This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:56, 13 July 2022 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 9) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:56, 13 July 2022 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 9) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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. |
|
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 is 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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Conservative media
the article says that Jeong was criticised in "conservative media". the reference for this seems to be the BBC, NYT and the Guardian. These don't seem like conservative media to me.
Can the claim be support by actual reference to conservative media or likewise, since left wing/centrist media also ran the story, just remove the word "conservative"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebefl (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, we use secondary sources here, not primary sources. All three references make very clear the sources of the criticism:
far-right blog
,those on the right
,mainly conservative social media
,Conservative critics
, etc. --JBL (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Relevant past discussions are available here, here, and here. --JBL (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of context?
WP:NOTAFORUM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One of the things that really jumped out at me about this page is this sentence: "Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context." This is, strictly speaking, true! But then, look at The Verge's actual statement. They make the claim... but never provide the slightest justification or example. How? How were they taken out of context? Similarly -- satire? I've been a writer and editor all my life. Where is the /satire/ in Jeong's tweets? Try this experiment: Suppose a white person wrote: "Dumbass f****** marking up the internet like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" -- and then later claimed it was "satire." Would that be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.107.58 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
I actually am new to this discussion and corrected (or have submitted it for correction” a sentence used that left out of context that her tweet to who she perceived to be Bernie Sanders supporters was in her own words meant as a “hyperbolic joke”. The only reason I can see for someone to utilize that source for her statement and then leaving out that context is to give a very jaundiced perception about both her intention with the tweet and it’s connection to unverified and unreasonable (and now wholly unsupportable as independent studies have shown) determination that “Bernie Bros” were a real thing (they weren’t according to several independent study’s of the data) and thus gave the impression she was simply someone innocently commenting who received this Toxic attack by Sanders supporters.
1. Her tweet was meant to elicit a strong reaction (how hyperbolic jokes work)
2. The statement allowed that the people she tweeted her hyperbolic joke at were “Bernie Bros” (aka Bernie Sanders supporters) w/o any “alleged” or “presumed” to signify not only that she could have no idea if these trolls were even Americans let alone Bernie supporters makes the statement on Misplaced Pages intentionally inflammatory.
Anyways, while looking beyond I noticed that for some reason the description of her incident with her racially insensitive/racist/problematic tweets was allowed to imply that ONLY right wing outlets took issue.
Fact is EVEN NYTimes colleague stated the objective fact that yes the statements are racist (and they are, this isn’t debatable). But beyond that we had sources like BBC, Politico, Washington Post not too mention many pundits no one would call left stating in one way or another of course the tweets are racist but the point is, and I agree, it doesn’t mean either she is racist (context helps with that) or that she or anyone should be canceled for old tweets like that.
They should really remove that statement that implies it’s only a right wing fake outrage thing. Bc as is the article is hardly neutral and objectively it’s 100% counterfactual even to the source provided. JustTheT (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Naomi Wu
Sarah was invoiced in a huge controversy by Doxxing a Chinese women on Vice, and according to the victim breaching their written agreement etc
I hope there are reliable sources beyond the victim's own blog Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- This has been discussed several times before and no one has yet put forward any independent, reliable sources for this incident. Hoping, etc. won't change that, unfortunately. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- https://biohackinfo.com/news-bbc-undercover-to-expose-cyborgs/ , https://arcdigital.media/how-western-progressives-fail-activists-in-the-developing-world-fbfd91307da1 and https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ look to me like good sources (especially together). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- These are all obviously terrible sources; the idea that someone would propose using any one of them as a source in a Misplaced Pages article is somewhere between absurd and terrifying. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- arcdigital.media is alternative media which does have editors. Are you saying that all alternative media shouldn't be used as a source for Misplaced Pages articles? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am saying that if you can't understand why "The internet’s best opinion page" isn't a RS for contentious factual claims in BLPs, you shouldn't be editing biographies on Misplaced Pages. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- All three of these sources have an obvious axe to grind, and definitely should not be used for any contentious BLP info. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- arcdigital.media is alternative media which does have editors. Are you saying that all alternative media shouldn't be used as a source for Misplaced Pages articles? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/ is another source. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- It has come up on WP:RSN twice: 1 2. Summary of the comments there:
s this the best source for this? That does rather ring alarm bells
. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) - That source doesn't say anything about Jeong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- It has come up on WP:RSN twice: 1 2. Summary of the comments there:
- These are all obviously terrible sources; the idea that someone would propose using any one of them as a source in a Misplaced Pages article is somewhere between absurd and terrifying. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- https://biohackinfo.com/news-bbc-undercover-to-expose-cyborgs/ , https://arcdigital.media/how-western-progressives-fail-activists-in-the-developing-world-fbfd91307da1 and https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ look to me like good sources (especially together). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2022
