Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 4

No apologies
Note: User:Jytdog deleted this discussion from the talk page so I am re-adding it with additional explanations.

Point #1: I think it would be dishonest to avoid explicitly stating that there were no apologies from the Times or Jeong. (As per this source: "There was no official condemnation or apology from either the paper or Jeong." https://www.thewrap.com/twitter-verifies-sarah-jeong-after-outrage-over-old-tweets/amp/). Paraphrase as you will.

Explanation: The ending of the article is extremely terse which is understandable given the fuss over this page (the edit wars, the complete lock down for editing, the absolute abhorrent gatekeeping), but at the very least we ought to include a short line indicating the firm resolve by the Times and Jeong to basically admit to doing no wrong (ie claim of countertrolling).

If this were any other page there would a complete paragraph outlining the objections of the critics and another paragraph outlining the position of Jeong and her defenders.

As per User:Jytdog, reverting a legit discussion on a talkpage by claiming Wp:notforum does not apply here. The conclusion on the Jeong page is with the Times standing by their hiring decision. It would be reasonable to note (from a valid source) that neither the Times nor Jeong apologised for the controversial tweets as per above. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Special pleading will get you nowhere. And as a practical matter, the Wikipedia is the stone, and the Talk page is what's under said stone. Anyone with any savvy (and a strong stomach) would check both. kencf0618 (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Pleading? Not quite. The only reason I am highlighting the issue of my comment being deleted off the talk page is that in normal circumstances, so long as a comment on the TALK page is not spam or vandalism, editors don't have the right to simply delete and censor. It amazes me how there are at least 2 active editors on this page who feel they can just delete a discussion b/c they disagree with it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This is not how Wikipedia operates. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The subject need make no apologies for comments that the NYT printed are "racist " because the subject was simply counter trolling. So you see, if one is merely counter-trolling, one can never be racist, and one need make no apologies.  A proposed text for your idea would be as follows, to be appended towards the end of the currently extant text:

No apology was issued.
 * I would support this addition, but I think it might be challenged because there is only one source, unless you can document additional ones. XavierItzm (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparing this article to the article of Roseanne
There the present text is:


 * On May 29, 2018, Barr posted a tweet about Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to former President Obama. It read "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj" [sic] which was widely criticized as being racist about Jarrett ("vj").[71][72] Barr was initially defensive, but later posted an apology "for making a bad joke about [Jarrett's] politics and her looks."[54] She disputed allegations of racism, saying she believed Jarrett was Saudi.

While here:


 * 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.[20][21] 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 this tactic.

Only people with agendas don't see the double standard applied to these two articles. 86.125.95.166 (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the difference: in one case a person was fired because of her tweets. In the other case people are campaigning to get a person fired because of her tweets. One is historical and has a (somewhat dubious) place on Wikipedia. The other is activist work and has no place on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleting discussions from talkpage
Having raised a discussion on this topic only to have it deleted twice, by two different editors, and subsequently "closed" I am now very curious if other editors on this page have had their comments deleted, an action I think we can all agree is out of line with WP policies. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing discussions early as possible intimidation tactic
Non-admin closures of discussions on this topic (within days or hours of a discussion posted on the talkpage) comes pretty close to intimidation and censorship of editors from expressing their views on how this article should be edited.

Closing a topic on a talkpage is rarely done on the millions of WP articles where current activity is taking place, and it seems inappropriate to shut down a discussion 24 hours after it begins. In the spirit of WP:TIND there is no immediate and pressing deadline to shut down discussion on a talkpage.

In relation to this article, I propose allowing discussions to stay open for a minimum of 7 days from the first post. Any action taking place sooner than 7 days can be viewed as a possible intimidation tactic. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the content of the arguments or whoever is making them for whatever purpose, that proposal would greatly enable users to bludgeon process through repetitive and already-dismissed arguments -- not something that's needed for a contentious topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * People countering this intimidation tactic have been banned. At least some admins encourage this intimidation, feeding it.  86.125.95.166 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-police statements
Evidently over a long period there are also numerous anti-police statements as well;

