Talk:Sarah Jeong - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) at 08:15, 12 February 2019 (→Category: Closing unhelpful trolling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:15, 12 February 2019 by Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs) (→Category: Closing unhelpful trolling)(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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Biography

This 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.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This 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.

Internet culture Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Madrigal, Alexis C. (August 7, 2018). "Misplaced Pages, the Last Bastion of Shared Reality". The Atlantic.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

This 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.

Jeong's apology

Even though I originally proposed the sentence:

Jeong apologized for the hurtful comments, which she said were meant to satirize online harassment toward her ...

I would suggest rephrasing it as:

Jeong apologized for the comments, which she said were meant to satirize online harassment toward her ...

or even better as:

Jeong released an apology, saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her ...

The word hurtful here is ambiguous; it's not clear whether it's being attributed to Jeong or whether we are making a judgement ourselves about the content of her remarks. I think the ~~second~~ third version is clearer and more concise, without a significant loss of meaning, and without appearing to editorialize, as well as having a more formal tone. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Support obviously. No one except you called the comments hurtful. wumbolo ^^^ 05:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Jeong did on Twitter: I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  - But then to clarify the ambiguity we should say "Jeong apologized for the "hurtful" comments ..." which has its own ambiguity. I support removal of the word. --JBL (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The word is what she used as language. What about just quoting it? I disagree with scare quotes around that word only. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
If she said “I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context”, and we leave out the words “out of context”, then we are quoting her out of context as the meaning of the sentence is that the words are not hurtful in context. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Pretty much every source I have seen gives the full sentence when quoting her apology. PackMecEng (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  - Readers can check the sources if they want the actual text of her statement. Quoting the full apology would be out of proportion for an encyclopedic summary of the incident, which I believe is already given too much ink in Jeong's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    - It is what she is most known for. I also am not sure that a few more words to finish a sentence would be to much in general. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
      - It may be what she's "most known for" right now, at least among the denizens of the right-wing blogosphere. But temporary fame is not the same as enduring notability. Ten years from now, will it be what she's "most known for"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
        Fair point on the 10 years from now, we have no idea if she will do something amazing or noteworthy between now and then. All we know is that the vast majority of RS coverage is about this. Something like 95% of anything that mentions her is about this. So I really do not like to speculate about the future with a subject that has such narrow notability. PackMecEng (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again, "notability" is not the same as notoriety, or with being temporarily at the center of a media circus. Specifically, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". Jeong was notable for our purposes before the recent media frenzy; her notability does not rely on it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The recent AFD disagrees with your assessment. It is hard to argue with the number of sources, impact on her life, and notability she has gained because of it. Also looking at recent sources the vast majority of times she is brought up, it is in reference to the incident. It has become a cautionary tale well documented by RS. PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- The recent AFD disagrees with your assessment – how? It has become a cautionary tale well documented by RS – where? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  - There was no "brief burst of news coverage". Newspapers still mention it. wumbolo ^^^ 05:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    - Which newspapers? If they are to qualify as significant and sustained coverage of the event for notability purposes, they should be more than passing or trivial mentions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
      - This is the rare case where the "daily article pageviews" template is actually useful for something. (It's collapsed in the big block of templates at the top of this page.) It is well worth a look. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
fwiw I don't think its useful to revisit this. The change is small, and the events are too recent. Will just be drama with little benefit in meaning for readers. (somebody already made the change, btw)Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since the events are so recent, all the more reason to reduce the overall amount of text devoted to the issue, in order to avoid an article overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  - Plenty of room to expand now that we are getting more perspective and it moves past being news of the day. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: as you know, this notion that the subject is primarily, or only, notable for the Tweets incident was extensively argued in a formal RfC that you participated in, and the community's consensus came down against that interpretation, both numerically and due to the fact that no evidence has ever been produced to substantiate those claims. This is still a contentious article under tight behavioral restrictions, and continuing to argue this point as if it's a given, and misrepresenting the AfD, which overwhelmingly rejected the premise that she was only notable for the one event, is really starting to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Bludgeoning and refusing to drop the stick over an unsubstantiated claim that was rejected by the community is disruptive. Also, implying that RECENTISM is no longer an issue after less than three months is ridiculous, not only because the Misplaced Pages standard is the Ten Year Test, but because even if three months after a news spike was a sufficient sample size to objectively judge an event's historical impact, you're not even making an effort to substantiate your claim that the event is continuing to get significant coverage as of now. Swarm talk 10:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Swarm: as you either know or don't know, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, especially since almost all mentions of Jeong this month (therefore almost three months after) also mention the Twitter controversy. You are the one bludgeoning and misinterpreting the consensus of an AfD and an RfC, which were de facto not about what you think they were. wumbolo ^^^ 11:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  - Obviously consensus hasn't changed, and obviously there is no continuing coverage (just occasional passing mentions). Please knock it off. --JBL (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Do you mean the RFC for it having it's own section here? That has nothing to do with anything anyone here is talking about from what I can tell. It was to do with the event having it's own section. With bludgeoning and drop the stick, I had not commented here in a bit and had planned on letting it go to revisit in time. Also with WP:RECENTISM, when would you say that is no longer in effect? There is no line for that I can find, what I had said above was as it moves past it we can get perspective. Is that incorrect? Yes the majority of coverage was from that time, but a google search limiting the dates to more recently shows every time she is mentioned, even in passing, is related to the event. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  - @PackMecEng: From what I can see, nearly all of your own comments in that discussion had to do with what you saw as the subject's primary notability as demonstrated by what you called "sustained coverage" of the Twitter flap. As regards said "coverage", the phrase "even in passing" is apt, since passing mentions are all that I have seen about the incident in recent sources. Recent events getting a passing mention in stories about something related is a sign that they are recent and related, not a sign of lasting significance. Two of your three links above are also opinion columns, which are not generally reliable in this context, as I've stated to you before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    - There are only passing mentions of the incident, just like there are only passing mentions of Sarah Jeong whatsoever. wumbolo ^^^ 21:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    - No need to reply to every comment, the change has been made and any other purposed changes should be in a new thread. Can we all just move on? PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
      - The initial proposal included version #3 of the sentence, the fate of which hasn't been decided; see below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  - I think it's fairly disingenuous to suggest that the RfC has "nothing to do with anything" being discussed here. That RfC was a straightforward attempt to increase the weight given to the topic, on this exact basis, that the sources are overwhelmingly about this event and the weight needs to be increased accordingly. That was literally the stated position of the person who started the RfC, which was repeatedly rearticulated by the supporters. It's not as if the consensus view only answered a question with no implications whatsoever, it rejected a specific underlying argument (the same argument you're continuing to make), and took the opposite position. As for the 'how long is recentism' issue, you're right, it's not objectively defined. But the sentiments behind WP:10 year test and WP:RECENTISM overall are pretty straightforward. Perception of an event changes as it moves from a "recent event" to a "historical event", and the frame of reference provided for this timescale is "ten or twenty years' time", in the context of assessing a U.S. presidential election. RECENTISM is meant to deal with long-term, historical hindsight. Now, to be clear, I don't think a journalist's twitter controversy remotely needs that scale of time to pass to be able to fairly assess the event, and a more practical way of measuring whether adequate time has passed is offered as being after the point that "articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum". I don't think we can judge this with basically no editing happening due to the restrictions, but we can look at the page view history instead. Before the controversy, the average daily views on the article were fairly consistent: (November: 10, December: 9, January: 13, February: 27 (outlier due to a large spike over the course of a few days; the median here was 12), March: 14, April: 18, May: 15, June: 7, July: 9). It went up and down, but remained fairly stable. Then the controversy broke: August: 8527 (median: 1791), September: 410, October: 320. What does that data tell you? There was a monumental spike of interest in the article, which has tapered off. But is it done tapering off? Or will it continue to trend downward in November and December? I would think that we would need a frame of reference of at least a few months without a downward trend to be able to confidently determine that the article has stabilized, before we can even begin to lower our guard against recentism. Last month I gave an estimation that a post-recentism reassessment might be feasible in six months to a year, and, depending on how quickly the page views stabilize, I think that's a realistic assessment. Swarm talk 23:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Side note: Looking at those numbers, it's shocking that the community choose not to characterize the tweets as being primarily (albeit not entirely) responsible for her notability. I wonder if a newer RfC on the question would yield a different response. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the topic, if there are no specific objections to the third version of the sentence above, then I'll adjust the article text accordingly, after allowing time for users to see this thread and respond. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment second or third versions are OK. "Hurtful" is not necessary and POV. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose removal the word "hurtful" came from Jeong; it simply needs proper attribution. A change could be: "Jeong apologized for what she termed "hurtful" comments...". Or, mimic other RS and directly quote her.

