Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 5

472:

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)

1772:

quotes of the tweets themselves, as 99.9% of RS has done. This is bias and has been causing Knowledge 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 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.

31: 160:"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." 3919:

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.) --

2411:

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.

453:; 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: 3936:

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

4162:

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).

3918:

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 Knowledge works. Right now, it's not working in the world

3353:

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

3304:

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. Knowledge articles have to be comprehensive, and if

223:

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

3987:

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

2273:

In August 2018, Jeong received widespread coverage in the news media in response to Tweets she had made in 2014 that were considered racist towards white people. 'The New York Times' issued a comment saying that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the Tweets were Jeong responding

2016:

In August 2018, Jeong received widespread coverage in the news media in response to tweets she had made in 2014 that were considered racist towards white people. 'The New York Times' issued a comment noting that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding

147:

For option 2, users have expressed the concern that the use of "conservative media" does not fit, as criticism has come from other media that is not primarily conservative. However, support votes indicate that the proposal cites reliable sources, though some support votes indicate that "conservative

2786:

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

3015:

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

2160:

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

1753:

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

471:

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

4261:

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

3903:

Well, so much for "there is no deadline on Knowledge." 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

2771:

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

2410:

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

1771:

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

3935:

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

1964:- 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). — 1031:

to join its editorial board and to be its lead writer on technology, commencing in September. The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics

1121:

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.

3684:- 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). — 3424:- 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). — 2655:- 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). — 981:- 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). — 2567:

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

1449:

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

3335:" 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 3239:

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.

2248:

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"

1636:

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

2738:

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.

1275:

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")

3104:

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.

2840:

issued a statement saying that her "journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment", and that she responded sarcastically "by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers". Jeong alleged that the

673:, for a similar position, under similar circumstances. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong's hiring process would proceed. 4232:

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.

1152:

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

283:, for a similar position, under similar circumstances. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong's hiring process would proceed. 1256:

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

4091:

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. —

4075:. 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. 3721:

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:

956:. 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 597:. 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 2712:

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.

2824:

she had posted in 2014 that were considered racist towards white people. The tweets, which included statements such as "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men", were first revealed on

1175:

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".

1655:

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.

4188:

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

3904:

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.

1184:

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.

1797:

The sources we are using are not encyclopedias, they are not written in an encyclopedic style or with encyclopedic goals in mind. Knowledge's reputation among ideologues is irrelevant to good editing practices.

1553:

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.

1431:

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.

1571:

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.

1513:

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.

3472:

as a member of their editorial board and as lead writer on technology, beginning in September 2018. The hiring resulted in a strongly negative reaction by various media as well as in social media when

2772:

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.

1149:

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);

4262:"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... 3380:

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.

3171: 2966: 1465: 570:

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.

3147: 2876: 2455:

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.

1252:

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".

2457:

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

1032:

characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretting adopting that tactic. The

1344:

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".

1225:

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.

896:

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

3481:. Jeong responded by claiming the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced; she further stated she regretted adopting the tactic. According to the 1692:. 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". -- 3192:

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.

155:

For option 3, users note that the quote from the NYT is not what they said, and the NYT should not be sourced in the article. Opposition votes seem to agree with Jytdog's comment:

3265:

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. —

3386:

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.

1199:

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.

3151: 2909: 498:

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

1181: 738: 351: 4040:

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.

960:? 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? 601:? 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? 4071:

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

1475: 2701: 2017:

by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets and that Jeong regrets her approach to responding to harassment.

4190: 1855:

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.

1389:: 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. - 3403:

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

922:(both) - convoluted, starting with Reason then going to earlier pieces, not clear that Reason specifically is such a big deal. Better choices below. -- 3710: 126:

and closing this. Discussions about adding the mention of the recent controversy keep coming up, and it needs to end. Anyway, it seems that consensus

4216:

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.

2430: 1994: 1895:

What is actually worrisome is your inappropriate personalization of a discussion of content and policy. To ease your paranoia: I wrote my comment

3450: 2215:". Also, Knowledge should not repeat Jeong's defense in Knowledge's voice as if her explanation is the undisputed truth. Therefore, I suggest: 1007: 4163:

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.