I would not be opposed to deleting the article and merging with the NYT article a single sentence that states that they hired Sarah Jeong, an anti-white and anti-police racist for their editorial board. Anybody want to help me defend the edits? Nodekeeper (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You would have to get this article deleted via afd first, which is unlikely given the significant coverage of Jeong.Dialectric (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you actually read Neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons, you would see why describing anyone in Wikipedia's voice as is a non-starter. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point there is a myriad of sources calling her views racist. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Statements, possibly .  That does not mean we characterize the person herself as such. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 23:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC))
 * That's fine, but please explain how this only applies to Sarah Jeoung and not others. Right-leaning people are carpet bombed as right supremacist Nazi skinheads via the ADL (see Lana Lokteff) even when they deny being so. Yet Sarah Jeoung gets the benefit of A) her statements =/= her views and B) not even having it mentioned in the article despite numerous articles about it --RandomUser3510 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's a red herring. "Other crap exists" has no bearing on the improvement of this page. Much of the commentary on this talk page (let alone the blatantly partisan media commentary cited as sources) also has more than a whiff of concern trolling about it, which doesn't inspire too much confidence in the proposed changes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a red herring, it's an example of bias. Sarah Jeong is getting privileges added to her Wikipedia page, whereas other people (right-leaning) in politics are not. Indicating bias is a step in improving the article. I can accept that Sarah Jeong can get these privileges but at least we can have consistency with others going forward. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. If you really care about the quality of those other articles, that is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And there are many sources defending her and claiming her not to be racist. Until and unless it becomes generally accepted fact that she is racist, Wikipedia cannot make a statement that she is racist.39.41.80.213 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The anti-police statements are also cited elsewhere. For example:

Police? “Cops f—king suck” and “they’re f—king horrible,” according to this Harvard Law alumna, who hates the men and women whose job it is to enforce the law. She responded to the 2014 race riot in Ferguson, Missouri, by aiming obscenities at the police and declaring “America is f—king racist.”
 * [Emphasis added]. It might be worth mentioning at some point.  Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor, unimportant trivia. If we were to add every random tweet to each and every article on Wikipedia we would seize to be an encyclopedia. Also, the context. It's pretty obvious that attempts to add these tweets are yet another extension of the harassment campaign. The article has been around on Wikipedia for months and got no attention, but then the campaign started and boom - multiple attempts at vandalism so much so that the article had to be locked by an admin Openlydialectic (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Any source that uses such charming phraseology as "No one at Harvard or at the New York Times will speak a word in favor of white people, Christians, heterosexuals, or police officers ... the white males at the New York Times would probably commit suicide en masse if they believed such a gesture might help Nancy Pelosi win back the House Speaker’s gavel" and describes the subject as having "made her bargain with the Devil" is quite obviously an opinion essay and not reliable for factual statements, especially in articles about living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad-hominem attack, irrelevant to the citation. The citation merely cites facts, which is what can (and should) be included in an enyclopaedia.XavierItzm (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the only secondary sources for these tweets are a couple of polemical essays in partisan outlets (The Daily Caller should never be relied upon in a BLP), then the material is clearly unduly weighted for the article. Merely being "facts" does not make something encyclopedia-worthy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources, it was reported on by every major news outlet. Ikjbagl (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45052534
 * Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor/2018/08/02/48e2bfd0-968c-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.6f612920d4c8
 * New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html
 * The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/400121-ny-times-defends-hiring-of-editorial-writer-after-emergence-of-past-racial
 * Washington Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/sarah-jeongs-racist-tweets-spotlighted-after-nytim/
 * CNN: https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/02/media/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-twitter/index.html
 * FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html
 * NY Post: https://nypost.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-editorial-board-hire-despite-racist-tweets/
 * US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2018-08-02/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor
 * ABC: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-times-stands-hire-sarah-jeong-twitter-furor-56994680

Where do any of these sources (The Washington Times is borderline at best, and New York Post is a non-RS tabloid) mention "anti-police" tweets? —21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support But the anti-cop tweets stretch up to as recent as 2017 and the sentence needs to reflect that. These are independently verifiable tweets for those who might want to question the sources. It's silliness at this point to do so. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also, it appears you are !voting in support of...your own proposal? Or am I missing something? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Twitter-EL, which allows for twitter to be used in cases such as this. In any event, you said the sources are only a couple?  Here's another source for your reading pleasure:

“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller. Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?”
 * [Emphasis added]. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This talk page is strictly for discussing existing content and generating new content. It is not for general discussion of the subject matter. Please see WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM.  This section should be closed unless a content proposal is brought. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The para could be along the lines of "Jeong also tweetted often against police." And then you could add references such as: “Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015. “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read.
 * [Emphasis added].

-- Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my view the sourcing is unacceptably low, we don't need to quote the tweets, and the specific tweets are far too deep in the weeds. Something about negative statements toward police could be added to one of the pending proposals, and I suggest you find a much higher quality source and propose adding "and the police" to one of the pending proposals.  btw please see Controversial_articles Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the suggested text does not quote the tweets. With regard to the source, do you think the source is falsifying the tweets? XavierItzm (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't think the source is falsifying the tweets. If you read Controversial_articles (and all of that essay) you will see why it is all the more important in controversial articles to generate content by a) finding high quality sources and b) summarizing what they say.  Wanting to add X and finding some old source that talks about X, is always the wrong way to build content in Wikipedia and will almost always fail to generate consensus on controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, you don't consider the source, which according to you is providing real information, to be good enough. What about two sources, to wit:
 * Source 1

