reason for the "conservative" portion to be left in either. As I noted above, Sandeboeuf isn't being consistent with his applications here. Not to mention, the articles that attribute to "conservative media" are also articles defending Jeong, which is troubling. Wikipedia needs to be balanced. This is not the place for SJW selectivism or tactics. —Bnmguy (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment We should drop "conservative." Of the two sources used in the article the AP just says "social media criticism" and then "soon after [the hiring announcement] mainly conservative social media ..." The BBC source says "outpouring of online criticism " but only towards the end does it add "Conservative critics" lodge a specific criticism. The adjective "conservative" doesn't reflect the tenor of the sources used. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some more sources on the conservative/right-wing criticism: • The Guardian "Old tweets in which Jeong ... criticized and made jokes about white people were resurfaced on a rightwing blog ... 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 Independent "After being uncovered [the tweets] quickly spread and were picked up by conservative media including the Daily Caller and Gateway Pundit websites"

• 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"

• 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"

• The Hill "the newspaper soon received strong backlash from social media and some conservative outlets after tweets emerged in which Jeong made racially insensitive comments ... The Times response comes after conservative outlets and social media slammed the paper for condoning 'racist' remarks"

• 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) 08:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not using those sources. The sources we use describe the criticism without the limiting descriptor "conservative" but only use that descriptor when discussing either the chronology ("soon after") or a particular critique. As we are not doing "original research;" we should adhere to the sources we use. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree we should drop the word "conservative" as CNN has also been critical, not just of the racist Tweets, but the Tweets disparaging the police as well as her defense that the Tweets were taken out of context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Journalists defending Jeong
Perhaps viewpoints should be added to this Wikipedia article that include content from journalists who defend Jeong and her controversial tweets such as in this HuffPost article or this article from The Verge:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-jeong-new-york-times_us_5b64c745e4b0de86f4a16ae2

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/2/17644878/the-verge-new-york-times-sarah-jeong

Thanks. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, of course some people are defending her. We already have that the NYT is defending her and continuing to hire her, I think mentions of additional people defending her are unnecessary unless we are going to add more people attacking her. WP:TOOMUCH. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are going to be a lot of opinions around, which is why we should use high quality secondary sources and summarize them, rather than citing these opinions directly Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with summarizing. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sarah was a senior writer at the Verge and her actions reflect badly upon them just as they reflect badly on the NYTimes. There is a conflict interest then. Also, Huffington Post has a history of inflammatory posts especially against whites. If you want to include defenses they have to come from neutral ground - for example Reason put out a defense of her.
 * oppose too much detail, too close to the events. We should keep this high level. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose She is defending herself and so is NYTimes. That's enough. Galestar (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Emigrated vs Migrated
Rather than see an edit war over emigrated vs migrated how about we hash it out in talk and come up with a consensus view of the appropriate word choice. Pinging   Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The visa is about the immigration side, and what allowed her to be here. So immigrated is appropriate. The surface language has gotten kind of bad which is making this harder.  Something like - Her parents came to the US as students under an F visa and Jeong's visa was under theirs. She obtained her green card in college, and became a citizen in 2017" would be more simple. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I note your "here", you even emphasise it yourself. You might be referring to where you are, but please do not treat this as an insular project.  Really not that bothered if you want to want to keep the redundant extra letters. But almost anything is better that the original phrasing of this information. Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean it's fine with me but I don't have a horse in this race so much as I just don't want to see an edit war over a single word choice. But if you want to go ahead and boldly rewrite to that version or similar I'd be fine with it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Migrated" when referring to people who permanently change country of residence is a Britishism; this is an article on an American, so we use American terms. One immigrates to and emigrates from (this is true in both American and British English), and since we are talking about the move to U.S., we use "immigrate". Softlavender (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Softlavender, the context for the word is the destination country, hence "immigrated" is best. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's a pretty clear consensus that immigrate is the appropriate word in context. Do you have any further objections to using that word?Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the edit summary of my revert, in agreement with Jytdog and Softlavender, immigrate is appropriate. I personally would also say that I find using migrate to refer to an individual person (rather than groups of people/animals) to read rather strange. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Book No Longer Available for Purchase
The article mention's her book The Internet of Garbage. I think it's worth mentioning that this book is now unavailable for purchase. [redacted per BLP] This is the link to the Amazon page where you could purchase her book https://www.amazon.com/Internet-Garbage-Sarah-Jeong-ebook/dp/B011JAV030/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 The page is still cached by Google so I assume it was deleted recently, possibly just before she was hired at the NYTimes. Notice it redirects to page not found. That should satisfy my claim that the book is not available for purchase even if this has not been picked up my any media outlets. I mentioned she failed to get rid of it though - you can find it on archive.org if you look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 17:14, 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) 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The content proposal was that we mentioned that the book is now unavailable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be correct that the book is not available anywhere - even searching ISBN 9781508018865 yields nothing.  But we need a source that says that.  A negative search result is not considered a reliable source in WP. Please do sign your  posts btw.  Just type four tildas as the end, and when you save your edit this will be converted to links to your userpage and talk page and a date stamp. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It was a Forbes eBook, from 3 years ago, and Forbes regularly discontinues its eBooks. 33 of its 45 eBook titles have been discontinued: . -- Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A chapter of the book was published in Fast Company, here. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * When a book is not a printed book but only an e-book, does Wikipedia mention it? XavierItzm (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally if an author is notable, all their books will be included, yes. There may be some exceptional cases where an author has, let’s say, self-published 100 titles and most didn’t have any reviews at all; that might become WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the editors might decide to include only the wiki notable books (WP:NBOOK). Here though, the book in question has assessed as wikinotable: Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage. So we invariably include it, yes. Probably needs a bit more description in fact. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposing minor accuracy correction to current version
For accuracy, I propose to correct the sentence "Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board and to be its lead writer on technology" to "Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology". Jeong was hired to write for the opinion side of the paper rather than the newsroom; however, the unclear antecedent in the current version of the WP entry can read as if suggesting she'll be lead tech writer for the whole paper, which is not the case. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new Wiki page: Controversy caused by Sarah Jeong inflammatory tweets
Not already having this as a section on a page for Sarah Jeong makes Wikipedia literally incredible, but this controversy is deserving of its own page, considering the massive amount of media coverage already given it. As has been noted here, Jeong is only in/famous because of her vile, hate-filled, racist, sexist, anti-police tweets - not because of her work as an author or journalist. Gorkelobb (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think it's deserving of its own article, go ahead and create it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , that would be a completely unwarranted WP:CONTENTFORK, and would be deleted very quickly. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

