Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 5

Survey: What text describing the controversy should be put in the article?
I think we have a reasonable consensus that something should be put about the controversy, and two main proposals for what the text should be, both with quite a bit of support. So I'm making this survey so that we can decide which one should be put in the article, and thus hopefully resolve the issue for now after some hours of discussion here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 1: Esparky
Option 1 is by Esparky, which I've assumed is going to be added after the current sentence on her hiring:


 * template added to separate references, strike irrelevant reference pasted from article. ESparky (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: option 1: I'm copying my comment from above and changing my opinion to oppose; we can cite reputable news organizations like BBC, CNN, NBC, The Guardian, etc.; we have the references already on this page. There is no reason we need to be citing Fox and National Reporter to this, because citing those organizations makes it look like only right-leaning organizations criticized the Tweets. This is simply not true. See my comment from above: Ikjbagl (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * my old comment: Comment: I personally think this version is somewhat misleading because it implies that only a couple of news outlets ran the story. In reality, it was a story run by every news organization and received a high amount of media coverage. Still, I am not going to oppose at this point because it is ridiculous that there is nothing at all on the page. If the only thing we can get on the page is a version so incredibly watered down that it's now inaccurate, I guess it will have to do. I would give full support if we changed "after Fox News and the National Review reported on" to "after major news organizations, including CNN, BBC, ABC, and Fox News reported on" . I don't know why we have to cite the National Review when there are literally dozens more reputable news organizations we could be citing. Further, citing only Fox News and National Review makes this look like a partisan attack since both of those organizations are known for leaning to the right; in reality, EVERY news organization ran this story, including those known to be non-partisan (BBC) and those known to lean left (CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post). Ikjbagl (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose option 1: No reason to use partisan sources and cite Quinn Norton. So, no. AyaK (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Google News search yields 649 results for "sarah jeong" AND "quinn norton". The double standard at the NYT is what this controversy is about. Even BBC and AP acknowledge ESparky (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support option 1 Seems the most accurate and neutral portrayal on how the controversy started and developed. Alternatively support option 2 also option 2 is good, but the term "conservative" should be taken away because it is a misdleading label.93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose option 1 uses sources from within the fray, dragging WP into the fray. Our goal is to describe it, not be in it. See WP:Beware of tigers. Really - please read that. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 by esparky - Support - I agree that the text as proposed 'tells the story' of the controversy and why it became such a hot topic in media from the UK to Australia, as opposed to laying out a defense of the the tweets, which was the emphasis of the previous proposals. XavierItzm (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I moved this to here because for some reason it showed up under 1a, which was never my intent. XavierItzm (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The first thing we're going to mention about the controversy is Reason's response to the controversy supporting her? So we're going to quote the headline of an article from News Outlet 1 about why this controversy is irrelevant before even mentioning a reliable source about the controversy? And we're not even going to put a headline from another news outlet that criticizes the tweets? And we're not going to tell people what the tweets are? Really? Red   Slash  15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Modded version, no change in verbiage, attribute Norton controversy/comparison confirmed by ABC-AP and BBC.ESparky (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment Note that even the NYT printed statement (not the tweet) acknowledges the Quinn Norton firing is core to the controversy. source ESparky (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose both versions as they contain extraneous detail (title of Reason article) and because reference to tweets implies that tweets are previously discussed in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

oppose modified version still is using opinion pieces and primary criticizing pieces for sources; we do not need to go there and should not go there. The main content should be derived from independent sources reporting on the fray, not sources in the fray. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose (both) - convoluted, starting with Reason then going to earlier pieces, not clear that Reason specifically is such a big deal. Better choices below. --GRuban (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1 and 1a. The language is accusatory, POV, and non-encyclopedic Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The first thing we're going to mention about the controversy is Reason's response to the controversy supporting her? So we're going to quote the headline of an article from News Outlet 1 about why this controversy is irrelevant before even mentioning a reliable source about the controversy? And we're not even going to put a headline from another news outlet that criticizes the tweets? And we're not going to tell people what the tweets are? Really? Red   Slash  15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1 and 1a - Only supporting #2, to keep things simple. It's the most succinct summary, clearly worded, relies only on good sources, covers the main points. The others have varying degrees of problems with emphasis on sources, weight, awkward wording, etc. (some more so than others, of course). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1 and 1a per Rhododendrites. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 2: Jytdog
Option 2 is Jytdog's/my tweak of it:


 * Option 2 Option 2 uses the highest quality sources and summarizes them as per NPOV. Option 1 quotes the title of a Reason blog for no apparent reason based on sourcing, uses lower quality blog/primary sources, is confusing if you don't already know about the controversy, uses and is poorly written. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, either is fine. However, for Option 2:
 * Please remove "conservative" from "conservative media" as per WP:YESPOV this inaccurately conveys that the coverage and concern was exclusive to "conservative" sources (moreover, there is debate as to whether any of the referenced sources are actually conservative or not);
 * Please change "derogatory tweets" to "racist tweets" to comport with their representation in neutral, well-respected sources, including the BBC. As such, please additionally remove "critics characterized her tweets as being racist" as that is already prima facia established.