“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller. Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?”
 * Source 2:

“Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015. “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read.
 * [Emphasis added for clarity]. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose generally: the idea of including the anti-police statements. There is just no need, it's not WP:Notable, and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The information about the current racism controversy should be included because it is notable and widely discussed, but so far I have not seen this discussed in the media. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, so well-sourced material is only to be added if you have seen "this discussed in the media"? XavierItzm (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N notability criteria apply to articles-as-a-whole, not content in articles. The threshold for content is verifiability by WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The threshold here is really WP:WEIGHT and as Ikjbagl WP:IINFO because of how much material that is verifiable out there; thus coverage in high quality reliable secondary sources (i.e in this case the news media) would be the main criteria Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But wait, WP:IINFO does not apply. No-one has suggested including the tweets at all.  It is not part of the suggested text.XavierItzm (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The police tweets are mentioned on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, in the UK paper Daily Mail. How could mentioning anti-police rhethoric in this article, which has reached international attention, be WP:UNDUE weight? Of course WP:RS should be used. AadaamS (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems the last remaining objection may be WEIGHT. So maybe an update is necessary for those who thing no-one's reported on this? "Jeong also tweeted often against police.    " Cheer! XavierItzm (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, arguably the most crucial policy on wikipedia - it is crucial that there be WEIGHT for this. A few opinion pieces/news from some obscure sources does not establish WP:WEIGHT; you don't start with the goal of trying to include something and later on trying to establish that it matches NPOV and other policies by trying to find whatever sources you can on it; you start with looking at the best sources, seeing what they say, and summarizing them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BESTSOURCES, it states the best available sources and in this case, availability is the choke point. The best available among reliable sources. It could well be that UK paper Daily Mail is the best available source, or some other news organisation. If there are better, let's use those. It has won] one of the Press Awards. AadaamS (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:DAILYMAIL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The currently proposed sources do not include the DM. XavierItzm (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources. Cheerio! XavierItzm (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional source: City Journal (New York City). It does not look as if the argument expressed above that "I have not seen this discussed in the media" holds much water. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Now the New York Times itself publishes that Jeong wrote about the police:

She has also bashed the police
 * If the subject's employer is printing this stuff out, there is little excuse for Wikipedia to shy away from it. XavierItzm (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The sole outstanding objection was WP:WEIGHT, but that was before the sources included the New York Times. If there are no further objections, the proposed para should be added to the main space article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no concrete proposal in this section, so there is certainly no consensus here for making any particular edit. --JBL (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone who may have missed the quite concrete proposal above should look it up. XavierItzm (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 0 people have expressed support for inclusion of this (obviously ridiculous) sentence. Please stop wasting other users' time with this nonsense.  --JBL (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bret Stephens's op-ed is his own opinion, published in the opinion section of The New York Times. It is not a news item. Per our reliability guidelines, op-eds are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. In other words, Stephens's essay has about the same weight as any of the numerous "takes" on the Jeong kerfuffle published in the last week. For encylopedic purposes, that amounts to approximately zilch. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy says "rarely". This is a perfect "rare."  Or do you challenge Stephen's assertion in the NYT that the subject "has also bashed the police"?  Is Stephens lying? XavierItzm (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that BLPs, especially ones involving contentious social issues, are the place to test the boundaries of reliable-source guidelines. We don't want dueling op-eds here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone's certainly entitled to one's thoughts; nobody disputes that. Nonetheless, here we have well-sourced material including from the NYT, in addition to seven other sources. XavierItzm (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 0 people have expressed support for inclusion of this. Please stop. --JBL (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No direct source for "regret" quote?
Is there an actual source for this quote? "Jeong said [...] that she regretted adopting this tactic." The source that's there is a statement by NYT, but it's not a quote of what she said. (And frankly, it sounds a bit like a parent apologizing on behalf of a surly child.) This sentence should be backed by a direct source, even if it's only her Twitter post. Mkcmkc (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a paraphrase of Jeong's remarks. The quote by her is in the Associated Press source used in the article, second to last paragraph. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it (i.e., it is indeed a paraphrase--we don't know exactly what she said). From a WP standpoint, that looks good.  Thanks for the pointer.  Mkcmkc (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeong herself is quoted in the AP article, in the second-to-last paragraph. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Tweets about men and police
I would like to suggest the addition of this material to the discussion of Jeong's tweet controversy. So far the only tweets mentioned are those regarded as racist.

Would there be any opposition to mentioning these as well? I see that we are adding material about a "Bernie bro" mob coming after her, and argue that expansion of this article is a good idea, but obviously it must be done with NPOV.


 * "[Tweets] included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?”" https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/4/nyts-sarah-jeong-slammed-police-officers-men-twitt/


 * "“Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read." https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/08/03/f-the-police-ny-times-newest-hire-also-tweeted-about-fighting-cops-with-guns-and-killing-all-men-660518

There are many more, as shown by screenshots of the tweets above. This coverage in media as well as the number of tweets justify their addition. It is interesting to note that these tweets/attitudes/jokes(?) have not been explained away by Jeong or the NYT as yet.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @petrarchan47 The mysandrist tweets are already discussed at lenght in the section "Talk at Harvard" (the full title of the section used to include the anti-men issue but someone objected to it and back-edited it, now resulting in that you are at the very least the second editor to raise the issue separately because the edited title of the section is entirely misleading, so it is easy to miss). The anti-police tweets, on which the New York Times broke its print embargo today, are covered in the section "Anti-police statements". Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to have a fresh discussion on the addition, as that talk page section resulted in nothing but gross amounts of text with no resolution, as far as I can tell. Am I wrong?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So far, for example in the anti-men thread, the situation seems to be: Nodekeeper brought material that should be included.  Sangdebeouf argued the material is inadmissible b/c of copyright, but Nodekeeper beat that with WP:FU.  I agree with Nodekeeper that the material should be included and that is is admissible.  A text was proposed.  Sangdebeouf argued that attribution is needed, an interesting objection insofar as the text had already been attributed to a wikipedia bluelinked personality; Sangdeboeuf further argued that some of the cited commentary was cherry-picking.  But this was an entirely irrelevant objection, for the proposed text never argued for or against the mysandrist statements; it merely said people had commented on them.  Sangdeboeuf then said that we can't say what the comments are on (i.e., "anti-white-men").  So this got taken out, per his request.  Then Sangdeboeuf argued six sources is not sufficient; more are needed.  So 12 sources were presented; at this point, Sangdeboeuf clarified he was applying WP:SARC and has presented no additional objections.  Having addressed all objections, it seems to me we might be approaching final resolution and inclusion on the subject's bio.  In particular, the New York Times printed today the following: «“White men are bull—”; “#CancelWhitePeople”; “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”» ; since the preference so far has been to include NYT-sourced material, including press releases from its owner, surely there will be no further objections.  I am not sure starting from scratch will be easy, but if you do propose an alternate text here or on the other section, I'll be happy to contribute to this new initiative.   Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for that summary. My suggestion is to begin an RFC right away with a survey, just as FigureOfNine has done above, simply asking whether mention of these (type of) tweets merits inclusion. Would you happen to have time to do that? IF editors think it deserves mention, we can then worry about drafting text. (Edit: I wouldn't label the tweets in any way that can be considered inflammatory or even judgemental; you can get banned pretty easily for what you say here given the BLP concerns. Be careful.)(Second edit: In fact, just copy what Jytdog has done with the section heading above, "Tweets about men and police".)  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not enough time. However, if you start it, I'll be happy to participate. XavierItzm (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the most interesting thing about this is, as you mentioned, her entire defense about "counter-trolling" doesn't touch upon her comments about police as reported by some RS. Does anyone here really think cops were trolling her or harassing her online? Has there been any evidence of that at all? If not, and if this additional aspect of the controversy is eventually included, it would have to be somehow differentiated from her explanation about countering about trolls online. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the problem with dealing with decontextualized tweets; no we cannot "differentiate" without sources with which to do so. This is not the place for anyone to "speculate"; please refrain from speculating.
 * The decontextualization is one (just one) of the reasons that no consensus has developed to quote the the tweets. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * what kind of context exists for tweets attacking the police? w umbolo   ^^^  16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This question highlights (maybe unintentionally) one of the many very good reasons that quoting tweets in encyclopedia articles is an incredibly bad idea. "What is the context?" is a really important question!  --JBL (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the question right? Find a reliable source reporting on the police tweets and their context (not an opinion piece giving commentary), and we can possibly generate encyclopedic content about them.  The burden is on the people who want to include content about these, to provide RS about them. All these efforts to "quote the tweets" are failing, and will continue to fail, because experienced editors understand well that any quotation without context is simply unencyclopedic.  WP is not social media; its an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Mainstream publications I've seen do not focus on this. If the only independent sources available (besides op-eds) are The Washington Times and BizPac Review, you've got a big red flag that it's a trivial issue and disproportionate to the mainstream RS coverage. Ditto for any "screenshots" per WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 02:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Oppose per Sangdeboeuf. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sangdeboeuf unless there are some better sources out there. Is the BizPac Review a reliable source? There's no discussion of it on RSN, and if they're endorsing the view that her all-caps tweet was "calling for dead cops" I think they may need a little more editorial review... GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sangdeboeuf. Two shitty sources and an opinion column.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the Bret Stephens op-ed; I missed that one earlier. Still no change to my !vote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --JBL (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)