1) wp:fork 2) she isnt only known for this issue (otherwise you could just rename the page) I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually support this, but with a caveat. It should leave Sarah Jeong's name out of the title and instead be called "New York Times Editorial Hiring Controversy" which would broaden the article enough to include previous hire/fire decisions. Also, it would allow discussion of what to me appears to be a double standard i.e. the concept that it's acceptable to be racist to white people, but not other racial minorities, which appears to be gaining wide acceptance among those who believe left leaning ideologies. Or maybe discussion of the validity of the "outrage mob" in making hire/fire decisions. Also perhaps "free speech" issues. It would make a much better article imho. Nodekeeper (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I actually slightly support something similar – a list or category for people who were either engaged in Twitter controversies, or fired because of them. But in my opinion, "list of people who were fired because they said something bad" doesn't sound too encyclopedic and appropriate for a list, or even a category. w umbolo   ^^^  10:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support a broader version, but I agree that another article about Jeong would be too much / WP:FORK. Ikjbagl (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's potential for a broader article covering societal reaction to offensive contributions to social media. This would cover more than just tweets, and more than just raises related comments. It would inevitably mention Jeong, but also Candace Owens, Quinn Norton, Roseanne Barr and other incidents. However, this is an ambitious and almost certainly contentious undertaking so if someone else wants to go for it, go for it, but a specific article on this person and her tweets sounds too narrow.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While looking for something else, I stumbled on Online shaming, which is essentially the article I proposed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the normal way to do this would be by adding a section to the NYT article and splitting it off if it becomes too large. I also don't understanding "editorial hiring" - what does it mean? Doug Weller  talk 12:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a broader cultural moment rather than just a footnote in Joeng's life. James Damore's memo would be a good example.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have Overton window. w umbolo   ^^^  14:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well one could try but it would likely be deleted quickly.  See WP:SUSTAINED. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or blog. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIT. This goes here. Oren0 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Why the reluctance to tell readers what tweets said?
It looks to be the norm in a WP article to partially or fully quote the tweets within the discussion. This article leaves the tweets themselves in some murky realm, which can be frustrating to someone looking for information.

Although these cases are not exactly the same, it could be helpful to look at how similar controversies were handled:


 * Roseanne (see also her bio, ""controversial tweet, which many called "racist" and she later called a "bad joke"")


 * Toby Young (see also his bio, where the tweets were mentioned and characterized as "misogynistic and homophobic")

It would be interesting to compare how long it took to add mention to this article with, say, Roseanne or any comparable tweet controversy. We are often blind to our own bias, but the readers are saying that they see it on WP pages like this one, and they are not pleased.

Perhaps add the most often quoted of the tweets from the most authoritative sources, like the BBC and the Guardian.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Wikipedia is not censored. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. It's not Wikipedia's function to quote one or more of a dozen or so tweets from four years ago which were dug up and taken out of context. The news cycle about her tweets is over, and the controversy came to nought (unlike the Roseanne situation), nor did she delete tens of thousands of tweets or make homophobic tweets or sexual-harassment tweets (like Young). Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Original research. We report what reliable sources say (BBC, CNN), not your interpretation/opinion of the issue's importance. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ZinedineZidane98, please read and learn what WP:OR means on Wikipedia, in addition to reading and learning about the other two Wikipedia policies I linked above. You've already been blocked six times in four years for disruptive editing, and received a topic ban as well . Tendentious and uncollaborative argumentativeness here (for which you have already received usertalk warnings , ) can eventually become cumulatively disruptive and garner you another topic ban if you are not careful. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool story bro. But you didn't address the point: we report what reliable sources say, not your own personal opinion of what they really meant, or how important you think they are. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We are reporting what the reliable sources say; check the on-wiki text and the citations. We are also abiding by WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, which are Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please try to stick to actual arguments rather than attack the person. Threatening other users with bans simply for pointing out a weakness in your argument is a horrible MO. Please stop.  Galestar (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not Wikipedia's function to quote one or more of a dozen or so tweets from four years ago which were dug up and taken out of context" - Wikipedia's function is to report what reliable sources say, with weight reflected by them. RS chose to quote her tweets, as have prior other WP pages. I asked for an example (but received none) of a WP page where controversy surrounded a tweet but the tweet itself was not quoted. We have already explained when the tweets were posted, as well as the defense that they were out of context. I still don't see why we refuse to elaborate with direct quotations as nearly every RS has done, and as WP regularly does. It is far from "not news". I don't watch TV yet even I have heard about these tweets.