1826:

It is worrisome, JBL, that you would single out my comment here with criticism, waiting roughly seven minutes after I confronted you about

3407:

move us farther away from a succinct, encyclopedic summary. Additionally, same "were considered" passive voice/WEASEL issue as Option 3.

3221:. In fact, there are multiple sources attributing the backlash to conservative/right-wing media; see my comment under Option #2 above. — 2638:

phrasing than 3--switching "saying" for "noting" suggests that the harassment she experienced is factually in dispute, which it's not.

4119:

The survey discussion seems to have settled. So should we call for a formal closure, or would editors like to wait (say) another day?

3971:

I can hope. More importantly, I can respond that the article does mention the issue, if some come in after reading an older version.--

3602: 3188:

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

3115: 3066: 2621: 1865: 1843: 1785: 1582: 1534:, not here. Allegations about Jeong's supposed anti-white racism came from conservative/right-wing media according to multiple RSes. — 1415: 883: 528: 3167: 2938: 1830:

on your talk page in a now deleted section. One wonders if your activity on this page is truly focused on building an encyclopedia.

1481: 1469: 1177: 2588:

would require us to focus on that aspect, not the supposed criticism, which nobody but Wiki editors is calling "criticism" anyway. —

2505:

media to the tweets, which many commentators (as cited in secondary-source coverage) argued were deceptively taken out of context. —

3213:

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

1327:"NYT Recent Editorial Board Hire Sent Hate-Filled Tweets About White People — Now the Paper Responds". Independent Journal Review 2438: 2387: 3551: 2329: 2221:

I think the latter two sentences more accurately capture the Times and Jeong's response than what we have currently. However,

2072: 1080: 787: 3502: 1493: 1451: 1362:

says. The body of the text should be preferred over headlines because headlines are not written by the journalist themself.

578:) 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. 4305:. Note that the closure of the survey would not mean that further (discussed) changes cannot be made to the relevant text. 2229:

phrasing; by whom? Not unamimously. The language in the current version (Jytdog's/Option 2) is preferable in this portion.

763: 376: 218:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4324:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4192: 3150:(AP/WaPo) refers to "social media criticism" and says that "mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets". 3004: 1487: 1455: 849:

Note that even the NYT printed statement (not the tweet) acknowledges the Quinn Norton firing is core to the controversy.

4285:. It seems to me the only lingering discussion either is already being simultaneously discussed elsewhere, or should be. 2849:

also said in the statement that it "does not condone" Jeong's approach, and Jeong said that she "would not do it again".

4005: 2310: 2053: 1461: 140:

For option 1, users note that the sources cited are not appropriate for this article, and language is not according to

118: 1899:

I knew that you had commented on my talk page. (I won't be waiting for an apology, but maybe you'll surprise me.) --

2370: 2113: 850: 4185: 3857: 3844: 3822: 3485:, the paper had reviewed her social media posts before her hiring and further stated it did not condone the posts. 2434: 2383: 2009:

because I am dissatisfied with the others so far; they make it seem like only conservatives were targeting Jeong.

1600: 545: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 38: 3305:

you look at my WaPo ref that I cite after every sentence, you can see that it is appropriately summarized here.

1330:"Sarah Jeong's racist tweets spotlighted after New York Times hiring: 'White men are bulls--'". Washington Times 2166: 193:

May another extended-confirmed editor please assess my rationale and edit the article according to the result?

3354:

criticize the tweets. That would undermine my attempt to only source my content to the most reliable sources.

1496:, explicitly paint the controversy as a bad-faith trolling campaign, which should also be mentioned somehow. — 3755: 3667:

Either option 2 or option 6 would be satisfactory to me though I think Option 2 is probably slightly better.