 * Lokiloki (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC described the tweets as "inflammatory" (the headline puts "racist" in quotes). The Associated Press described the tweets as "derogatory of white people". CNN described the tweets as "disparagingly of white people". The Guardian described the tweets as "criticized and made jokes about white people". Fox News only calls the tweets racist in its headline, saying later that "could be construed as racist and offensive". There is absolutely not the representation within sources to straight up call the tweet racist in wikivoice. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC initially headlined them as racist without the quote marks, but modified their headline as documented in a footnote for that article. In any event, okay, that's fine. Lokiloki (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a) media initially criticizing X and b) media reporting on the criticism over X and reaction to it; c) media commenting on the criticism. Our content should be generated from b), not a) or for sure not c).  Sources in b) characterize the sources in a) as "right wing" or "conservative", for the most  part. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose option 2, as I have said repeatedly it makes no sense to call BBC, CNN, The Guardian, NBC, Fox, NY Times itself, and many, many other news organizations "conservative media and social media". It is flat out WRONG. All reputable news organizations that I checked have covered the tweets. I would like to see some secondary sources that are calling these news organizations "conservative media and social media", or saying that those are the places that covered the story.Ikjbagl (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly, all those news organizations have covered this, but "conservative media and social media" is what media that had a strong negative reaction to her tweet, per sources (e.g Associated press: "mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets") Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few RS references who use either racist or hate in the title:
 * "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter". BBC News
 * "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People". Reason.com
 * "Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets". National Review
 * "New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface". Fox News
 * "New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets". The Federalist
 * "NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS". The Daily Caller
 * "New York Times defends newest hire Sarah Jeong amid controversy over racist tweets". Daily News
 * "New York Times stands by editorial board hire despite racist tweets". New York Post
 * "NYT Recent Editorial Board Hire Sent Hate-Filled Tweets About White People — Now the Paper Responds". Independent Journal Review
 * "Sarah Jeong's racist tweets spotlighted after New York Times hiring: 'White men are bulls--'". Washington Times
 * "NY Times defends hiring of editorial writer after emergence of past racial tweets". The Hill
 * "NEW YORK TIMES HIRES RACIST". Herald Sun
 * Quinn Norton is a major part of the the story, even in the ABC-AP and BBC story. This version is incomplete without discussing that comparison and naming/citing the "conservative media" and "critics". ESparky (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What matters is what the highest quality sources like the associated press say, not what the Daily Caller says. The body of the text should be preferred over headlines because headlines are not written by the journalist themself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support option 2: I'm less worried about the description of Jeong's critics as "conservative media" than I am about the lack of anything on Wiki about this controversy. - AyaK (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 1 Seems the most accurate and neutral portrayal on how the controversy started and developed. Alternatively support option 2 also option 2 is good, but the term "conservative" should be taken away because it is a misdleading label.93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 2 I feel this is good and reasonable wording to include, although I'd agree that the word conservative can and should be excised given the reporting across other media including the response by the NYT itself. Phil (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this option over the other proposals, although I think the mention of "regretting" and "did not condone" is unnecessarily detailed in the PR boilerplate area. The term "conservative media" is accurate given that multiple independent sources published since the initial furore, such as CJR, Vox, CNN, WaPo, The Guardian, and The Independent, describe the criticism/backlash as coming almost exclusively from right-wing figures. Several, including The Guardian, Vox, and CJR, explicitly paint the controversy as a bad-faith trolling campaign, which should also be mentioned somehow. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose option 2 This paints the "conservative media" and "critics" as an unnamed lynch mob, when in fact RS sources (virtually all of them) are questioning the NYT's difference in handling Norton vs the Jeong situation. ESparky (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Any questioning of the NYT's actions belongs at The New York Times, not here. Allegations about Jeong's supposed anti-white racism came from conservative/right-wing media according to multiple RSes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 2 is IMO the most encyclopedic version of what on the table, altho I think latter two sentences of Option 3 describe the Times’s reaction more precisely. They could perhaps be combined. My other remarks stand. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support this option with the proviso that the word "conservative" be removed from "conservative media." I agree with ESparky above, except that removing that one word seems sufficient to deal with the situation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose per my other oppose votes, and above. w umbolo   ^^^  20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons and analysis stated above - i.e. "conservative media and social media" is factually incorrect as all media reported it, not just so called "conservative" media. This really needs to be corrected. If somebody wants to mention the BBC, then mention the fact that the BBC changed the headline outright as well. Nodekeeper (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement "strongly negative reaction in conservative media" is supported by multiple independent sources. Whether it was "reported" by others is not the relevant issue; reporting and criticism are not the same thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 2; aligns with mainline sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The sources do, in fact, support the "conservative media and social media" lines, ABC says that in almost those words, while BBC says "social media" and "conservative critics". --GRuban (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2. Succinct, BLP-compliant, avoids WP:UNDUE. Summarizes major citations neutrally. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not just criticized by "conservatives" or social media; also, why are the tweets not shown? Red   Slash  15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 By far the best choice IMO.  Well written and fair to both reader and subject. Not too long and not too short in that the issue is described but no attempt has been made to go into any particulars which, if handled fairly, would need to add a great deal of copy.  The reader can find the details in the sources.   Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do appreciate that you most closely resemble RS when referring to the tweets as occurring "mostly between 2013 and 2014", unlike some other proposals. However you do not have justification for giving the subject direct quotes in her defense while sidestepping the addition of direct or partial quotes of the tweets themselves, as 99.9% of RS has done. This is bias and has been causing Wikipedia to get a bad reputation. (People complaining online is what brought me here.) The readers will notice that you're obviously whitewashing the story by refusing to show the tweets in question; they [most infamous] tweets are supported by ample sources and equally as important to the story as the defense. This proposal reads less like an encyclopedic take, and more like reputation management.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources we are using are not encyclopedias, they are not written in an encyclopedic style or with encyclopedic goals in mind. Wikipedia's reputation among ideologues is irrelevant to good editing practices.  --JBL (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here. kencf0618 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is worrisome, JBL, that you would single out my comment here with criticism, waiting roughly seven minutes after I confronted you about WP:PA on your talk page in a now deleted section. One wonders if your activity on this page is truly focused on building an encyclopedia.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given qualified support for this alternative. However, I agree with Petra that editors need to not "bludgeon" and just let people express their views. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is actually worrisome is your inappropriate personalization of a discussion of content and policy. To ease your paranoia: I wrote my comment before I knew that you had commented on my talk page.  (I won't be waiting for an apology, but maybe you'll surprise me.) --JBL (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is certainly the best of the six options currently posted. --JBL (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase "and social media" is somewhat ambiguous; sources also report defense of Jeong on social media (see discussion below). I'd suggest we remove the "social media" part. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 - Only supporting this one, to keep things simple. It's the most succinct summary, clearly worded, relies only on good sources, covers the main points. The others have varying degrees of problems with emphasis on sources, weight, awkward wording, etc. (some more so than others, of course). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 2 per Rhododendrites et al. I would have a slight preference for removing the "and social media" bit, per Sangdeboeuf. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 3: Ikjbagl
I am going to modify and re-propose my version as an Option 3 because I am dissatisfied with the others so far; they make it seem like only conservatives were targeting Jeong.