 * "The news cycle about her tweets is over, and the controversy came to nought" - "nought" because she wasn't fired? She made headlines all over the world, in a world that had never heard her name before, no?


 * "nor did she delete tens of thousands of tweets or make homophobic tweets or sexual-harassment tweets" - What is the relevance of this? I said the examples of how we've handled contentious tweets in the past aren't exactly like Jeong. But they aren't unique enough to ignore either, unless you can find a few examples (WP pages) that show that not quoting the tweets that made headlines is normal for Wikipedia. These tweets put her on the map, unlike the examples I listed. So, the tweets themselves are an even bigger part of her story than with the others.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I suggested two earlier, the "cruel to old white men" and "fire hydrant" tweets since they were two of the most widely reported. I see no valid reason to avoid giving that kind of context to the reader. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. It's not Wikipedia's function to quote one or more of a dozen or so tweets from four years ago which were dug up and taken out of context. The news cycle about her tweets is over, and the controversy came to nought (unlike the Roseanne situation), nor did she delete tens of thousands of tweets or make homophobic tweets or sexual-harassment tweets (like Young). Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't mentioned Roseanne or that other person (not familiar), but since you did I saw that on Roseanne's article her controversial tweets are indeed quoted. I think the tweets verbatim are appropriate context that only help the reader make sense of the controversy, instead of pointing at the controversy from far away. Saying the news cycle is over and nothing happened it editorializing. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia's function to report what the reliable sources say... NOT what an anonymous username (Softlavender) ranks as relative importance via analogy (Roseanne, Young) on the Talk page. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTNEWS, what you say is not Wikipedia's function; and per WP:UNDUE, there is no viable reason to quote the specific tweets directly. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No viable reason in your opinion, yet can you explain why RS would have done it? Have you read much about this story? Nearly all quoted the tweets. In this case your opinion differs drastically from RS which is problematic.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Presenting tweets stripped of their original context as well as the context provided by the published, secondary sources that we use is the opposite of giving readers "context". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable, published sources are saying that the tweets were dug up and deliberately taken out of context by people seeking to demonize journalists, and that as a result Jeong has been subjected to even more online abuse.  By including the text of the tweets in our bio of Jeong, we would clearly just be doing the trolls' work for them, in clear contradiction to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeong's original context (she says she was "counter-trolling") is already mentioned. But given NY Times called the tweets "unacceptable" and "contributing to the vitriol" and Jeong herself "deeply regrets" them I'm curious what extra context you think is needed? The tweets pretty much speak for themselves. They are the controversy, and they're what news reported on, so yes it's completely appropriate. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how we write articles; see WP:WEIGHT. Of course, since the tweets "speak for themselves", then there's no reason for anyone to even read her bio, and no reason for this discussion at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They're literally what the controversy is about. How is it undue weight to quote 2 tweets verbatim that were widely reported by dozens of reliable outlets? I'd like to hear from others not just you. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are, of course correct. No more can be said, under pain of banishment.  Cheers! XavierItzm (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. My proposal above is one of few proposals which include a tweet as an example. w umbolo   ^^^  10:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:AVOIDVICTIM indeed, but there are context concerns. Let's just call the tweets racist and call it a day.  w umbolo   ^^^  18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Jeong's recently enhanced public profile is largely down to her tweets. I don't see why some people are trying to gloss over what she said and presumably (as there were dozens of racist tweets over a period of years) thinks. --Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't see any reason not to include them. Major news organizations quoted the tweets extensively. They give context and explain what the controversy was about. Wikipedia is not a place to censor the tweets because they may be racist or difficult to read; they were part of a notable event/controversy, were widely reported on, and should be included as such on the subject's page. Ikjbagl (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Summarizing published sources necessarily means omitting detail. As you say, news orgs quoted the tweets and gave context and explanations. Unless we paraphrase entire news articles, then quoting individual tweets would give them undue weight, not to mention contribute to an ongoing campaign of harassment against a young writer. That is fundamentally incompatible with the project of writing an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose when summarizing down to a paragraph, the individual tweets become undue and it is hard to give appropriate context there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is easy to explain why experienced editors won't permanently record the tweets. To do so would mislead readers because picking comments made by someone in the past when they were trying to make a point would misrepresent Jeong's views—she opposes the kind of material in the tweets and was merely "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers". News outlets are different—they record today's turmoil which will be forgotten within a month. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose via WP:UNDUE. This would be undue weight to a minor episode in her over 100k tweet history and larger professional experience. The sources seem to agree on the characterization; the details are not needed. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No reason whatsoever not to quote the offensive tweets - clear double standards at play here. The claims of quoting what the subject stated on multiple occasions creating undue balance is utter nonsense, and confirms a clear hard left bias. Skijump777 (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The tweets were textually cited by most of the media. Wikipedia is not censored.  What's sad is that if we say that the media commented on the tweets (without citing them), people say it is unfair because we are putting what the media said about them, and if we say, OK, just paste the tweets from the media, then people say it is unfair too! XavierItzm (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Wikipedia is not censored. Also, it isn't UNDUE if reliable sources are covering it. Jdcomix (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Beyond NOTCENSORED, this is highly DUE as it seems a significant chunk of this individual's notability (from a little known tech writer to an national/international news item) is due to this twitter/NYT storm. We should of course include the subjects's response and justification.