Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sarah Jeong: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:22, 29 October 2019 editGreenC (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors129,078 edits NY Post: bad faith troll - I never said anyone was a sock and the comment is inflammatory← Previous edit Revision as of 21:47, 29 October 2019 edit undoJayBeeEll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers28,266 editsm Reverted 1 edit by GreenC (talk) to last revision by Joel B. Lewis (TW)Tag: UndoNext edit →
Line 94: Line 94:
{{hat|Please ]}} {{hat|Please ]}}
Gee four people in less than 24hrs aligned on such a minor thing, I've seen stranger! -- ]] 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Gee four people in less than 24hrs aligned on such a minor thing, I've seen stranger! -- ]] 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
: Um ok why don't you take us all to ] and see how that goes? --] (]) 23:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
::Their goalpost moving is also amusing: first it was an ungrounded appeal to ]; when exposed, then it was "''the subtext''". Next, it will probably be "''emanations and penumbras''." ] (]) 00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC) ::Their goalpost moving is also amusing: first it was an ungrounded appeal to ]; when exposed, then it was "''the subtext''". Next, it will probably be "''emanations and penumbras''." ] (]) 00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Alrighty then. --] (]) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC) :::Alrighty then. --] (]) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:47, 29 October 2019

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Jeong article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen writers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
[REDACTED] Internet culture Low‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Jeong article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  • speedy keep, 7 August 2018, see discussion.
  • speedy no consensus, 4 August 2018, see discussion.
  • relist, 4 August 2018, see DRV.
  • speedy keep, 4 August 2018, see discussion.

Career

Please add the following update to Sarah Jeong's career.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In August 2019 Sarah Jeong decided to leave the New York Times editorial board. Her relationship continues as a contracted opinion writer for the NYT.

dmode (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. | via NY Post cite CNN/NYT

X to Y

dmode (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. | abequinn 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Article should be updated

Jeong has recently left NYT (Reported by CNN and The Hill).--Mayimbú (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. | abequinn 00:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Actual language from her tweets

Previous discussion on quoting Jeong's tweets failed to reach consensus, which effectively means to exclude the disputed material. Closing thread which has devolved into tit-for-tat. Nothing new here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems a lot of this page dances around the offensiveness of her comments and NYT silent support or lack of care about her comments.

Her Tweets are public domain for anyone to see - wouldn't it enrich the article and dialogue and better inform the reader to let them know she said:

- "Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” - "Caucasians were “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”" - "Dumbass fucking white people" - "#CancelWhitePeople"

References

  1. #CancelWhitePeople: New York Times defends hiring tech writer after anti-white 'counter-trolling' tweets unearthed Retrieved September 28, 2019

If similar tweets were made by white supremacists/nationalists wouldn't wiki writers use this as proof of their status and be labeled as such in opening of page and categories on bottom? Rsarlls (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you go ask on some talk pages for white supremacists and nationalists instead of wasting the time of editors here rehashing stupid arguments? --JBL (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
JBL are you always this dismissive and nasty? The prior discussion around this topic was "settled" due to non agreement, yet here again she is hitting the news for coming off the NYT Board which is again tied to her Twitter utterances - yet a reader of the page would lack the ability to see the material without going to Google or Twitter - seems to defeat the purpose of a proper and thorough Wiki page. Rsarlls (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I am indeed deeply dismissive of posts that begin by repeated stupid arguments on settled topics and end with insinuations of hypocrisy based on nothing. If you would like to be treated respectfully, you can begin by treating with respect the previous editors of this page and the fact of an established consensus. (While consensus can change, it does not change by repetition of an argument identical in all respects to the one that has been rejected, without any acknowledgement or understanding of why that happened.) --JBL (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
"stupid arguments on settled topics" - pretty superior and imperious tone, don't you think? "insinuations of hypocrisy" - wow that's like you're taking this personally. Guess that continues to explain and reconfirm why wiki editor and pageview numbers continue to shrink. Enjoy your shrinking ghetto.Rsarlls (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Always nice to have first impressions confirmed. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

NY Post

FWIW - I read the NYPost source and it is factual and reliable information. It is actually less tabloidy than the other source to The Hill. Reliability is often a matter of particulars on the specific page and the fact being cited. -- GreenC 15:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think either source is necessary to be honest, the CNN story is enough.Citing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
That's just one sentence we can provide readers with more in-depth reporting. -- GreenC 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, the WP:RS ought to be restored. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
But it's not necessary, there is already an uncontroversial reliable source. Just the CNN source would suffice.Citing (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
See WP:BLPSOURCES: material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. The New York Post is not The New York Times; it's a tabloid. All it does here is recycle the CNN report along with quoting some of the old tweets for the sake of sensationalism. Not usable, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
No material is being added other than the quote itself. Therefore the cited text from WP:BLPSOURCES does not apply. The citation is due. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the subtext there is we shouldn't use garbage sources in BLPs. The Hill already counts as a reliable source; the New York Post article doesn't add anything except sensationalism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Sangdeboeuf: there's no point in using a worse source for something when we have a better source. --JBL (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Sangdeboeuf and JBL. We need fewer tabloid sources on Misplaced Pages, not more. There's no value add here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Please focus on content, not other contributors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Gee four people in less than 24hrs aligned on such a minor thing, I've seen stranger! -- GreenC 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Um ok why don't you take us all to WP:SPI and see how that goes? --JBL (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Their goalpost moving is also amusing: first it was an ungrounded appeal to WP:BLPSOURCES; when exposed, then it was "the subtext". Next, it will probably be "emanations and penumbras." XavierItzm (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Alrighty then. --JBL (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/P, the Post is considered a marginal source; that generally means it shouldn't be used for statements about a WP:BLP, where higher sourcing requirements apply. If people don't think the existing sources are good enough, then we should omit the sentence entirely. Also, RS/P indicates that The Hill is more reliable than the Post (there's a clear consensus towards the Hill's reliability, not so much for the Post.) If you think The Post should be considered "less tabloidy" than The Hill, you can take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you'd get anywhere - that seems like a fairly idiosyncratic opinion to me, since The Hill is, well, not a tabloid? --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. Levine, Jon (2019-09-28). "Sarah Jeong leaves the New York Times editorial board". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-09-29.
Categories:
Talk:Sarah Jeong: Difference between revisions Add topic