712: 322: 1930: 1904: 1803: 544:

uses sources from within the fray, dragging WP into the fray. Our goal is to describe it, not be in it. See

3477:

Jeong had posted in 2013 and 2014 were revealed Criticism of Jeong's tweets labeled them as racist against

1939:

The phrase "and social media" is somewhat ambiguous; sources also report defense of Jeong on social media (

1480:, describe the criticism/backlash as coming almost exclusively from right-wing figures. Several, including 621:

Modded version, no change in verbiage, attribute Norton controversy/comparison confirmed by ABC-AP and BBC.

4290: 4267: 4238: 4144: 3620: 3598: 3412: 3295: 3262: 3111: 3062: 2643: 2617: 2234: 1861: 1838: 1780: 1718: 1578: 1559: 1419: 1036:

said that it had reviewed her social media posts before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.

944: 879: 532: 243:

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

198: 181: 4021: 3706: 3592:

It's in the right direction but is excessively wordy. Jytdog's proposal seems best at the present time.

3446: 3270: 3226: 3179: 2757:

The Times has a conflict of interest, obviously, though I don't know why we're avoiding citing the BBC.

2697: 2593: 2510: 1990: 1952: 1759: 1680: 1661: 1596: 1539: 1501: 1003: 3016:

removed and if "revealed" were changed to something like "highlighted" or "republished" or the like...

3524: 1053: 873:

article) and because reference to tweets implies that tweets are previously discussed in the article.

690: 300: 4045: 3994: 3977: 3925: 3909: 3893: 3834: 3793: 3189: 2992: 1646: 583: 575: 194: 177: 4108: 4310: 4221: 4124: 3962: 3881: 3767: 3686: 3672: 3638: 3426: 3404: 3340: 3214: 3134: 2881: 2657: 2548: 2162: 1966: 1817: 1736: 1367: 1281: 1190: 1127: 983: 966: 607: 229: 172:

For option 6, users say that option 2 would be better and option 6 is too excessive in description.

3441:

per pretty much all the oppose !votes above. Like Rhododendrites, I'm keeping my position simple.

3217:

for those opinions and using them to support any statements about "widespread criticism" would be

2967:"An Asian American woman's tweets ignite a debate: Is it okay to make fun of white people online?" 2186:

in February, for her Tweets, was questioned in most major new outlets" (Long list of references)

4094: 3945: 3869: 3785: 3499: 3391: 3350: 2833: 2400:

I would support that edit / the removal of the last few words, but I don't think it's necessary.

1926: 1900: 1799: 1530: 1437: 1204: 1166: 1321:"New York Times defends newest hire Sarah Jeong amid controversy over racist tweets". Daily News 1306:"The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People". Reason.com 2274:

by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets.

4286: 4263: 4234: 4140: 3789: 3747: 3616: 3593: 3408: 3365: 3316: 3291: 3251: 3203: 3106: 3094: 3078: 3057: 3041: 3000: 2798: 2777: 2762: 2744: 2724: 2677: 2639: 2612: 2416: 2405: 2341: 2230: 2191: 2148: 2130: 2084: 1856: 1833: 1775: 1730:. Not just criticized by "conservatives" or social media; also, why are the tweets not shown? 1714: 1623: 1573: 1555: 1519: 1349: 1262: 940: 874: 857: 626: 503: 458: 433: 1358:

What matters is what the highest quality sources like the associated press say, not what the

1333:"NY Times defends hiring of editorial writer after emergence of past racial tweets". The Hill 4302: 4252: 4203: 4080: 4017: 3873: 3826: 3814: 3797: 3702: 3655: 3442: 3266: 3222: 3175: 3021: 2886: 2693: 2635: 2589: 2585: 2530: 2506: 2487: 2479: 2469: 2254: 2226: 1986: 1948: 1755: 1697: 1676: 1657: 1535: 1497: 1406:

Seems the most accurate and neutral portrayal on how the controversy started and developed.

1312:"New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface". Fox News 1230: 1146: 999: 927: 909: 553: 519:

Seems the most accurate and neutral portrayal on how the controversy started and developed.

47: 17: 1985:

I would have a slight preference for removing the "and social media" bit, per Sangdeboeuf.