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It's not Wikipedia's job to try to make her look good. Just put her words out there (like you have done with right wing personalities) and let the reader figure it out for themselves. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Undue weight, impossible to give context.Citing (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What context? I'm sure context can be provided for whatever tweet. w umbolo   ^^^  14:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it becomes a coatrack article.Citing (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * oppose This is an encyclopedia. Not a newspaper, and although it is online and open to anyone it is not social media and not part of the blogosphere. (Parts of WP are shit and are continuous with blogosphere; those parts are lapses not exemplars). I find it somewhat remarkable that not a single person hollering SHOW THE TWEETS has suggested showing the tweets she  was responding to and perhaps in some proportion. Hm.  In any case I recommend the following to those who have no clue what she means about being trolled and counter-trolling see oh this from 2014 and this piece elaborating on that one, and this extensive report and this and this from Poynter and this from Sunday Morning Herald in Australia... that there is lots more context.  With time independent secondary sources will emerge providing analysis and discussion of Jeong in that context.  Until then, the high level summary we have is plenty for now. Woof. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you consider quoting the tweets to be "blogosphere" territory? You do realize you're including the Guardian, the BBC and any other media outlet that quoted them? What is the problem here? It's almost as if she is being protected regardless of the rules of WP, due weight and RS. That is bias - the death of an encyclopdia.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We need reliable sources discussing tweets she was "responding to". Her tweets are extensively mentioned in the news, and they can be in the article. w umbolo   ^^^  14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are btw RS discussing tweets to which she was responding and it remains remarkable that not a single person above has called for quoting them. But again we are not a newspaper. And WP:V is the minimum standard for including anything; all the other policies and guidelines also come into play when the community considers what to include and not to include. NPOV, BLP, etc.  This is all too much detail, too close to the events.  Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks like we're hiding something or being deliberately obtuse. Red   Slash  15:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Why is she even notable without the tweets' contents? And ditto the others who support.Atrix20 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the tweets were quoted, it would require several paragraphs to discuss the context. At that point, discussion of the tweets and ensuing controversy would take up a large portion of the article; far more than is appropriate per WP:UNDUE. Also per : many sources agree these tweets were dug up to harass and defame her and threaten her new job at the NYT. For those of you who seem so worried about the optics of not including the tweets in the Wikipedia article, please also consider the optics of reprinting harassment of a woman who has spoken out against online harassment and been a target of such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about optics, it's about keeping this an encyclopedia, neutral and unemotional; facts don't have feelings. Anyway, she is not being further hurt by our reporting what RS has been doing for the past week, although we cannot base our content on how someone feels. How is showing the tweets, the subject of the paragraph discussing them, harassing HER? And since when does that consideration trump recording the facts as evidenced by RS (ie, "the sum of all human knowledge")? I also disagree with your claim that it would take up too much space.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on your first point, and have said the same elsewhere. I was mostly responding to those who are worried about Wikipedia getting outside flak for how we address this. Regarding whether the content of a Wikipedia article can cause further harm than what's in reliable sources, I disagree with you; news articles tend to fade fairly quickly, but Wikipedia articles tend to remain at the top of search rankings. I don't mean to say that Wikipedia shouldn't publish sourced negative content on BLPs, we do that all the time and I support it. I do mean that we should use caution when repeating material that's part of a harassment campaign against someone. As for "since when," at least since WP:AVOIDVICTIM has been around. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the tweets are a big portion of her notability, and it is not our job to protect her from the consequences of posting offensive tweets. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article makes no sense without mentioning the tweets. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This foot dragging against simply putting reliably sourced material out there is embarrassing for Wikipedia right now. Editors should not allow the NYT or their employee, the subject of the article, to effectively censor and guide the narrative in what is clearly an embarrassing situation for the NYT. Many reliable right leaning sources are keeping this alive in the news cycle (it's not over, despite SoftLavender's somewhat desperate seeming lawyering above). Editors here seem to be taking Jeong's excuse for her racially hate filled tweets as reliable, which is a very peculiar assumption to make. It's not obvious at all that the tweets were part of a back and forth with racists, that's just the excuse she gave, without any reliably source substantiation that I'm aware of. Wookian (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not taking sides on whether Jeong's defense is good or poor. It is merely state what critics have said, how she defended herself and that her employer accepted her defense. This is what the sources write, without taking sides or critiquing who is right. Opinion writers, on the other hand, have much to say. That's not facts. Many right leaning sources are attacking Wikipedia for doing what we do, summarize reliable sources. For example: Jason from nyc (talk)
 * OK, but you didn't address the primary point here, which was "why not quote the tweets"? The contents of some of the racially hateful tweets are fully quoted in reliable sources as mentioned above. The reason given by some editors above for NOT quoting them is that Jeong's excuse is to be taken as truthful - that the tweets were part of a conversation with hateful racists, and she was replying in kind. My point is that we haven't reliably sourced any evidence for that excuse, so why not follow some of our reliable sources and just quote the tweets? You have no good argument against that, as far as I can tell. Wookian (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She's not disputing the fact that the tweets were hateful. Why do we need to present evidence when the accused pleads guilty? OK, guilty with an excuse, lame or not. But so what? These details aren't needed for our summary. There is no contention here. The summary reflects what's common to the widespread coverage in the reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In tweets like the one embedded above, Jeong appeared to be commenting on the idea that white people often believe they are being discriminated against when they aren’t. To equate “being mean to white people” with the actual systemic oppression and marginalization of minority groups is a false equivalency. But Jeong’s detractors removed this type of context, and began to circulate her old tweets in curated roundups that quickly went viral Vox