--Ikjbagl (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 3 - Neutral and well worded/well sourced. Jdcomix (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 3 The best of the three. They all have merit but this is terse, giving it due weight in her bio. I leaves out Norton, which is a plus since this isn't a BLP on Norton nor an article about the NYT's hypocrisy. We don't need the whole headline from Reason nor specifically mention National Review. This gets the essentials. Option 3' below is even better. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment add this? "The New York Times decision to retain Jeong after firing Quinn Norton in February, for her Tweets, was questioned in most major new outlets"  (Long list of references) ESparky (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "noting" is a WP:WTW and should be replaced by "saying". Also, Wikipedia should not repeat Jeong's defense in Wikipedia's voice as if her explanation is the undisputed truth.  Therefore, I suggest:
 * Comment I think the latter two sentences more accurately capture the Times and Jeong's response than what we have currently. However, were considered racist is a kind of WP:WEASEL phrasing; by whom? Not unamimously. The language in the current version (Jytdog's/Option 2) is preferable in this portion. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * oppose primarily for misquote; The times said "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers" not "imitating her accusers" (which is an... interesting mistake - her harassers are her accusers, then?).  Also fails to describe origin of consideration of isolated tweets as "racist"  Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 3a Quest for Knowledge
--A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support that edit / the removal of the last few words, but I don't think it's necessary. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I changed my mind, I do not support the removal of this bit because I disagree with your reasons. I do not see "noting" on the words to watch page; perhaps you are confusing this with "notably" or "it should be noted"? Those both carry slightly different meanings because they both work to point something out or signify/exemplify, while "noting" just works to add in a quote. Please explain if you think differently on this, I do not quite understand what you are getting at. Also, we are not repeating in Wiki's voice here; it simply says that The Times repeated Jeong's defense, which they did. We are quoting/paraphrasing their words, not putting them in Wiki's mouth. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Note" is under WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose Unusable due to misquote - the Times said "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers" Also the flat "were considered racist" is not OK, as this doesn't name the source of that characterization. This is better than 1 for its sourcing, but the last bit should not be sourced to the NYT, and it mischaracterizes where the initial criticism came from as described in high quality sources reporting on the matter.  Other than that it is fine. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC) (strike part of that Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)) (redact again Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Oppose: "widespread coverage" elides the issue, which was a backlash in right-wing or right-leaning media to the tweets, which many commentators (as cited in secondary-source coverage) argued were deceptively taken out of context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Second choice to 2 - the sources all do make a point that the criticism came from conservatives. --GRuban (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 3a, not 3 - nice job correctly summarizing the issue. "Noting" is, indeed, problematic. Red   Slash  15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 3 or 3a I've explained my reasoning ad naseum in these pages. This arrangement is the least POV and most accurate representation of the controversy. Criticism of Jeong was not limited to the conservative bogeymen, it was widespread and articles defending Jeong were forced to offer critical descriptions of her tweets (see my list [|here]), even if they spend the rest of her article parroting her defense. SWL36 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the bulk of the articles are given to "parroting her defense" as you say, then due weight would require us to focus on that aspect, not the supposed criticism, which nobody but Wiki editors is calling "criticism" anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 3 or 3a Good wording. Preferable to 2 as it does not contain POV reference to "conservative media." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3a. Introduces more WP:WEASEL phrasing than 3--switching "saying" for "noting" suggests that the harassment she experienced is factually in dispute, which it's not. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3 and 3a - Only supporting #2, to keep things simple. It's the most succinct summary, clearly worded, relies only on good sources, covers the main points. The others have varying degrees of problems with emphasis on sources, weight, awkward wording, etc. (some more so than others, of course). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 3 or 3a Succinct summary, without POVish language/labeling.Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3 and 3a per Jytdog, Rhododendrites et al. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 4: Wumbolo