823: 400: 4168: 4041: 3989: 3972: 3954: 3920: 3905: 3889: 3877: 3830: 3801: 3775: 3763: 3731: 3218: 2575: 2353: 2096: 1710: 1642: 1315:"New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets". The Federalist 579: 571: 647:

editorial board, to begin in September 2018. She will be the lead writer on technology.

257:

editorial board, to begin in September 2018. She will be the lead writer on technology.

3957:

option 2 has already been added to the article, so hopefully those angry emails stop :)

3146:: The sources used do not support the idea of "widespread criticism in the news media". 4306: 4217: 4120: 3958: 3668: 3633: 3468: 3336: 3130: 2910:"Une journaliste du "New York Times" dans la tourmente après des tweets jugés racistes" 2543: 1813: 1731: 1394: 1363: 1277: 1186: 1123: 1027: 961: 643: 602: 485: 427:

template added to separate references, strike irrelevant reference pasted from article.

253: 225: 166: 149: 141: 3572: 2291: 2034: 1101: 805: 4013: 3941: 3885: 3843:

Previous Contributors to proposal 2, that I don't think are already on the previous:

3781: 3751: 3492: 3387: 3236: 2914: 2842: 2820:

In August 2018, Jeong received widespread criticism in the news media in response to

2584:

Since the bulk of the articles are given to "parroting her defense" as you say, then

2208: 1433: 1200: 1162: 1324:"New York Times stands by editorial board hire despite racist tweets". New York Post 1309:"Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets". National Review 713:"The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People" 323:"The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People" 4056: 3865: 3848: 3805: 3759: 3727: 3723: 3356: 3307: 3242: 3194: 3129:

Agree with Jytdog on there being too many quotes and "revealed" being problematic.

3085: 3032: 2996: 2943: 2830: 2826: 2789: 2773: 2758: 2740: 2715: 2673: 2412: 2401: 2187: 2183: 2144: 2126: 1827: 1614: 1515: 1345: 1341: 1258: 853: 670: 622: 499: 454: 429: 280: 123: 3349:

I wrote "alleged" because it involves threats of violence, which are illegal. (so

3235:

There's an established consensus (throught multiple lengthy discussions) that the

739:"New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface" 352:"New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface" 1529: 4314: 4294: 4271: 4256: 4248: 4242: 4225: 4207: 4199: 4172: 4148: 4128: 4098: 4084: 4076: 4049: 4025: 3999: 3982: 3966: 3949: 3930: 3913: 3897: 3861: 3838: 3739: 3693: 3676: 3659: 3651: 3645: 3624: 3607: 3506: 3433: 3416: 3395: 3370: 3344: 3332: 3321: 3299: 3274: 3256: 3230: 3208: 3183: 3138: 3120: 3099: 3071: 3046: 3025: 3017: 3008: 2803: 2781: 2766: 2748: 2729: 2681: 2664: 2647: 2626: 2597: 2579: 2555: 2534: 2526: 2525:- the sources all do make a point that the criticism came from conservatives. -- 2514: 2491: 2483: 2475: 2465: 2442: 2420: 2391: 2258: 2250: 2238: 2195: 2170: 2152: 2134: 1973: 1956: 1934: 1908: 1870: 1850: 1821: 1807: 1792: 1763: 1743: 1722: 1701: 1693: 1684: 1665: 1650: 1628: 1604: 1587: 1563: 1543: 1523: 1505: 1441: 1423: 1398: 1371: 1353: 1300:

There are quite a few RS references who use either racist or hate in the title:

1285: 1266: 1234: 1226: 1208: 1194: 1170: 1154: 1131: 990: 973: 948: 931: 923: 913: 905: 888: 861: 630: 614: 587: 557: 549: 536: 507: 489: 462: 437: 233: 202: 185: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4164: 3771: 3743: 3735: 2571: 2542:- nice job correctly summarizing the issue. "Noting" is, indeed, problematic. 1318:"NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS". The Daily Caller 148:

media" should be changed to something that is more complaint with Knowledge's

4195: 3818: 3478: 1390: 481: 3331:

reading over, agree on it being pretty POV. For some reason says that she "

4110:

Plenty of issues with both tweets, but "racist" does not apply to either.

106:

Survey: What text describing the controversy should be put in the article?

449:: option 1: I'm copying my comment from above and changing my opinion to 165:

For option 4, users say that the use of the word "anti-semitic" violates

4067:

your option you didn't sign it, and the next comment underneath it was

1180:

described the tweets as "criticized and made jokes about white people".

657:

Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People", after

267:

Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People", after

3474: 2821: 2570:]), even if they spend the rest of her article parroting her defense. 3650:

this is OK, but doesn't describe the origin of the characterization.

2371:"Times Stands By Editorial Board Member After Outcry Over Old Tweets" 2114:"Times Stands By Editorial Board Member After Outcry Over Old Tweets" 3174:

attribute the criticism/backlash mainly to right-wing media sites. —

480:: No reason to use partisan sources and cite Quinn Norton. So, no. 1925:

This is certainly the best of the six options currently posted. --

764:"Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets" 377:"Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets" 2501:: "widespread coverage" elides the issue, which was a backlash in 1303:"Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter". BBC News 4012:, especially with sensitive topics. That's actually part of our 2939:"New York Times racism row: how Twitter comes back to haunt you" 4184:

regarding this as part of a bad faith effort to quotemine. The

4247:

There's no rush. In the meantime take a look at what I posted?

4008:" that good encylopedia writing takes time. We want to get it 2787:

been published in the near future. We do want stability here.

2611:

as it does not contain POV reference to "conservative media."

1145:

Please remove "conservative" from "conservative media" as per

958:

before even mentioning a reliable source about the controversy

599:

before even mentioning a reliable source about the controversy

25: 3552:"NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over Twitter furor" 2877:"NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over Twitter furor" 2330:"NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over Twitter furor" 2073:"NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over Twitter furor" 1081:"NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over Twitter furor" 788:"NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over Twitter furor" 3056:

as it contains unnecessary reference to antisemitic media.

4107:

We have, for example "Fuck the police" and "kill all men."

869:

both versions as they contain extraneous detail (title of

3166:" (colleagues have expressed support) for Jeong. Sources 2311:"New York Times stands by new hire amid Twitter backlash" 2054:"New York Times stands by new hire amid Twitter backlash" 939:. The language is accusatory, POV, and non-encyclopedic 665:, reported on her controversial Tweets, noting that the 4181: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 3937: 2845:

of her included threats of violence and racial slurs.

275:

reported on her controversial Tweets, noting that the

2871: 2869: 2867: 2865: 2863: 2161:

gets the essentials. Option 3' below is even better.

2005:

I am going to modify and re-propose my version as an

1136:

At this point, either is fine. However, for Option 2:

1641:

that the BBC changed the headline outright as well.

2672:

Succinct summary, without POVish language/labeling.

2431:

WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms_for_said

2365: 2363: 2108: 2106: 1221:the criticism over X and reaction to it; c) media 2965:Rosenberg, Eli; Logan, Erin B. (August 3, 2018). 3164:de nombreux confrères ont manifesté leur soutien 1528:Any questioning of the NYT's actions belongs at 1412:but the term "conservative" should be taken away 525:but the term "conservative" should be taken away 3525:"Sarah Jeong Joins The Times's Editorial Board" 3460: 2814: 2268: 2011: 1054:"Sarah Jeong Joins The Times's Editorial Board" 1020: 691:"Sarah Jeong Joins The Times's Editorial Board" 635: 301:"Sarah Jeong Joins The Times's Editorial Board" 245: 4180:. Nobody has adequately addressed the points 224:for now after some hours of discussion here. 169:, and so it fails to be added to the article. 8: 3083:so you support if "antisemitic" is removed? 2482:) 04:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)) (redact again 345: 343: 3701:It's not bad, but 2 is better in my view. 2990: 4198:has a good article that provides context. 3573:"NY Times backs 'racist tweets' reporter" 2292:"NY Times backs 'racist tweets' reporter" 2035:"NY Times backs 'racist tweets' reporter" 1336:"NEW YORK TIMES HIRES RACIST". Herald Sun 1102:"NY Times backs 'racist tweets' reporter" 806:"NY Times backs 'racist tweets' reporter" 176:I guess "the court is adjourned". Maybe. 3261:Bringing up unrelated decisions made at 2143:- Neutral and well worded/well sourced. 1713:. Summarizes major citations neutrally. 3516: 2859: 2283: 2026: 1213:There is a difference between a) media 1045: 682: 292: 4160:Support close with tentative consensus 3567: 3565: 3466:In August 2018 Jeong has hired by the 3160:une polémique grandissante sur Twitter 2349: 2339: 2222: 2182:decision to retain Jeong after firing 2092: 2082: 1612:per my other oppose votes, and above. 1096: 1094: 1025:In August 2018 Jeong was hired by the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3546: 3544: 3542: 1940: 1075: 1073: 1071: 1018:Option 2 is Jytdog's/my tweak of it: 669:had rescinded an employment offer to 566:- I agree that the text as proposed ' 279:had rescinded an employment offer to 7: 3290:. Too POV, inflammatory, and wordy. 214:The following discussion is closed. 4301:I have requested formal closure at 2908:Friedmann, Chloé (August 3, 2018). 2518:(edited 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)) 824:"NYTimes Communications on Twitter" 401:"NYTimes Communications on Twitter" 3030:Yeah, I agree with "highlighted". 1709:. Succinct, BLP-compliant, avoids 1675:; aligns with mainline sources. -- 1414:because it is a misdleading label. 527:because it is a misdleading label. 128:is against option one, 1a, 4 and 6 24: 4320:The discussion above is closed. 4004:You could always try informing " 641:Jeong has been appointed to the 251:Jeong has been appointed to the 29: 4105:Racist doesn't cover everything 3527:. New York Times. 1 August 2018 2937:Wolfson, Sam (August 3, 2018). 2836:social media after her hiring. 1056:. New York Times. 1 August 2018 693:. New York Times. 1 August 2018 303:. New York Times. 1 August 2018 1408:Alternatively support option 2 562:Support Option 1 by esparky - 521:Alternatively support option 2 1: 3556:Associated Press via ABC News 3162:", saying further down that " 2472:) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2265:Option 3a Quest for Knowledge 1085:Associated Press via ABC News 792:Associated Press via ABC News 548:. Really - please read that. 4006:Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells 2607:Good wording. Preferable to 2563:I've explained my reasoning 2408:) 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 4315:19:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 4295:17:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3711:21:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3694:20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3451:21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3434:20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 2702:21:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 2689:per Jytdog, Rhododendrites 2682:21:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 2665:20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 2503:right-wing or right-leaning 2463:Other than that it is fine. 2211:and should be replaced by " 1995:21:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 1974:20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 1957:22:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 1935:13:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 1909:18:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 1871:17:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 1851:16:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 1822:03:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 1808:20:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC) 1793:19:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC) 1008:21:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 991:20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 737:Flood, Brian (2018-08-02). 350:Flood, Brian (2018-08-02). 203:21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 186:03:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 130:(5 is missing!). Consensus 4339: 4272:04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 4257:02:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4243:01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4226:01:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4208:01:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4186:Columbia Journalism Review 4173:01:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4149:00:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4129:00:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4099:22:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 4085:20:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 4050:20:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 4026:22:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 4000:15:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 3983:21:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3967:20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3950:20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3931:20:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3914:20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3898:20:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3839:19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3677:17:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 3660:17:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 3646:15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 3625:04:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 3608:20:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3507:14:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3417:04:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 3396:20:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 3371:11:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 3345:11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 3322:10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 