 * Jeong’s tweets, in context, clearly fit this type of rhetoric. Vox (click in -- was hard to quote this one without pasting a huge chunk of the article)
 * The alt-right is on the hunt for journalists’ heads, and their latest tactic, it appears, is to take tweets out of context and weaponize them against liberal writers. This week, the target of organized conservative trolls is tech and legal reporter Sarah Jeong Slate
 * Right-wing trolls are notorious for taking comments and jokes out of context and drumming up disingenuous outrage to target their opponents The Cut
 * But ignore the trolls you must. This includes the gleeful, snickering chuds who strip old tweets of their context and send them back out into the world. Huffington Post
 * There are plenty of reliable sources saying the tweets were taken out of context. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to question you on this at all, given that several conservative-leaning participants in this discussion have already been banned or will be in short order. But don't you see the extremely biased nature of those sources? Can't you find sources that aren't tossing around labels and dripping with disdain for conservatives? There is no way you would accept conservative sources that use similar language. Are those no sources out there that can provide context without anti-conservative invective? I get that there are some conservative editors on this page who are guilty of POV-pushing and disruption, but I trust you realize that there are other conservative editors such as myself who spend hours working to improve this site. I am quite discouraged to see the biased sources that are described above as being reliable. As a conservative editor observing the furor surrounding this article over the past few days, I feel less welcome here. Lepricavark (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What do they mean by "context"? Are those quotes even relevant to this conversation? As far as I can tell, the mitigating "context" for Jeong's remarks is the concepts of intersectional social justice. These non-NPOV sources you've cited are consistent with that, and don't really help the case when they blindly accept Jeong's excuse without giving us any juicy examples of this "context" to chew on. Wookian (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have linked the articles if you're not sure what they mean by context. You were saying that "we haven't reliably sourced any evidence for that excuse" so I have produced some. As for them being "non-NPOV", those are reliable sources and as far as I can tell none of them are in the "opinion" section or otherwise exempt from editorial review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's take the Romano Vox piece as an example. It uncritically repeats Jeong's excuse that the racist tweets were satirical responses to other racists, but doesn't give any support to that excuse. And it (like your other links) has an extremely politically biased POV that favors the left, and thus Jeong. It is hardly NPOV. It would be interesting to see a substantiation of Jeong's excuse from a reliable source, but I haven't seen it yet. Seems more like just a bunch of leftists defending their team. Wookian (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe Vox is quite regularly used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Disagreeing with a reliable source does not make it unreliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that we should not quote the tweets because a writer for Vox said they are "stripped" of context? While no one is able to give examples of this cryptozoological "context" either from Jeong's twitter account or from the Vox article or from any of the other articles? Can you explain exactly what was meant by "stripped of context"? Can you quote or link to some of the verbatim "context" that was "stripped"? Feel free to use an RS to answer this question, but kindly give the verbatim context that was stripped, not just a bunch of editorializing like in the linked articles. Note: You obviously don't have to answer my questions here. They are rhetorical in nature, and I think it's obvious that you can't answer them. However these are all important questions for WP editors deciding which sources are NPOV and which are just blindly adopting Jeong's unsubstantiated and rather flimsy excuse. Wookian (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She is an employee of Vox Media and a Senior writer for their vertical "The Verge", it says right in this Wikipedia article. Their commentary on this controversy is nothing else than protecting their employee and colleague and can't be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.85.131.154 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * This Salon article gives context for one of the tweets Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Galobtter. That's interesting, and would make a good link and/or explanatory snippet from a verbatim quote of the "white people=underground goblins" tweet in the article. Did Jeong intend to be hateful to white people in that tweet? Maybe. Per pretty much all RS's, it comes across that way, and it's not clear that the context would change this. There's still no reason to censor the tweet just to protect Jeong's narrative. Wookian (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, we should not quote the tweets unless the whole situation is explained in detail, and to do so would create an unduly long section. You asked for sources saying they were stripped of context, I've provided them, and now you're asking me to explain what the writers were saying regardless of the fact that the articles themselves explain the context. I'm not sure there's anything I can say that would satisfy your requests, since the goalposts seem to be moving.
 * No, I'm asking you to justify censorship of the tweet contents, which is what this whole conversation is about. I haven't seen any "context" which comes close to justifying censorship of the tweets, or even anything particularly exculpatory of Jeong. Maybe it's out there, I just haven't seen it. (Galobtter's link was interesting, but still nothing to write home about - so she was mad about an article that discussed scientific studies of race and IQ, it's not obvious why someone would tweet hate speech against a race on the basis of that, and it falls far short of explanatory, much less exculpatory, context. Wookian (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As for 46.85.131.154's point, I didn't realize that. Feel free to ignore the Vox sources, then, there are plenty of others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with those sources is -- except for a handful of old Tweets attacking Jeong -- they don't support her argument, which is that she was responding to specific attacks made against her on Twitter. The "context" your sources describe is an ethereal, highly POV universe where Jeong can't be held accountable for her comments because she's not white. That's a much larger issue that merits discussion, but it's not relevant in this specific "context." Scaleshombre (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, just because you disagree with a source doesn't make it unreliable. You characterize acceptance of her tweets as "an ethereal, highly POV universe", I characterize it as a reality where people are allowed to speak out against structurally oppressive groups of people even when they do so in exaggerated ways. But in the end it doesn't matter what we think, that's what reliable sources are for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PA it would seem advisable not to express agreement with Jeong's tweets against a racial group. Please criticize people's individual words or actions, not their identity? Wookian (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where have I made a personal attack? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that you have, and I hope you haven't. Some would interpret your phrase above "structurally oppressive groups of people" in the context of your remarks and the wider context of Jeong's tweets, and make the interpretation that it's OK to make negative generalizations about groups of people by race or gender. Hopefully your intent was far from that. Wookian (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's okay to criticize groups of people who have been structurally oppressive, including white people, men, and police. It is not a personal attack to say so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am offended that you are saying it is OK to say bad things about a race or gender. I will decline to state how personally your insult of whites/males relates to me, since anonymity is prized around here, but please kindly just observe WP:PA and avoid insulting entire races/genders of people. It's not necessary in 2018 and goes against WP rules for you to speak so offensively against me and others. Wookian (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Take me to ANI if you want, but I'm not going to stop saying that there are groups of people who have historically been terrible to other groups of people. If it helps, I'm white. Maybe take a history lesson instead of denying objective facts about people who share your race/gender/occupation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain the difference between personal attacks and speech criticizing systemic oppression. "Fuck Wookian" is a personal attack, while "Fuck the Police" is a great song.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Making a negative generalization about people of a particular race is bad on WP when there are editors of that race. It's WP:PA whether or not you care to admit it. It's no different than a racial slur against blacks, against Jews, Asians, etc. It's offensive no matter the race of the speaker and has no place in a civil discussion about editing an encyclopedia article in 2018. Wookian (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Boy, we really ought to rework Reverse racism if that's the case, then. There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism. Again, take me to ANI for incivility if you want, but I'm sticking with this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe what should be reworked is WP:PA to make it clear that it's OK to say bad things about the race of other editors, but only if they are white? That's the implication above. I disagree, and furthermore don't find the term "reverse racism" useful. I'd rather call it plain old "racism" whenever people make a negative generalization about a race. But why belabor the point? Looks like we've both put in our statements on this issue and I have no desire to report GorillaWarfare to the admins for their hateful and untrue racial generalizations (like all negative racial generalizations, there may be truth historically and relating to the actions of individuals, but it is always wrong to negatively generalize an entire race). Wookian (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly like to see that conversation if you propose the change to WP:PA. Ah well, I was kind of hoping you would take me to ANI so this could just be settled, but I understand you're putting yourself in a rough spot trying to argue the point. Anyway, we've been asked to move this discussion so feel free to take it to my talk page or wherever. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd do well to actually look at the page history before casting aspersions like Please don't censor this part of the discussion. Some readers might think you would want to censor it because you were caught making a racial slur against people based on color of their skin. You may retract your own ill advised (imo) comments, but please don't censor the wider discussion, which happens to be directly relevant to Jeong's tweets. I even linked to the diff above where we were asked to move the conversation. I stand by my statements and don't intend to retract them; I also am willing to move conversations without insulting those I'm conversing with when they're not entirely on topic, and I'd like you to do the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * GW, I don't know where these editors come from--so here we have another one of the "good people on both sides" variety, proclaiming equivalencies where there are none. I note that the last time this editor was around they wanted to remove "debunked" from the Seth Rich murder article. So we have #civility thrown around from behind the wall of denial--very fragile. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. She's allowed to tweet whatever she wants, RS are allowed to report on it, wikipedians are allowed to come to a consensus on it, and are then obligated -- in line with the mission of this encyclopedia -- to construct an article in accordance with said consensus. On that note, the consensus on including her tweets seems to be overwhelming. Can anyone show just cause for further delay? Scaleshombre (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree on most of this, though we do very much disagree on what constitutes "overwhelming consensus". Presumably potential closers are waiting on something a bit clearer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per GorillaWarfare. WP:UNDUE is policy and it doesn't matter how many sockpuppets show up, that policy isn't changing.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support If we don't mention the tweets, we're not doing our job. It was mentioned by most sources, and so should Wikipedia (if we claim to neutrally summarize sources). Kleuske (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support If it was a couple of tweets a decade ago then the argument to not include them might would be valid. But let's be honest, the tweets span a period from 2013 through 2017 and there are a large quantity of them. They are consistent in what they say, and show what the thinking of the author of them clearly is. In addition, most every news source is doing so. Nodekeeper (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:NOTCENSORED. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * see also WP:NOTFREESPEECH, since that's basically your argument. w umbolo   ^^^  21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Update Looks like as of now 18 support (including petrarchan47) and 9 oppose, unless I missed someone. It's about 2-to-1. I'm still suggesting the "cruel to old white men" and "fire hydrant" tweets be quoted verbatim. Both were standalone tweets (not replies to anyone) and require less context, or no additional context since Jeong's explanation of "counter-trolling" is already in the article. Both are fairly self-contained thoughts and were two of the most widely reported. Others like "CancelWhitePeople" are rather vague or ambiguous, though I'm not completely opposed.

The arguments for and against I'm seeing now are just being rehashed from previous days, so it might be time for someone with edit privileges to update the article. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVOTE. Perhaps someone will come along and close the discussion shortly, but it's only been open for 15 hours or so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support The version that is currently up was instituted after a day of discussion and reads as remarkably sanitized. The paragraph that is there provides ample context, linking the most commonly quoted tweet "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," (Fox) is a clear case of WP:NOTCENSORED. She said some things that sparked a visceral reaction and a heated debate about racism and social media backlash. Not including what she said and leaving in the passage that dismisses this as a right-wing smear campaign would say a lot about which POV wikipedia supports. SWL36 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support per WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, she became notable for her Tweets. So why not include them? AG47  Talk 21:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to respond to the repetition of WP:NOTCENSORED -- no one opposing quoting the tweets has said anything about not quoting the tweets because they are offensive. No one.
 * For all the many new folks here expressing a !vote (which is a "!vote" not a "vote") please do see WP:CONSENSUS and how it is evaluated in Wikipedia). The policies and guidelines aren't memes. They actually have meaning. Do see WP:CLUE. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , There was very little consensus for the current version of the article in all of the previous discussions on this talk page. It was instituted because it had more votes when the mods felt like they should add something to this article. Past discussion did not agree with the labeling of this controversy as a product of right-wing social media outrage; this is blatantly obvious because those active in those past discussions are here arguing against labeling the controversy like this. These are not editors voting without reasoning, this proposal has drawn significant discussion, and that discussion cuts against the status quo. The article at the moment is deeply flawed, and should be changed. SWL36 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my understanding, the version now up was not the proposal that had the most votes. I am reading about this in an article online discussing the edit war and bannings/indefs that surrounded the present paragraph. I won't link to it, but perhaps someone here can walk you through the story. Or this might help.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog has a point. Editors shouldn't be blindly citing policies and guidelines without understanding them or how they apply to this specific instance. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure WP articles can always be improved. This specific suggestion is not an improvement in my view and in the view other very experienced editors. I do fully understand that a bunch of people find this matter of old tweets to be Extremely Urgent; this urgency itself is an expression of an incorrect understanding  of Wikipedia just as trying to meme-ify "NOTCENSORED".  Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Our job as encyclopedia editors is to provide an informative and educational article about this topic. Readers wanting to learn more about this controversy are going to want to know exact what she said.  I know I would.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, write an article on the topic. Otherwise, it is not WP:DUE here, particularly given that she was merely "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers". Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: She alleges she was merely "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers." Her claim should be included in the article, but not in Wikipedia's voice. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The closer should be someone with sufficient experience to understand that WP:NOTCENSORED (the most popular ILIKEIT support reason) is not relevant to this discussion. NOTCENSORED means, for example, that a sex article might discuss gritty details or show explicit pictures. It does not mean that every factoid must be inserted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Actually WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant to this discussion. Censorship relates to more than just obscenity, there is also political censorship. China's censorship of Tiananmen Square is not about the graphic gore of all the killing, but rather about political ideas people might get if they were exposed to certain inconvenient raw facts. Similarly here, a politically favorable treatment of Jeong's tweets would not include verbatim quotes, but would censor those since (as our best RS's recognize) the tweets are quite inflammatory. While some editors arguing "oppose" here may have only the purest motives, I agree with many above that WP:NOTCENSORED is sufficient reason to nip in the bud any attempt to sway the article with a non-neutral (and censorious!) POV. Wookian (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, that is totally wrong. Here is the correct situation: in a discussion, an editor might say "that should be omitted because it might shock some people" (or it's immoral, or should not be seen by children, or similar). The response is NOTCENSORED which means that articles do not omit encyclopedic information for the kinds of reason mentioned. The situation here is quite different because no one is arguing that the tweets should be omitted because they are shocking etc. The tweets should be omitted because they would mislead readers by presenting a false picture of the subject—a false picture that could only be corrected with copious explanations that would make the topic WP:UNDUE for this short article. Try again in three months if something other than indignation has actually happened. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken here. What do you think political censorship would look like if it was happening on this article? Would editors show up and say "Hey everybody, let's censor this article because it would shock people?" No, of course not. They would show up and think to themselves, "Wow, it could actually affect the midterms if we put these messy fruits of intersectional social justice out on Wikipedia. I don't trust people to interpret this the way I want them to." And then such political censors would do things like keep the tweets off the page or say "let's table this for three months" when the consensus went contrary to their preference. Not saying every editor thinks that way, but it would be naive to fail to recognize the strong temptation and likelihood that some editors are doing that here. We need to protect the article from political POVs and follow our best RS's like WaPo by quoting the tweets verbatim and trusting readers to see RS'd information, not (implicitly) censoring it. Wookian (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please try to keep the soapboxing off the talk page. Talk pages are not a platform for users' own political analyses. We are writing a biography of a living person; such biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Multiple published, independent sources suggest that the tweets were taken out of context. As such, their inclusion here would violate due weight. See also WP:NOTFREESPEECH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't read or notice what we were discussing in this thread. I was not soapboxing, rather I was explaining precisely why we should not reject/discount many of the "Support" statements above that reference WP:NOTCENSORED, as an editor above had claimed the tag was used improperly/irrelevantly. As such, I was supporting the clear consensus that is building around inclusion of the tweets. You appear to disagree with that consensus, which is fine. There's the edit link - by all means, please continue to express your views. Currently the consensus seems to be building around including two of the tweets that were posted without being part of any exchange on Twitter and as such, are not entitled to any more context than Jeong's excuse. See the end of this section for more details, thanks! Wookian (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't see why is soapboxing, then you may not be competent to edit such a contentious topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is useful to air various sides of the argument and compile relevant sources, but in order to make actual changes to the article someone will still need to propose specific language and then gain consensus for its inclusion. I am spelling this out since it may not be clear to many of the newer editors participating in discussions on this page. Abecedare (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Abecedare. I find the proposal in the "Update" just above to be even handed in terms of following the usage of verbatim tweets in the RS's. It avoids context concerns by only including two specific tweets that are notable in their treatment in the RS's and also lacking in context aside from Jeong's excuse which is already well described in the article, so not really subject to objections about context. Wookian (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what Update section or proposal you are referring to (its a long page!). Can you please provide the link to the section? Abecedare (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Responsive to Abecedare's admin note... I would suggest that the Support side has both a clear numerical advantage and has articulated a clear encyclopedic case for following the examples of the Washington Post and others by quoting the tweets verbatim. Do any of those who voted "Support" above disagree with the specific proposal in the Update somebody posted above? Here is a copy for convenience:  Update Looks like as of now 18 (now 21 I think) support (including petrarchan47) and 9 oppose, unless I missed someone. It's about 2-to-1. I'm still suggesting the "cruel to old white men" and "fire hydrant" tweets be quoted verbatim. Both were standalone tweets (not replies to anyone) and require less context, or no additional context since Jeong's explanation of "counter-trolling" is already in the article. Both are fairly self-contained thoughts and were two of the most widely reported. Others like "CancelWhitePeople" are rather vague or ambiguous, though I'm not completely opposed.
 * Unless we see contradiction from Support-voters, seems like there's consensus for this, however as Abecedare noted, somebody has to frame it into a specific edit proposal. Wookian (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus does not come before a proposal and is not vote counting. See WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:POLL. Again, I'm spelling this out so inexperienced editors don't end up violating the edit-restriction, under the good-faith but mistaken belief, that they have consensus for a change. Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining Abecedare, and I certainly ain't touching the article without clear consensus. However, I'm hoping that that really long list above of people's registered Support/Oppose statements above are not wasted. If they are, then I hope I'm not presumptuous in being disappointed in admins for allowing this thread to advance so far without anyone's "Support" statement counting for anything. If you are saying that there is no possible edit that can fulfill the "Support" statements above ex post facto then OK, but I would respectfully disagree. Wookian (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I can propose a pretty straightforward change. Someone with edit privileges will have to implement it.

Original: The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic.

Update: The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. One widely reported tweet read "oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men." Another took issue with "dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants." Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic.

This could be a starting point at least, then further discussion can isolate what problems remain. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd neutralize the language with the second tweet. Maybe make it replace "another took issue with" with "A second tweet read: ...". I think just quoting the cruel to white men tweet conveys the nature of these tweets well enough, but I am not opposed to both. I think someone else should make the edit request that can frame it a bit more neutrally. I can try my hand at it in the morning if we don't have a solid request up by then. Its critical that the edit is as neutral is possible so discussion can focus on whether it should be included and not on whether the words around the quote are appropriate. SWL36 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "A second tweet read" is fine with me. Thanks for trying tomorrow. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support my proposal to add full or partial tweets for the sole reason that it is in keeping with how RS has handled this story; it is in keeping with NPOV; and to my knowledge, this is how Wikipedia has handled all past similar stories. Even The Atlantic, 'defending' both Wikipedia and Jeong, had no problems quoting the tweets, 'without' the use of copious explanations or extended prose.
 * And, for those interested in this story, please know what we are really discussing here. Some media outlets have categorized this as a few tweets in defense. The most reliable source would be the tweets themselves, along with Sarah's own words in her defense. Here are the tweets in question. In my opinion, no media outlet has given the true scope of this fair coverage. https://twitter.com/i/moments/1025792822467801088   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note/Suggestion Per the admin Abecedare, all the "Support" statements above, while I personally think they reflect a strong consensus, nonetheless cannot be used to trigger an edit to the actual article. As such, I suggest that this section be closed, and that both suppor-ers and oppose-ers visit the new section below, read the proposed edits, and register their constructive feedback: Talk:Sarah_Jeong. Seems like the next step. Wookian (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Proposal_to_include_quotes_in_the_article   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jytdog et al - but also this looks pretty clearly like editors with an axe to grind against a public figure based on her political leaning, and as such should be inappropriate for Wikipedia from an WP:NPOV standpoint on top of everything else.Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Some of Jeong's tweets are a key element of her notability, and their exact wording has been widely covered and picked apart by many RS from all possible angles. It's hard for readers to make sense of all this coverage without seeing the meat of the matter. — JFG talk 00:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)