It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Sarah Jeong. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Change: In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
To: In January 2016, Jeong posted a hyperbolic joke tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to what she believed were online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
(The context is vitally important in understanding both the issue and how Jeong herself described her tweet in the citation used for the provided line. Obviously the implication is dramatically changed when read without crucial context about Jeongs intent and also as important the characterization/blame imparted to Bernie Sanders supporters who were maligned by the event, even more so since we now know that data shows the “Bernie Bro” pejorative was a false claim not backed by the actual facts/data and in many cases directly contradicted by them. We also found out that Russian operations were acting as “Bernie supporters” in attempt to undermine our elections. With these facts and context in mind, along with the full context of Jeongs own quote which was not included, readers are left with several false impressions both about her intention and action and her claims something. It also is important to note that it was her belief that the attacks were being made by Bernie Sanders supporters, something many people along with independent study say were intentional troll networks run by opposition campaigns as well as Russian Troll farms, according to US Intel Agencies who warned about Russia also seeking to undermine election acting as supporters of Sanders candidacy. That the acts ascribed as being from “Sanders Supporters” directly contradict the entire platform of Sanders campaign as well as being incongruent with the tone/tenure/makeup of his movement lead to rational logical valid questions about the possible dirty tricks campaign meant to create the appearance of Bernie Supporter's creating a toxic environment which could then be used to force Bernie Sanders campaign to accept responsibility for the acts of these troll farms. Along with Salon, NYTimes and many others reporting which discusses the independent analysis showing that “Bernie Bro” smears were created as a “myth” and showing his campaign supporters were not creating the toxic environment blamed on them as well as the Russian Operation posing as Bernie Supporters.
Many other sources available but I thought these gave the best overview of the issues. I don’t think it is correct to definitively ascribe the actions/attacks as coming from Bernie Sanders supporters as the evidence not only doesn’t justify that belief, Sanders movement/platform actually discredits the notion that supporters of Bernie Sanders would be likely to have taken the stances the troll accounts in question took. Likewise, Although I believe the discussion deserves critical consideration of the facts especially now that we have a clearer view post election, I am not suggesting we take the opposing viewpoint and categorically dismiss the notion that someone might hold belief that these were in fact Bernie Sanders supporters. Seems the reasonable, correct, accurate description would be; “Alleged Bernie Bros”. But as for Jeongs tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”, this should not be debatable either as it’s importance in giving context or necessary for proper understanding of the event in question.
For her description of her tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”; https://www.wired.com/2016/09/inside-googles-internet-justice-league-ai-powered-war-trolls/
Various sources describing belief and data discounting the narrative that the toxic views and attacks were supporters of Bernie Sanders (or even people at all):
https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/bernie-sanders/selective-feminism-and-the-myth/
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/09/the-evidence-that-makes-the-bernie-bro-smear-look-all-the-worse/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/03/the-bernie-bro-line-cant-make-clinton-a-progressive/ ) JustTheT (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I just read the “sign your changes” but assume as you can see who wrote these that wasn’t necessary, please tell me if I am mistaken. JustTheT (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2022 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology, saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color.
To; The hiring sparked a strong reaction across social media and news outlets with some journalists and commentators highlighting her previous tweets, which the NYTimes editorial board described her racially insensitive as “unacceptable”, while others including NYTimes journalists as well as BBC and TheHill labeled them as derogatory, and racist toward white people. The Washington Post, and NYTimes wrote a piece stating the tweets in question were “certainly racist” but questioning if racist or bigoted tweets making fun of white people, like Sara’s which included;
“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
“Dumbass f—ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”
"white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants"
“White men are bull—”; “#CancelWhitePeople”; and “f— white women lol.”
Should be a firing offense especially as Jeong posted many of her tweets under the hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople” and were mostly made in 2013 and 2014 in response to her perception that minorities were treated differently with respect to the issues being discussed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534.amp
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at-new-york-times-editorial-board/amp/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/new-work-times-thinks-anti-white-racism-doesnt-count/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/ny-times-newest-editorial-board-member-doesnt-seem/ JustTheT (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: Previous discussion on quoting even one Jeong's tweets (let alone a half-dozen or more) failed to reach consensus, which effectively means to exclude the disputed material. The phrase
negative reaction in conservative media
is based on several published, reliable sources and none of the many proposals to delete it have found consensus either. Explicit consensus is required for any changes to the hiring-controversy paragraph, which means a proper discussion, not just an edit request. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Asian Americans articles
- Unknown-importance Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Korea-related articles
- Low-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Women writers articles
- Low-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- C-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests