Revision as of 18:14, 29 October 2019 editJayBeeEll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers28,266 editsm Undid revision 923609625 by GreenC (talk) omg read WP:AGF and don't act like a childTag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:22, 29 October 2019 edit undoGreenC (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors129,075 edits →NY Post: bad faith troll - I never said anyone was a sock and the comment is inflammatoryNext 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 19:22, 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. |
|
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 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 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 |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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
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)
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
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)
|
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)
- Agreed, the WP:RS ought to be restored. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
|
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
- Levine, Jon (2019-09-28). "Sarah Jeong leaves the New York Times editorial board". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-09-29.
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Women writers articles
- Low-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- Start-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Start-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press