I will write a paragraph based on option 3, without citing The New York Times and the BBC, but still using highly reliable sources. I will also better use citation templates, and do some restructuring and some content changes. w umbolo  ^^^  18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why would you avoid citing the Times and the BBC? The BBC is one of the most trusted news organizations that exists today, and the Times is the organization that hired her- the one that caused this whole controversy. Removing those two sources makes no sense to me. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Times has a conflict of interest, obviously, though I don't know why we're avoiding citing the BBC. Jdcomix (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree about the conflict of interest, but we are not quoting them for factual information, we are quoting them for how they (the employer) responded to the controversy about Jeong (their employee). It would be a conflict to report their opinion of the situation (i.e. to say "The Times thought this was a silly news story."), but to report their continuing desire to hire her and that they parroted her defense does not introduce a conflict of interest, just a statement by the employer. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still preferable to use secondary sources, than primary, because it fulfills the comprehensiveness requirement of featured articles. With regards to the BBC, it has issued a correction very recently, and I wouldn't want to cite them at the moment, since it's likely another correction will have been published in the near future. We do want stability here. w umbolo   ^^^  19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbolo (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm. This is now my #2 choice after my own suggestion. The sourcing is good, but there are too many quotes, and the  "revealed" is misleading; it is not as though these social media posts were secret.  The posts were definitely republished and amplified.  Would be fine with this if the quotes were removed and if "revealed" were changed to something like "highlighted" or "republished" or the like... Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with "highlighted". w umbolo   ^^^  20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it contains unnecessary reference to antisemitic media. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * so you support if "antisemitic" is removed? w umbolo   ^^^  20:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My remark was excessively cryptic. I meant to say that the phrase "were first revealed on conservative, and antisemitic far-right social media after her hiring" is POV and well-poisoning language, considering that this has become a far wider controversy. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jytdog on there being too many quotes and "revealed" being problematic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The sources used do not support the idea of "widespread criticism in the news media". Source #1 (AP/WaPo) refers to "social media criticism" and says that "mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets". Source #2 (Le Figaro) refers to "une polémique grandissante sur Twitter", saying further down that "de nombreux confrères ont manifesté leur soutien" (colleagues have expressed support) for Jeong. Sources #3 and #4 attribute the criticism/backlash mainly to right-wing media sites. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true that we don't have any tertiary coverage of secondary sources criticizing Jeong's tweets. But otherwise we'd have to have a WP:CITEBUNDLE listing the countless news media critics of her tweets. While my sources don't mention that other newspapers criticized her tweets, my sources do criticize the tweets themselves. w umbolo   ^^^  22:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do they criticize Jeong's tweets? I don't see any of the four voicing any opinion on the issue. If they did, they would be primary sources for those opinions and using them to support any statements about "widespread criticism" would be improper synthesis. In fact, there are multiple sources attributing the backlash to conservative/right-wing media; see my comment under Option #2 above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's an established consensus (throught multiple lengthy discussions) that the Roseanne Barr article can say "tweets were widely criticized as racist" with only a couple of sources backing it up. You can go check it out, the provided references don't say that others criticized the tweets as racist, the provided references criticize the tweets as racist themselves. w umbolo   ^^^  22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bringing up unrelated decisions made at some other page is off-topic for this discussion. In any event, we have numerous sources we can cite directly for attribution of the backlash, so there's no need for any synthesis of sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Option 4. Too POV, inflammatory, and wordy. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't say something is POV without explaining why. I literally cited very highly reliable sources. "inflammatory" is a complete non-argument; I don't have a clue what it's supposed to mean. "wordy" might be true, but it's still just a paragraph. Wikipedia articles have to be comprehensive, and if you look at my WaPo ref that I cite after every sentence, you can see that it is appropriately summarized here. w umbolo   ^^^  10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose reading over, agree on it being pretty POV. For some reason says that she "alleged" that harassment occured when the associated press piece referenced treats it near as fact, I don't see that the sources support "widespread criticism in the news media"; the associated press piece says "social media criticism" and "mainly conservative social media took issue" etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote "alleged" because it involves threats of violence, which are illegal. (so WP:BLPCRIME applies) With regard to the rest of your comment, I did include "conservative social media" and "social media criticism" in my proposal. Then we're left with "widespread criticism in the news media" which is not well sourced, but that's because I would have to cite the dozens of reliable sources that criticize the tweets. That would undermine my attempt to only source my content to the most reliable sources. w umbolo   ^^^  11:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support without "antisemetic", which may or may not be an accurate representation and in any case is not relevant to the criticism of anti-white comments made by a non-Jewish lady from a non-Jewish family.
 * Strong Oppose Poisons the well referring to her critics as "antisemetic", then gives undue weight to her proponents. Very biased option, should be scrapped entirely, no attempt to salvage. Galestar (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not that I don't get the universe in which this kind of take makes sense, and so I appreciate the effort, but compared with the current version, the extensive quotes move us farther away from a succinct, encyclopedic summary. Additionally, same "were considered" passive voice/WEASEL issue as Option 3. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 4 - Only supporting #2, to keep things simple. It's the most succinct summary, clearly worded, relies only on good sources, covers the main points. The others have varying degrees of problems with emphasis on sources, weight, awkward wording, etc. (some more so than others, of course). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 4 per pretty much all the oppose !votes above. Like Rhododendrites, I'm keeping my position simple. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 6: Winkelvi
-- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's in the right direction but is excessively wordy. Jytdog's proposal seems best at the present time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Option 6. Per Figureofnine. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Option five is better. Red   Slash  15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * this is OK, but doesn't describe the origin of the characterization. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 2 or 6 Either option 2 or option 6 would be satisfactory to me though I think Option 2 is probably slightly better. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 6 - Only supporting #2, to keep things simple. It's the most succinct summary, clearly worded, relies only on good sources, covers the main points. The others have varying degrees of problems with emphasis on sources, weight, awkward wording, etc. (some more so than others, of course). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 6 It's not bad, but 2 is better in my view. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't think it is fair to put up a survey that starts from scratch and effectively discards all the input provided in the original proposals. So I'd like to page all the contributors on the original proposals. To begin, Esparky's: ESparky, Ikjbagl, Dialectric, SWL36, Drmies , Oren0, Innisfree987, Lokiloki, Neptune&#39;s Trident, Jdcomix, Nodekeeper , Jason from nyc, Oren0, S Philbrick , Lokiloki, Lawrence King, Paul Siraisi, Proustfala, Sangdeboeuf, MathHisSci,  w umbolo , talk, AyaK, FreeEncyclopediaMusic, GreenIn2010. XavierItzm (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Previous Contributors to proposal 2, that I don't think are already on the previous: A Quest For Knowledge, w umbolo, A Quest For Knowledge, Citing, Jdcomix, Nuke, Sangdeboeuf, Nodekeeper, Keith Johnston, -- ψλ. Hope I got everyone! XavierItzm (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for "there is no deadline on Wikipedia." People contributed to the proposals.  Then someone created this survey, starting from scratch and w/o pinging the previous contributors and then the previous votes! counted for nothing.  Then the editor who imposed the restrictions, "in the interest of time", chose option 2, put it on the article, and put up a new restriction that nothing can be changed without consensus on what is now six proposals plus variations.  Someone tell me if I missed something. XavierItzm (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * With apologies to Churchill, all of the options are deficient, but the only thing worse is that we have nothing at all. I think there are serious flaws with option two but if it's leading, go for it, and we can work on improving it. That's how Wikipedia works. Right now, it's not working in the world is noticing. (As an aside, I'm not particularly active in political articles, and only became aware of this because I'm an active OTRS agent, and I'm fielding angry emails from readers who can't understand why there is nothing in this article. I've tried to explain our process but I'm running out of words that sound believable. If anyone has some suggested wording please let me know.) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are far too many proposals for people to easily navigate. People commenting support or oppose for any specific one. It's exhausting and confusing. From the time I contributed edits yesterday, the proposal I submitted a comment to was hatted and marked "abandoned", and told to direct my attention to the lower proposals. The version that was instituted was proposed ~3 days ago. Some editors were supporting any proposal just to get it into the article. Now that it's in the article, we can talk about what issues still remain. One such issue is the New Yorks' time statement is a bit misleading, as outlined by this editor. Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * option 2 has already been added to the article, so hopefully those angry emails stop :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can hope. More importantly, I can respond that the article does mention the issue, if some come in after reading an older version.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, we did get another angry email, and I was able to point them to the addition to the article. (In case someone wonders why they didn't check the article before sending in, the email initially came to another address and was forwarded to us so I suspect their observation was accurate when they wrote it.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You could always try informing "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" that good encylopedia writing takes time. We want to get it right, especially with sensitive topics. That's actually part of our BLP policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. We've already had the discussion, we do not need to say the same things over again. Other editors can add to previous discussions if they wish. Nodekeeper (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * User:wumbolo I apologize for this. When you posted your option you didn't sign it, and the  next comment underneath it was this one by XavierItzm, and that is how I found it when I came across it, so I thought XavierItzm had proposed it, and you were still working on that. Which is why I did put it in a new section. I just went back and looked at diffs and see that it was yours.  I apologize. I have signed your post, when you added your proposal, so it is now clear that it is yours, and moved my comment on it, back under it.  Again my apologies.Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * XavierItzm, I agree that the powers-that-be should not have ignored the earlier discussion and made edits based on a brand new proposal. At this point, I don't have time to monitor this page 24/7 and vote on every single new proposal.  &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist doesn't cover everything We have, for example "Fuck the police" and "kill all men." Plenty of issues with both tweets, but "racist" does not apply to either.

Ready to close?

 * The survey discussion seems to have settled. So should we call for a formal closure, or would editors like to wait (say) another day? Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think now's fine. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support close with tentative consensus I think discussion has moved downward to new proposals based on what is currently in the article. Its worth closing and letting battles over the issues with this wording be fought in newer discussions (noting that both discussions have large support for overturning this current, tentative consensus). If this option is not possible, I would support leaving it open and starting an RfC to flesh out a rather thin discussion supporting option 2. SWL36 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose close. Nobody has adequately addressed the points here regarding this as part of a bad faith effort to quotemine. The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source on journalism (which everyone ignored in the linked discussion) and the statement from a former employer is serious. Other sources show statements were entirely stripped of context and made them seem offensive. Fortune has a good article that provides context.Citing (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Lets let the survey run a few more days to see if more editors would like to opine, or add other options to the survey. There is no real rush. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you yourself wrote that the discussion seems to have settled. Now you've apparently closed off the option (of a formal closure) to let the survey "run a few more days," apparently based on one editor's comment. I hope you'll reconsider. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. In the meantime take a look at what I posted?Citing (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My two cents--having just cast a bunch of ivotes because I initially misunderstood this query, ugh--we could close this portion and still discuss other additions, no? (As some have proposed adding specific tweets.) This is not a "this is all that will ever be said about the matter" survey, it's a "should we add this much?" survey. At least that's how I was understanding it. If that's wrong, will someone please correct me, because I maybe would add another option. If I came find the energy... Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support close. It seems to me the only lingering discussion either is already being simultaneously discussed elsewhere, or should be. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have requested formal closure at WP:AN/RFC. Note that the closure of the survey would not mean that further (discussed) changes cannot be made to the relevant text. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)