The New Yorker: "She added that she understood how, out of context, tweeting such remarks was “hurtful,” and that she would not do it again."

Vox: Jeong: "I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context"

In this case, using full or partial direct quotations may be a better approach. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Support removal. Not an accurate summary of what she said (as others have pointed out when elaborating on the context, which emphasizes that her comments were taken out of context to create that effect), and either way putting it in the narrator voice leads to non-neutral, emotive language inappropriate for a topic like this. Given that the controversy seems to have been a flash-in-the-pan that has long since died down, expanding the section and quoting her in full would be WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Your comment is almost entirely inaccurate. wumbolo ^^^ 12:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Support removing "hurtful" per Aquillion. It sounds judgmental and unencyclopedic when used without context, but the (un)importance of this controversy doesn't justify giving it space in bio needed to add its context.HouseOfChange (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

* Since there's an apparent rough consensus to remove the word "hurtful" here, and there have been no specific objections to version #3 that I proposed above, I've implemented this version of the sentence accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Conservative" or "right-wing" reaction?

Would it be more accurate to say that Jeong's hiring by the Times sparked a "strongly negative reaction" in conservative media, as the article currently does, or right-wing media, as Joel B. Lewis suggested here? Here's how the sources we're currently using phrase the issue:

AP: "ainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets, which seem to date to 2013 and 2014 ..."
BBC: "The newspaper's announcement that it was hiring Sarah Jeong met an outpouring of online criticism ... Conservative critics said the New York Times board's decision to stand by Ms Jeong amounted to an endorsement of discrimination ..."
Columbia Journalism Review: "Right-wing media outlets dredged up a series of inflammatory tweets ... statements Thursday following the uproar among conservatives ... leaving many on the right interpreting it as tacit approval ..."
The Independent: "hey quickly spread and were picked up by conservative media including the Daily Caller and Gateway Pundit websites ..."
The Guardian: "Old tweets in which Jeong ... criticized and made jokes about white people were resurfaced on a rightwing blog ... Gateway Pundit, a far-right blog ... The response has infuriated those on the right ... highlighted the way the 'alt-right' is unearthing problematic social media posts ... the tweets were resurfaced by rightwing political opponents ... When her employer defends her against the charge, figures on the right use that to stoke racial tensions ..."
The Washington Post: "onservative media seized on the story ... exposed a deeper rift between some conservatives the left ... right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, Breitbart and Infowars ... To some conservatives, her hiring an example of how liberals get away with their own brand of racism ..."
CNNMoney:"Faced with criticism and indignation from conservatives, the New York Times on Thursday said it is standing by a new hire ... the backlash, mainly coming from the right ... To some conservatives, like Fox News contributor Guy Benson, the tweets were representative ..."

What, if anything, is the difference between "conservative" and "right-wing" here, and what would be the best phrasing to use? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly right-wing per the sources. Note that the BBC article is not a reliable source, not only because it criticizes Jeong itself, but also because they changed the article multiple times without issuing a correction note. This is still misleading, because "conservative media" is not the "alt-right", and "alt-right" was the only right-wing "medium" which reacted negatively according to The Guardian. (That is, if I remember correctly, and I haven't opened any of these articles in the last two months) wumbolo ^^^ 05:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In American political dialog the words are close to synonymous. Part of the distinction being made in the sources is between the originators ("right-wing" or "far-right" blogs) and the regurgitators ("conservatives" and "conservative media") of this fake outrage moment, but I don't think we should (in the Misplaced Pages article) be explaining this event in sufficiently much detail to draw out the distinction ("the people who started the brouhaha are completely crazy, whereas the people who mainstreamed it are merely awful and cynical"). Ultimately I think either phrase is acceptable, but on balance "conservative" is better supported in the sources. (I also disagree with Wumbolo's analysis of the reliability of a particular BBC article, not that I think it determines anything.) --JBL (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
We can't "be explaining this event in sufficiently much detail to draw out the distinction" because reliable sources don't explain it, and instead blame "right-wing outlets" or "some conservatives", ignoring plenty of criticism by left-figures reported by reliable sources. The vast majority of sources don't say either "right-wing" or "conservative", and the rest that do require WP:INTEXT (especially since "right-wing media figures" is a much stronger wording than "media figures judged right-wing by X, Y, and Z"). Moreover, you can repeat that this is a fake outrage moment (it's still going on), but zero sources support that (if they did, they would be spreading the outrage, ending in a catch-22). wumbolo ^^^ 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

fwiw I don't think its useful to revisit this. The change is small, and the events are too recent. Will just be drama with little benefit in meaning for readers. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before. I believe her tweets need to be posted so the readers can make up their own minds. Instead of dancing around the issue of how to phrase the media’s reaction to the tweets, allow the readers to make their own judgments by presenting all the facts. I baffels me how less information could possibly be considered better in a wiki article. Abwillingham (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Presenting all the facts about anything is not an encyclopedia's mission. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Job

I have been looking for sources, from time to time, that she actually started working at the NYT. Anybody found one? Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I did a very narrow search , and only found a blog. wumbolo ^^^ 05:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Here's a Fortune article. wumbolo ^^^ 11:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

yeah you can find things like that simply limited by "last week" like this and this and this and many more, with somewhat different descriptions. She has updated her twitter profile to say "editorial board @nytimes, lead writer on technology."Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The Verge's editor-in-chief wrote in late August, "Sarah recently joined The New York Times Editorial Board to write about technology issues". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Patel, Nilay (August 28, 2018). "The Internet of Garbage by Sarah Jeong". The Verge. (Introduction).

Wording: "A campaign harassing Jeong ensued that lasted for weeks and included threats of sexual violence..."

I would like to find a wording that is less passively voiced. The "campaign" was the work of human beings with agency who chose to abuse another human being. The word "campaign" undermines the sense that people did this in a deliberate fashion; makes it seem like a weather event or something that nobody chose to do. Possibly something a simple as "In response to Jeong's comments, people harassed her and made threats of sexual violence against her. The harassment lasted for weeks, leading Jeong to make her Twitter account private and take an unpaid leave from her job at Motherboard..." Thoughts? PaulCHebert (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The implication of the word "campaign" is not to absolve participants but to emphasize that they were recruited rather than random and spontaneous. This was not a situation where random people happened upon some controversial past tweets. Years of Jeong's past writings were mined for her most offensive comments, which were then posted by multiple rightwing media outlets whose goal was a backlash against Jeong and the New York Times. Joy Ann Reid is another example of the same kind of intensive campaign to end the career of an outspoken media figure. We should expect to see many more such in the future. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC) I should read more carefully, I had assumed that "campaign" referenced NYT kerfluffle, not the 2016 Berniebro one, which likely included some Russian agitpro. Although apparently the 2016 event too was pushed hard by partisans such as Matt Bruenig. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. None of the sources cited call it a "campaign", and the sentence is poorly worded. Calling it a campaign downplays the fact that many unprovoked people who didn't like Jeong's tweets have harassed her in disturbingly abusive fashion. The comment above is irrelevant at best and homophobic at worst. wumbolo ^^^ 15:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the statement is referring to harassment directed at Jeong by Bernie Sanders supporters, citing this article from Wired. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I know, when I said "tweets", I was referring to the tweet that the Bernie Bros did not like. Looks like it was only one tweet so I was wrong to say "tweets". wumbolo ^^^ 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree there's a problem with the word "campaign," which isn't verified by the Wired source. Nor is the "threats of sexual violence"; the source only mentions a single threat. However it also refers to nude photos and disturbing videos. My feeling is that we shouldn't give any weight to the single trolling tweet. We should just say she was harassed for weeks. R2 (bleep) 23:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Still at The Verge?

The article currently says that Jeong was a senior writer at The Verge, implying that she no longer is. Is this verifiable? It's clear from her profile that she hasn't published anything there since July, but that doesn't mean she's no longer with them, does it? R2 (bleep) 23:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There's already a discussion on this topic above, under § Job. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: remove paraphrased NYT statement

The whole paragraph about the hiring controversy is textbook recentism, in my opinion. There seemed to be little appetite for caution and long-term reflection during August's mad editing frenzy, but now I hope we can consider some tightening of the prose. For example, I suggest we remove the statement: The Times said it had reviewed her social media history before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.

As I've stated before, this just reads like PR boilerplate, just the sort of statement we'd expect any employer to make in the face of such a (manufactured) controversy. Are we expecting the Times to say either a.) they didn't care about a tech writer's social-media history, or b.) they did condone their new hire making fun of white people? I don't see how this adds to a meaningful understanding of Jeong's life and career. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just because it's "boilerplate" (or any other WP:IDLI reason) doesn't mean we shouldn't include the reaction by the most important party to the controversy (which, btw, is not manufactured and your repeated characterization of it as such is bordering on WP:REHASH), other than Jeong. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And what does the reaction by the Times tell us about the subject of this article, namely one Sarah Jeong? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Mostly that the other party in the controversy agrees it was poor judgement to post things like that. Also the Times reaction is heavily covered by almost every RS when talking about the situation. It would be a disservice to our readers not to include a common thread in most RS. PackMecEng (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to evaluate the quality of anyone's judgement, so if that's what you mean, all the more reason to omit this information. Whether the Times "agrees it was poor judgement" appears to be your own interpretation of the source. Another one, equally likely in my view, is that they're covering their own asses. In any case, it doesn't tell us anything about Jeong herself.

There are lots of common threads in the sources that we haven't replicated in the article – directly quoting Jeong's tweets, for example. When the sources are all news outlets, exercising that kind of discretion is vital, because Misplaced Pages is not a news source, and such details are often out of proportion to their overall importance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I've answered these objections. If there are no others, I propose removing the text as described above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Verge editors' statement

For the sake of clarity, I suggest changing:

Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate controversy.

to the following:

Editors at The Verge defended Jeong by saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context, and comparing Jeong's experience to that of the women who were targets of harassment during the Gamergate controversy.

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't like it. Both sources say The Verge was referring to the harassment itself, not to how Jeong experienced it. R2 (bleep) 21:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to The Washington Post, Many said both and Jeong’s experiences were reminiscent of #Gamergate ... But some organizations are wising up ... Jeong’s current employer, the technology site the Verge, issued a vigorous defense of her. I think we can assume that The Verge is meant to be included in the "many said" part. And Jeong certainly experienced the harassment directed at her. I think this version is clearer than just referring vaguely to "the episode". Any other suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

And The Independent says, The senior writer had been the victim of a Gamergate-style campaign designed to 'divide and conquer by forcing newsrooms to disavow their colleagues', suggested. That's a clear reference to Jeong's experience of being a victim of harassment. Is not as if the harassment itself exists in some ethereal realm separate from human experience. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right on the WaPo source, but the Independent source is explicitly talking about the style of the campaign where it refers to Gamergate. R2 (bleep) 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

They're talking about both. The phrase had been the victim clearly refers to Jeong herself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really buying it and it seems like extra verbiage with no benefit. R2 (bleep) 08:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, which part are you not buying? Do you have other ideas for making the prose clearer? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not buying that the The Verge was talking solely about Jeong's experience when it referred to Gamergate, and I don't understand how the current wording is unclear. R2 (bleep) 19:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Whose experience besides Jeong's would they be talking about? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The wording is vague because the episode could refer to almost anything – the harassment against Jeong, the outcry against the Times, or even Jeong's tweets themselves. Without more context, I think we need to specify exactly who The Verge is saying was the recipient of GamerGate-style harassment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I've answered the objections to the suggested wording. If there are no further ones, I propose making the change as described above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Controversies like this one are conveniently left out: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.186.255 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Whitewashing implies that someone’s trying to hide something. Has anyone ever attempted to add this content? ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 09:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Of course people have tried to add it before -- what would a BLP be on Misplaced Pages without attempts to add negative material that lacks a reliable source? ;) See here and here for the other times it has been brought up. --JBL (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
See WP:NOTGOSSIP. wumbolo ^^^ 10:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)