Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 3

Biased article

 * I just read this article and to reverse several issues. I am a "strong" supporter of being careful about content on BLP's and that references be of a higher quality. I am also a "strong" supporter in an encyclopedia not being steered one way or the other by well-meaning editors (left, right, liberal, or conservative) that ends up resulting in a "junk article". I actually think that "if" an editor or editors cannot be "fair" and present any two sides of a topic or controversy as reported in reliable sources according to "due weight" (balance), neutrality, and other policies and guidelines that supposedly have the purpose of creating good quality articles, they might consider editing in another area possible by persuasion if necessary.
 * I do not follow "tweets". I ran across information about the subject and controversy concerning a supposed previous "tactic", where she made derogatory remarks. I Googled her name and there was in fact several news agencies I read through that carried information so I "looked her up" on Wikipedia. My first reactionary thought was that the article leans in one direction so I looked at more sources, to gain some perspective about "sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media", since it was "vague" as to "which" conservative media and "social media so I looked at more. I was certainly shocked when I realized that Wikipedia talk pages and editors comments are now subjected to media news when I read the headline ACTIVIST WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FORBID ANY MENTION OF SARAH JEONG’S RACIST TWEETS IN HER PAGE. That article refers to remarks she used as "anti-white, anti-man, and anti-police tweets". SO now Wikipedia editors are again being hauled before the "court of reporting land" as being biased or protective. It should go without saying that even if corrected there will be no positive update.


 * As a reader I expect to see relevant content, be it right, wrong, or indifferent, but assuredly reliable sourced concerning controversies. I didn't look to see if this was a "right-wing" or "conservative" news media, what the circulation count is, or investigate the "editor" that is actually a news reporter getting a "scoop". I was, and still am, shocked that Wikipedia, with all kinds of policies (including the fundamental principles) concerning neutrality, made headlines as leaning so far as to be "out of scope with reality", appearing in media as attempting to whitewash important information.
 * Are we more concerned with making sure only "conservatives" are portrayed as being incensed? Are we using BLP concerns to "cover up things", or water them down so much as to be biased in another direction, appearing that Wikipedia supports (partially reports so watering down) someone that has used derogatory and inflammatory comments she "regrets as past failed tactics"? If it is reliably sourced, as far as I know, and we document what has been "published", there will be no BLP issues and we should fairly present "both sides".
 * I DO NOT support that "tweets" be use verbatim just to "show" the vulgar language of the subject unless it is totally necessary in the context of the article (and because Wikipedia is reportedly uncensored) but something needs to be done. To me, the subject being a reporter does allow the "dredging up" of past actions when it is brought to light in reliable published sources. Wikipedia needs to stop being biased by using words like conservative, liberal, left-wing, right-wing, or any other descriptive terms to "identify" news media positions solely in an attempt to decide if they are not reliable or can be excluded because they "might" be considered conservative and unreliable. REALLY! SO if a news agency is considered liberal it is alright? If a news agency is "state owned", considered a propaganda media, or does not have the required editorial oversight we usually consider it reliable and just present "both sides". I think I have seen aljazeera used so that is debatable, however, we "should not" deem a news agency as unreliable "just because it might take a position we do not like". Information relevant to an article should not be unduly restricted. "IF" there are opposing views Wikipedia is reportedly required to fairly present both sides.
 * The subject giving defensive reasoning supporting that these accusations were just a failed tactic, does not justify burying them. Maybe it was a "failed tactic" but maybe the subject is actually prejudice, and biased, and being a writer able to employ damage control. If not fired the employee will take the stand that they do not necessarily support or agree with the position of a writer. Now we have a major newspaper hiring a reporter that "may" not report fairly and in fact use the position to exploit these "failed tactics" getting them right the next time, and Wikipedia actually guilty of supporting this. Hiring biased writers is likely done every day but when it is a controversy in news media" we are supposedly obligated to cover both sides. When content states: ''"Critics characterized her tweets as being racist", the box is open. critic, and certainly what statement? Wikipedia can not attempt to be fair (that neutral thing) when opening a box, and cherry-picking what should be pulled out and presented. "IF" the subject made comments about men, white men, or the police, it is editorially responsible that content cover this. Not just that "her critics" (particularly conservative media and social media) consider remarks racist thinking that will suffice. I do not know the woman, and have never before read about her, so would not be considered a "critic". I feel this wording is portraying that only her conservative leaning critics would be incensed?
 * I do not plan to edit this article. I do not support using "tweets" as sources but if reliable sources mentions controversies it should not be "watered down" to the point of being biased or protectionary. If editors go against consensus or there are BLP concerns then an admin should look to see if editor sanctions are needed. Discretionary sanctions on a "Start class" crappy article, potentially used as a weapon, might be a cause of what I consider negative publicity. How many objective and "fair" editors are going to shun editing when "one admin", that "could be" biased one way or the other, can administer sanctions. In my opinion it severely and unnecessarily restricts Wikipedia. The current wording falls so short of any good editing that it would need a rewrite which would mean endless battles (look at this pages history) to even correct biased or substandard content. This actually means that how the article is has been "accepted" by consensus being the editors that has hung around. Anyone else will not be accepted as a new set of eyes but an intruder trying to screw with consensus AND subjected to possible discretionary sanctions, which I feel does not need to be on the article, as there are too many other ways (consensus, dispute resolution, ANI) this page can be "watched", or "protected". It seems to me that Wikipedia is relegating the article to a biased barely out of stub piece of a joke. It is colored and covering the top of the article in edit mode: "You are not permitted to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion and consensus on talkpage, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page", as well as: "If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned". Sanctions are certainly sometimes needed but I cannot see being needed on this article. I hope involved editors will revisit this issue of branding news media outlets and using partial content. If there is verifiable and reliable published sources with with derogatory information on a subject it should be covered fairly with balance (but not partially and biased) as I am one of those that would not have known about her but for this information being revealed. Have a nice day.  Otr500 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And herein lies the fundamental problem with Wikipedia and very specific, very controversial articles like this one.... for the most part, it is only the most hysterically biased editors who will bother sullying themselves with edit-wars and ludicrous wiki-lawyering over something so trivial... while neutral, disinterested editors like yourself, who conduct yourself with honesty and decorum, would prefer not to wrestle in the mud with the proverbial pigs. And so we have 4 or 5 editors holding sway over well over a dozen, because one of the 4 or 5 is an admin and has frozen the article to his/her preferred version, and threatens to block anyone who disobeys his/her instructions. Temple of the mind indeed. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that an editor with 10 years experience was not simply unaware, but actually shocked that the content of Wikipedia talk pages is discussed in Media News. How is this possible?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Article proposed for deletion
Time to put this baby to bed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * * KEEP. Why would anybody want to delete this WP:NOTABLE article? That would be just plain ridiculous. Castncoot (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong vs. Naomi Wu
I can't fold this into the article now, but it's depositive. https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 kencf0618 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw this unfold on Twitter a while back so I know what you're referring to. There's not really any coverage in reliable sources, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted, but just in case, we've got the basics here. kencf0618 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we have Wu's allegations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The source provided is a blog, what the editing community calls a "self published source" or SPS. See WP:BLPSPS. We cannot use it.  We've got nothing. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very interesting article, but without independent RS coverage would not merit inclusion in the article (or even be includable per WP:BLPSPS) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For those editors that are confused as to what is going on here and do not know the backstory, this video explains it in a very succinct, lucid, and clear manner. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Neutralize a single sentence
This was posted above, but not under its proper heading for votes.

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 on social media."

Neutralizes the language, remains accurate, and won't appear biased. —Bnmguy (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As a side note, those advocating for keeping in the controversial "conservative media" part have given a number of sources for doing so. However, the vast majority of articles do not use the qualifier, and those that do are injecting an opinion as they offer to sources in the articles for the assertion. Wikipedia has a responsibility to be accurate. Articles with consensus of opinion aren't necessarily indicative of accuracy. This proposal seeks neutralization as a solution. It is no less valid or accurate after the edits. —Bnmguy (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Alert: The Daily Caller is trying to influence this Wikipedia article

 * NOTE: The Daily Caller has alerted its readers about the article and is encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets, etc., in the wiki article: . So this article definitely needs more eyes/admins/protection, and weeding out (or blocking) of SPAs, newbies, and POV warriors. Softlavender (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it just needs to be an intelligent, well-written and encyclopedic article rather than a call to WP:BITE any newcomers, that only feeds the drama. Assume WP:GOODFAITH is our mantra. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Have they actually explicitly encouraged it? Unless I've missed something it looks like they're reporting on the article and giving their opinions on what should be included, but it doesn't look like they're specifically encouraging people to meatpuppet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like they are not calling for a fight, rather reflecting on the ridiculous state of the article and its talk page. This is a person who is notable for a single event, and a handful of editors insist this thing is not in fact noteworthy and fight any attempt to include a neutrally worded version of the event.

Will some people read that article and come here? Probably. Will SPAs who post "why does article not say she is a racist?" have much influence on the final outcome? Probably not. There should not be a mass culling of newbies in this section because they are unhappy with WP's coverage of Jeong. Almost everyone but the handful of people who supported the current version are unhappy with this article. SWL36 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Examples of the racist Tweets should be included in the article regardless of who is making the argument. As for newbies, we should assume good faith, be welcoming and help them understand Wikipedia's rules and how we write articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * – consensus does not require a majority. Please see WP:POLL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll argue until I'm hoarse: this version does NOT have consensus. It is, according to "a provisional stop-gap." It was instituted because the lack of coverage on the controversy was glaring and was added because the results of one proposal (of around 10) tilted in favor of the current option. All you have to do is look at the discussion in the last day; the currently version is hotly contested and NOT CONSENSUS BY ANY DEFINITION. Current polling and discussions oppose the current coverage at a ratio of around 2:1. SWL36 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone is aware of that. There is a section above where various versions are being discussed; some consensus on one of those, or perhaps one that has not yet been proposed, needs to be arrived at. Or perhaps consensus will gather around some specific tweak as is being discussed in the section about removing "conservative". Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SWL36, you are right that about the current version only being the one that had tentative/provisional consensus at the time the article's protection expired. Since more than a day has passed since then and the participation in the survey designed to determine the stable consensus seems to have settled down, I have asked above, if it is time to formally close it. Let me know if you (or others) would prefer to let the survey run for some more time. Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To SWL36: Yes, but is everyone aware that the editor who chose the current version did it after a 155-minute poll of editors who happened to be online during those 155 minutes? XavierItzm (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I pointed out earlier there was criticism on even lessor known conservative websites (i.e ). I don't think it matters because veteran editors of diverse political views are still committed to an accurate summary of reliable sources. I see the usual push and shove settling on a fair representation of the salient features of the story. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * They aren't even picking a fight though. And this could be dangerous because this could lead to us blocking anyone you disagree with, which isn't going to happen. Jdcomix (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some other news sources are doing the same.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/wikipedia_caves_permits_a_tiny_mention_of_sarah_jeongs_famous_tweets_on_her_wiki_page.html https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/far-left-editors-at-wikipedia-refuse-mention-of-sarah-jeongs-seething-racism-on-her-bio-page/39.41.80.213 (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Add "Tweet controversy" subsection or section
I think given the notability of the controversy at least a subsection under "Career" titled "Tweet controversy" is called for. Thinker78 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:RECENTISM and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We should have some kind of subsection that delineates it from her overall career -- "Tweet Controversy"; "Controversial Tweets"; etc. BTW, the recentism argument is pretty ironic, given that those tweets will still be around long after her career is over. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you've got a crystal ball, that's something we should judge after considerably more than a week or two has passed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One wonders how WP:RECENTISM is to be applied in the case of the current inclusion of this press release (yes, press release, look at the URL which is not from any newspaper):

In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology, commencing in September.


 * Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please start using when you post a citation so that your citations don't clutter up the page. The one above appeared in the section below, which is just  confusing. I have done this about ten times for you. Please do it yourself. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was looking at WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It does not apply here, unless the contention is that the subject is a victim.  Of what? XavierItzm (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf, GorillaWarfare, you are arguing WP:RECENTISM which states, "Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens". Adding a subsection is hardly overburdening the article. Or do you refer to another part of said explanatory supplement? Thinker78 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sarah Jeong
I've closed the AfD: there is no way that it is ever going to lean delete, given the overwhelming number of keep votes. Please see the AfD if you want more words. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Misleading sentence and how to fix it
The article says that Jeong have received "negative reaction in conservative media". This is misleading as her comments have been criticised by BBC, ABC,... all not conservative media. Moreover the sentence is misleading because it is inconsistent with its two sources, in which the exact sentence is "in MAINLY conservative media". I see the removal of the fundamental specification "mainly" as an example of POV and bending sources to our POV. I request the adding of the world "mainly", which is in accordance with the two sources provided.93.36.191.55 (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts about including ongoing Naomi Wu controversy?
Tl;dr there is some controversy involving Sarah Jeong between Vice and a Chinese engineer Naomi Wu, regarding alleged endangering of sources by Vice. I have been unable to find much media coverage of it by uninvolved parties, except a NextShark article.

Naomi Wu alleges that Vice endangered her safety by publishing personal information/interviews she asked them not to, and accuses Sarah Jeong of trying to silence her.

I have doubts regarding its noteworthyness; there was significant discussion regarding the controversy on Reddit a few months ago, but otherwise relatively few mentions in the media.

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

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu

https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Heh. Odd how this is all connected (and Wu was a BLP issue on wiki back when the Vice think broke). However - all we have is one medium.com source covering this - which I think is not a RS and in any case UNDUE given the wide coverage Jeong is receiving. If actual RSes cover this - then there might be what to discuss - but without coverage by RS (e.g. media) - this won't be going in.Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked three articles; The author of the Medium article and the publishers of the Vice article are involved parties and thus not trustworthy, but NextShark doesn't seem to be involved in the controversy. I don't know how well-respect NextShark is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 (talk • contribs)
 * The issue with NextShark is that it does not mention Sarah Jeong. PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation of your comment; I stand corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was an interesting debate. It was brought up yesterday in a section above that is now hatted for some reason. When it came up there I tried to find a RS that mentioned both of them in relation to that controversy and did not come up with anything. PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I do think the controversy belongs in the article, but this may not be the best time. Maybe wait until things wind down on the tweet controversy?  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If and when it receives notable coverage which we can cite, yes. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeong harmed Wu socially and destroyed Wu's livelihood

Recommend adding: "Sarah Jeong breached Wu's contract terms. Jeong/Vice had Youtube drop Wu's video response and Prateon to drop Wu, destroying Wu's livelihood." OR "Sarah Jeong breached Vice's contract with Naomi Wu and destroyed her livelihood at Prateon" This breach of journalistic and social ethics is the real harm committed by Sarah Jeong, as explained in Naomi Wu's long article at https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 DLH (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If and when we have reliable sources, sure. kencf0618 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of examples is POV
Why are the examples of Jeong's racism removed? As noted above, controversial racial statements by other public figures are available in the articles on them. The removal sanitizes Jeong and leaving the Times' rationalization of her tweets on the article are POV in favor of Jeong.Dogru144 (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2018
Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced though it does show a long standing apttern of online harrasemnet and racism on her part Dj79 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether Jeong's description of her tweets was correct is not a decision for WP to make; that's why it states that she called them counter-trolling, not that they were counter-trolling. I am against making this edit, as Jeong's tweets not being counter-trolling is not accepted fact. Also, you need to provide a verbatim copy of the text you want to add.39.41.80.213 (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, there is a preview function - the button for "preview changes" is right next to "publish changes". Please use the preview function and consider if that is what you want to say, before saving. By rapid-fire editing your own comments as you have been doing, you are causing WP:Edit conflicts for  others. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise; next time I will use the "preview" button.39.41.80.213 (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being responsive. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not clear what exact change you are proposing to the article content. Also, please establish consensus for any proposed change before using the template to request its implementation (see the edit-restriction at the top of this talk-page for the reason this is required for this particular article). Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request August 7 2018
A recent proposal to include quotes of some of Jeong's commonly quoted tweets received a large amount of support and attention. Therefore, I've decided to make an edit proposal so we can have discussion about specific wording. I propose we add a pair of sentences to the paragraph on the controversy: 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." A second tweet read: "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.

There are probably 20-30 sources for each quote, I've decided to include 2 for each. BBC and The Independent for the hydrant quote and Fox and WaPo for the cruel quote. If we want to be robust, and REALLY prove the "widely reported" label, we could include 4 each as the fire hydrant quote is quoted by The Hill, Vox, Slate, Washington Times and more. The cruel quote has been reported by CNBC, LaTimes, BBC, Vox, Washington Times and plenty more. SWL36 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You should link to archives of the original tweets as well.39.41.80.213 (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This proposal definitely doesn't have consensus to go forward....Citing (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree; SWL36 please withdraw and self-close this. We need a close of the section above, as the patrolling admin already stated. You can request a close at [WP:AN if you like. If you do please post notice of that in the section above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please establish consensus for the edit before placing the edit-request. Also, uncontextualized tweet-quotes (as in just "one tweet said...") have no chance of passing the BLP-test, so I'll preempt 'voting' on the above proposal to prevent editors wasting their time. Please rethink, and ask for advice from editors experienced in the BLP area or at WP:BLPN, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you would enlighten everyone what you think WP:CONSENSUS should be here? I'd think an over 2:1 margin would be myself. And using the BLP-test on tweets that the author herself has already admitted to kind of seems laughable at this point. Nodekeeper (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't putting the edit request plus RS here in the talk page the start of the consensus process? If not maybe an admin can further guide this process, because it's a bit too convoluted. Other than being two of the most widely reported tweets, these two were chosen because they need the least amount of context. They aren't replies to anyone and were standalone thoughts. The only explanation Jeong ever gave is already in the text ("counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced) and the language was kept as neutral and simple as possible to avoid endless edit wars. That's why it says "one tweet says", etc. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * and 2600: Since User:SWL36 didn't take my advice and started a discussion to include the text, let it just run through and see whether it can gain consensus, which is not a synonym for vote count, for inclusion. That way you won't have to take my word for what the result will be for this particular proposal, although IMO valuable editor time will be wasted in the process. Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In Roseanne Barr the controversial tweet is quoted with the only context being who the tweet is about (The sentence before the quote states that it was directed at Valerie Jarrett.) The only counterweight to it is a smattering of defenses that Roseanne offered after she acknowledged she made a mistake. I have been asking editors opposed to including the tweets to give me the context that is apparently so absent at the moment (despite the current and proposed passages containing nearly all of the context provided to us by the reliable sources.) They appear to be spur of the moment postings, and until someone can prove they are not, what more context could we include?


 * If other editors want to include more defenses, such as Jeong's claim that the tweets were satire, I'd be fine with that. All I am seeing now is editors trying to shut this down without providing us with the context and nuance that the proposed inclusion lacks.


 * Also, I want to thank you for all the time you've spent moderating this talk page, the debates are fierce and walls of text are generated by the second.


 * To your point about me ignoring your advice: I was active in the first BLPN posting related to this article, where suggested that tweets should not be included UNLESS the "specific content was discussed in depth by reliable sources." I think linking 10 reliable source articles where one or both tweets are quoted and discussed is sufficient for this requirement, though I could add another 10 or 20 articles if needed. The original discussants did not seem to take issue with quoting the tweets, so long as they were quoted and discussed by reliable sources. I don't think starting Sarah Jeong BLPN Round 4 is going to change the fact that it is not WP editors quote mining, but rather reliable sources picking out some of the most controversial tweets and discussing them. SWL36 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2018
Retain 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.[19]

Add Based on a snippet of a talk Jeong made at Harvard Law School where she stated "Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world. And not just men, how white men see the world. And this, this is a problem. This is why so many things suck."Source. Redtobelieve (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please establish consensus for any proposed change before using the template to request its implementation (see the edit-restriction at the top of this talk-page for the reason this is required for this particular article). Also, since you are a relatively new editor, I'll add this advice: at a minimum you will need a reliable secondary source for such content to be considered. Once you have that, you can propose an addition for discussion and other editors on this talk page can edit and evaluate it for due weight and BLP-complaince. Finally, the last sentence of your request is gratuitous since our personal opinions of or conclusions about the article's subject are irrelevant, and I have redacted it per talk-page guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Regarding discussion of Jeong's mindset in controversial Tweets, reference Harvard speech "Sarah Jeong on The Internet of Garbage" 

There is currently disagreement over Jeong's mindset when making her controversial Tweets. Defenders have suggested that she was engaging in satire or "counter-trolling" against people who were directing abusive messages in her direction. Those more critical of Jeong have analyzed her prior works that she undertook with apparent sincerity and questioned whether the attitudes expressed in her controversial tweets are actually at odds with her long-stated outlook. One way to consolidate discussion around this issue would be to reference Jeong's Harvard presentation on her book, The Internet of Garbage. In her Harvard speech presenting her book, Jeong appears to say with complete sincerity, "Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world, and not just men, white men, and this is a problem, this is why so many things suck." I don't think that anyone editing this article would argue that her entire book, The Internet of Garbage, was a satire, or that this Harvard speech was satire. So what we glean from the Harvard speech is Her speech was published here by the Harvard institute for your review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUSctMLLNUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.77.46 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see the advice offered in response to the edit-request right above your note and also see WP:OR. (I have merged the two related sections). Abecedare (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Source suggestion
Can we incorporate this article as a source "When Racism is Fit to Print" by New York Magazine? I don't have Wikipedia account so I can't change anything. Therefore I am suggesting editors consider this article and incorporate it as a source somehow. Thanks!
 * Interesting read, though not sure how to use it. S Philbrick (Talk)  22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

New Lede
I propose modifying the lede to incorporate the reason Jeong has drawn so much attention, similar to other BLPs notable primarily for one event or issue. Perhaps something like:

''Sarah Jeong (born 1988) is an American journalist specializing in IT law and other technology topics. Jeong is a senior writer for The Verge and in September 2018 will join the editorial board of The New York Times. Jeong gained international attention in August 2018 when conservative and social media highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that she had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014.''

''She was previously a contributing editor for Vice's Motherboard website. She is the author of The Internet of Garbage, a non-fiction book about online harassment.''

Thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the substance of your proposal, may I request that you defer it till, say, the end of the month? By then we all will have better perspective and this page will be more manageable (right now there are more than a dozen related proposals being commented/voted upon in parallel). Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like liveblogging. Get a bit of distance. PaulCHebert (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to defer it. As far as the end of the month, I think it would be helpful for other editors to weigh in on the timing. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Scaleshombre. Abecedare (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User User:Abecedare removed the Press Template on this talk page without starting a discussion here. Should we reinstate it?
So the user removed the template, and did so again after I reverted him. He claims the template violates WP:BLPDS, because it includes mention of an article on Breitbart with a provocative title. He claimed that on [|his own talk page] where he started a discussion on the matter. Yes, he started it on his talk page and not on this one, and I suspect it was done to hide the edit from users participating in discussions on this page. I've attempted to reinstate the template without mentioning the far right sources like Breitbart and Daily Caller (so that now the template only includes the article from The Atlantic, which certainly does not violate the WP:BLPDS. As a responce to that User:Abecedare threatened me with a block on my talk page. My question: should the template persist on this page or should it be removed? And if it should persist, in what form? Should it include all news articles that mention this Wikipedia Article, including those published on far-right/extreme-right websites like Daily Caller and Breitbart? I genuinely wanna know what you are thinking guys. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking "white people"
The term "white people" should be linked to the corresponding article, since it is a complex social construct and not a defined race or ethnicity. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proposing this on the talk page, Javiero Fernandez. I will of course be willing to undo my revert of your edit if there is no objection from other editors here. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * note, this was implemented by the OP here with note, "as there are no objections in talk" Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Ten-year test
WP:10 year test. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * With that in mind, we should include the text of the tweets for posterity. The text of the tweets helps add the context required to understand the controversy. Galestar (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The 10 year test supports including the content - coverage of this kerfuffle far exceeds (by several orders of magnitude) any prior coverage of Jeong - and it is eminently obvious this will be a significant portion of this bio in 10 years time.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are confusing your desires with reality. No one will care about or remember the content of her tweets in 6 months, and this ridiculous controversy will have no lasting impact on the world of any kind. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's the most notable thing about her. If you're arguing no one will care about this in 10 years, then that's argument for deleting the argument.  Unless we're going to delete the article, it should cover the Tweet and include example.  Remember that our job as Wikipedia editors is to create an informative and educational about this topic.  If I were a reader and I wanted to know about her racist Tweets, I would expect them to be included in the article.  Omitting them is a bit like omitting the periodic table in the article about chemistry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article existed (appropriately) as a short biographical article before last week; it should continue to exist as a short biographical article with a short paragraph about the controversy surrounding her hiring at the NYT and tweets. No one will care what the precise content of the tweets was, because it's not an important part of understanding this event.  This is not hard. --JBL (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. If, in the future, any of you is editing in a similar context involving old tweets dug up by someone on the left that you think should not be included in an article, I invite you to ask me to weigh in -- including tweets in encyclopedia articles is just a really terrible idea. --JBL (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I invite you to ask me to weigh in I looked at a bunch of those, and only Kevin D. Williamson mentions the content of "old tweets dug up by someone on the left". w umbolo   ^^^  13:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "No one will care what the precise content of the tweets was, because it's not an important part of understanding this event". I don't agree at all, if I were the reader, I would want to know what the Tweets said so I can decide for myself. Right now, there are two interpretations of the Tweets: 1) She's a racist or 2) She was using the language of her alleged harassers.  The only way I would know which is correct is if I saw the Tweets myself.  You say that article existed (appropriately) as a short biographical article before last week.  That's because she was barely notable until last week.  Like it or not, her Tweets are now the most notable thing about her.  We have to accept that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, this has nothing to do with whether someone is on the left or right. This is about writing an informative and educational article.  Nobody shouldn't even be bringing up politics.  Politics should have no bearing on this subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * if there is an ongoing discussion, I invite you to point me at it. (Edit: never mind, I checked the Williamson article and it provides a short description of the tweets and controversy, in a single paragraph, and does not quote them -- just as we should be doing here.)
 * We do not, in the case of Holocaust deniers, present what they say and then allow readers to determine for themselves whether that content is accurate or not. That's because to do so would be a complete abrogation of our role as editors of an encyclopedia.  The same applies in this article, and in every other BLP about a person who said something someone else objected to.  The principle here is really not very hard. --JBL (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Other Stuff Exists aside, we actually do present Holocaust deniers' claims. See, for example, David Irving, Mahmoud Abbas, etc. So what's your point? Scaleshombre (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Joel_B._Lewis: I take it you've never read our article on Holocaust denial? Of course, we present the viewpoints of the deniers (along with the mainstream viewpoint).  There would be little purpose to the article if we didn't.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to know how to deal with this kind of tendentious argumentation. We do not, in articles on Holocaust deniers, present their words and then leave it to readers to interpret/judge them.  We don't do this because that is not how an encyclopedia should treat contentious statements made by individuals.  This is a very precise analogy with respect to the specific demand here, which is that it is essential to quote someone's words, rather than summarizing them with context.  (By the way, AQFK, have you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:OTHER?  It begins, "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.  When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.")  --JBL (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strawman. I did not say that we should present their words and then "leave it to readers to interpret/judge them".  Please don't tell falsehoods or misrepresent what I am saying, thank you very much.  Your question, "have you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFF" is very ironic since you apparently haven't read it or you didn't understand it.  WP:OTHERSTUFF has nothing to do with content discussions, it's about deleting articles.  Sheesh! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * AQFK, obviously I typed out the wrong WP:JARGON. (Why is this obvious?  Because I was responding to you, and quoting text from the link you left.)  I have corrected my link above, I invite you to adjust your response correspondingly.  --JBL (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument remains the same: Our job as Wikipedia editors is to provide an informative and educational article. Intentionally omitting important information is the exact opposite of informative and educational. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please go re-read the last few posts of this exchange. It is not possible that your response to me would have been the same without the typo.  --JBL (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On a separate point: I accept that I may have characterized your position in an uncharitable and possible inaccurate way above. The phrase to which I was responding was "if I were the reader, I would want to know what the Tweets said so I can decide for myself", and your assertion now is that that expresses a desire to include the quotes as well as a characterization of them.  So I hope you will accept the withdrawl of my description of your position.  Correspondingly, I hope you will also exhibit a good-faith reading of my remarks and address the following question: is it generally necessary to quote someone's words in order to give an encyclopedic treatment of them?  (My previous example was Holocaust deniers; Kevin D. Williamson is also a good analogy.) --JBL (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary? No.  Is it still a good idea to include quotes of the Tweets?  Yes.  Keep in mind that the Tweets are the very heart of the controversy.  Why wouldn't we want to include them?  It's a bit like having an article about Phan Thi Kim Phuc but not showing the famous photograph of her running naked after the napalm bombing.  (Yes, I realize this analogy is not perfect.)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What about Williamson? --JBL (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial and an iconic Pulitzer Prize winning photo that heavily impacted views on the VN War compared to some stupid tweets? I’m going to have to look into this tweet thing. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not compared, analogized. (Though the picture analogy makes no sense at all.)  --JBL (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll explain the analogy. With Phan Thi Kim Phuc, the most notable thing about her is the picture. With Sarah Jeong, the most notable thing about her are the Tweets.  Just as showing the picture helps the reader understand why it was controversial, the Tweets help the reader understand why the Tweets were controversial.  Is it possible to write these articles without the picture/Tweets?  Of course.  But is the article better if we include them?  Absolutely.
 * Now, let me ask you a question: why don't you want to include them in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I disagree this is the most notable thing about her, and they certainly aren't as notable as that photo to the child. On why I don't think they should be added, I don't want to repeat myself. So, just serch the page for O3000. O3000 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, this is the most notable thing about her. How else do you account for the explosion of activity and editing of this article? Pure coincidence?  Sorry, I don't see a single reason why the article should be less informative. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not coincidence. It's because it is in the news today, and heavily pushed by some non-RS. But, we are not a newspaper and there is no reason to believe that some stupid tweets will remain what she is all about. I've answered and don't see any value in continuing this. O3000 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the proverbial Wikipedian crystal ball handy, but hindsight is 20/20, and this article is very reminiscent of Gamergate controversy, shifting walls of text and all. It's become what I call a nexus magnet; everyone wants to control the narrative, and to be present at the creation, which is precisely why this encounter battle is taking place. kencf0618 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not really about controlling the narrative as much as a disagreement as to the mission of Wikipedia.
 * In my view, it is exactly in light of the GamerGate experience that it is best we say little to nothing now, and wait for sources to be written that describe this from well outside the fray. There are not strong enough sources yet that provide that context  - this is still "news".  This ~appears~ to me to be the consensus of experienced editors who are working here. It is really just a matter of remaining grounded on the mission to be an encyclopedia and not a newspaper (per WP:NOT), which is what the OP is saying as well, from a different angle.
 * To describe this as a "battle to control the narrative" begs the question and assumes that we are going to go into a lot of detail. We shouldn't. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Point taken. We have to keep Wikipedia's mission in mind, whatever the snarl of tactics on display here. kencf0618 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She’s 30 years old. Hard to believe some tweets she made in her mid-20’s will be meaningful in ten years when she’s 40. Although, I suppose Wikipedia could assure such will be her fate by adding unneeded detail. As a NYT columnist said: “Let he who is without a bad tweet cast the first stone.” (Glad I’ve never tweeted.) O3000 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like for us to be out of the business of controlling anything. This claim, that she's "only known" for her tweets, it's silly. Plenty tech people knew her already, and the NYT wouldn't have asked her to join the board if she was an unknown quantity. Arguing that "the tweets made her notable", as I saw some people do (out of newness, or if they weren't new, out of ignorance, or if they weren't ignorant, out of a desire to continue a narrative told elsewhere and control it here), is really silly, since that begs the question of BLP1E: if she's "only notable for her tweets", a couple of em, she's not notable by our standards. There is so much going on in the world, and yet here it seems to be komkommertijd again. BUT NO OMG WIKIPEDIA CANT SIT BY WHILE A WOMAN WHO TWEETED SOME THINGS GETS A JOB; yes we can. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This exactly. And that then bumps up against WP:DUE in the question of how much Wikipedia, as an international platform, should be required to care about the ephemera of the American 24 hour news cycle and their endless culture war. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, her tweets are what brought us here. To employ an old Texas saying, you dance with thems that brung ya. I've been following Jeong (and for that matter Naomi Wu (full disclosure: I began her Wikipedia article)) on Twitter for many months, and I never anticipated this Wikipedian firestorm. Furthermore, to be hired to serve on the NYT's editorial board ain't chopped liver -it's a rather larger purview than that of the news cycle, whatever that is nowadays. kencf0618 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I bet this is a surprise! Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. kencf0618 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We should probably close this section, as it is not about improving the content per se... Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with this, provided that consensus has been reached. kencf0618 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus for what? In any case, I agree with Jytdog.  --JBL (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think calling it ephemeral or a 24 hour news cycle is missing the point (if anything the proposed addition on the "2016 mobbing from bernie bros" is much, much more ephemeral and received a minuscule amount of attention compared to this). While a 10 year test obviously has a large degree of subjectivity, to me this has all the signs of the kind of firestorm that strikes about once a year and is not merely something which will be forgotten in a week. I am thinking of examples like Rachel Dolezal, Walter Palmer, and James Damore. About her notability before this, it's true she was known enough for the NY Times to hire her, but her article was a tiny stub which hadn't received a single edit between January 9 and August 2. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those three examples are instructive: in each case, the lasting impact on the world of a major media storm was as close to 0 as possible (although not probably for the three individuals themselves). I mean, I was in Minneapolis when the Palmer thing happened, it had basically wall-to-wall coverage in local media, and I had to go look him up just now to figure out what you were talking about.  James Damore doesn't have a stand-alone page, and it's basically impossible to imagine someone in 2020 feeling that this is a major oversight.  These kinds of events just aren't very important.  --JBL (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Icewhiz, the content should be included. I'd include based on WP:GNG and on WP:NOTCENSORED. XavierItzm (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"No one will care about or remember the content of her tweets in 6 months..." - And yet, look what to happened to James Gunn as a result of Tweets he made 6-10 years ago. Of course, the content of those actual Tweets haven't been included in his BLP either, but this is the internet age, nothing ever goes completely away or is ever completely forgotten. Just sayin' - the WOLF  child  22:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

NYT columnist calls Jeong tweets racist
It's not just critics who label the tweets with the term "racist". Even fellow columnists at the same place of employment did:

https://archive.fo/90clH


 * We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist. I’ve seen some acrobatic efforts to explain why Jeong’s tweets should be treated as “quasi-satirical,” hyperbolical and a function of “social context.” But the criteria for racism is either objective or it’s meaningless: If liberals get to decide for themselves who is or isn’t a racist according to their political lights, conservatives will be within their rights to ignore them.

Have fun sweeping this under the rug. 86.123.17.225 (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note the large "Opinion" at the top of this column.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  09:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As opposed to what? Scientific review of her tweets?  86.123.17.225 (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeong was criticized by other New York Times writers."
 * A proposed text could be:


 * Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The issue which has been raised multiple times here is a failure of the tweets to reach notability as per WP:DUE and that isn't going to change regardless of how you try to shoe-horn the topic in. Honestly there's a lot of WP:IDHT going on here from editors who seem to feel that somebody's subsequently regretted trolling on Twitter is a matter of encyclopedic record. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that you un-hatted this pointless section in order to make an obviously terrible proposal. Your edits to this page today have been almost uniformly ridiculous; please knock it off.  --JBL (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attacks. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. WP:NPA   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose obvious COI. This is exactly like saying "John Smith was criticized by members of his family". w umbolo   ^^^  18:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the conclusion, but this explanation makes no sense. (Using sources with conflicts of interest or points of view is acceptable; they just have to be used sensibly.)  --JBL (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Once columnist's opinion is not encyclopedic.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as misleading and out of WP:PROPORTION to independent, mainstream secondary-source coverage. One other writer does not equate to "other writers" (plural). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf - What are you talking about? "One"?  The citations are for two.XavierItzm (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Criticism is already summarized. (Additionally, the prospect of including Liz Williamson writing and deleting a tweet exemplifies WP:NOTNEWS.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose addition to last paragraph
Changing "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist" to "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist and anti-white". Various reliable sources, including conservative ones, use this label -. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "anti-white" would seem to be redundant with the intention of the label, "racist."
 * The Washington Times ref is primary source, doing the criticism. This is not what we want.
 * The Huffpo piece has a tiny bit of reporting, writing And this also includes the establishment figures like Ari Fleischer and publications like the National Review, the folks wailing about an Asian woman’s “anti-white racism,” as if there were such a thing. But even that is actually commentary.
 * The CNN piece is a video, which I watched the beginning of, and is a commentary by a bunch of talking heads. This is not what we are after.
 * The Atlantic piece doesn't criticize her at all, and doesn't even report on people criticizing her; its an essay.
 * The National Review piece is like the Washington Times piece, a primary source, doing the criticism.
 * What we are after are secondary sources simply reporting on it.
 * This is duplicating sections above, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as redundant with preceding sentence. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as redundant with the sentence just before. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: too wordy; existing text is sufficiently clear. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as redundant. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)