3300:04:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 3275:22:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3257:22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3231:22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3209:22:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3184:21:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3139:20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3121:22:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3100:20:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3072:20:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3047:20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3026:19:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 3009:19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2804:19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2782:18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2767:18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2749:18:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2730:18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2648:04:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 2627:13:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 2598:04:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 2580:01:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 2556:15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 2535:02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 2515:02:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 2492:15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 2443:20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2421:18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2392:17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2259:15:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 2239:04:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC) 2196:18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2171:18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2153:17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2135:17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1947:the "social media" part. — 1764:18:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 1744:15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 1723:04:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 1702:02:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 1685:23:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1666:01:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 1651:21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1629:20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1605:20:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1588:20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1564:20:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1544:20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1524:19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1506:19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1442:19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1424:17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1399:17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1372:17:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1354:17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1286:17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1267:17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1235:18:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1209:17:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1195:17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1171:17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 1132:16:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 974:15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 949:04:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 932:02:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 914:22:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 889:20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 862:19:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 762:Crowe, Jack (2018-08-02). 631:19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 615:15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 588:22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 558:18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 537:17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 508:18:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 490:17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 463:17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 438:17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 375:Crowe, Jack (2018-08-02). 234:16:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 136:No consensus for Option 3. 1610:Strongest possible oppose 4322:Please do not modify it. 3888:. Hope I got everyone! 216:Please do not modify it. 4073:put it in a new section 1410:also option 2 is good, 894:oppose modified version 523:also option 2 is good, 3988:when they wrote it.)-- 3488: 2852: 2276: 2223:were considered racist 2019: 1812:I have to agree here. 1038: 830:(in Latin). 2018-07-24 675: 653:published the title, " 407:(in Latin). 2018-07-24 285: 263:published the title, " 112:CONSENSUS FOR OPTION 2 3858:A Quest For Knowledge 3845:A Quest For Knowledge 3823:FreeEncyclopediaMusic 3665:Support option 2 or 6 3630:Option five is better 2474:(strike part of that 2435:A Quest For Knowledge 2384:A Quest For Knowledge 1254:It is flat out WRONG. 1215:initially criticizing 898:reporting on the fray 150:Neutral Point of View 42:of past discussions. 4139:I think now's fine. 3615:. Per Figureofnine. 1941:see discussion below 998:per Rhododendrites. 2971:The Washington Post 2882:The Washington Post 1981:per Rhododendrites 649:On August 2, 2018, 546:WP:Beware of tigers 259:On August 2, 2018, 3457:Option 6: Winkelvi 3219:improper synthesis 2847:The New York Times 2838:The New York Times 2634:. Introduces more 2523:Second choice to 2 2352:has generic name ( 2095:has generic name ( 1943:). I'd suggest we 1531:The New York Times 655:The New York Times 265:The New York Times 217: 3756:Neptune's Trident 3606: 3558:. August 2, 2018. 3119: 3070: 3011: 2995:comment added by 2843:online harassment 2708:Option 4: Wumbolo 2625: 2540:Support 3a, not 3 2495: 2001:Option 3: Ikjbagl 1869: 1586: 1569:Qualified Support 1087:. August 2, 2018. 887: 794:. August 2, 2018. 239:Option 1: Esparky 215: 122: 119:non-admin closure 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4330: 4097: 4059:I apologize for 3997: 3992: 3980: 3975: 3928: 3923: 3854: 3851: 3811: 3808: 3778: 3691: 3689: 3642: 3636: 3596: 3581: 3580: 3579:. 2 August 2018. 3569: 3560: 3559: 3548: 3537: 3536: 3534: 3532: 3521: 3505: 3495: 3431: 3429: 3405:extensive quotes 3368: 3364: 3362: 3359: 3319: 3315: 3313: 3310: 3254: 3250: 3248: 3245: 3206: 3202: 3200: 3197: 3109: 3097: 3093: 3091: 3088: 3082: 3060: 3044: 3040: 3038: 3035: 2982: 2981: 2979: 2977: 2962: 2956: 2955: 2953: 2951: 2934: 2928: 2927: 2925: 2923: 2905: 2899: 2898: 2896: 2894: 2889:. August 2, 2018 2887:Associated Press 2873: 2801: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2727: 2723: 2721: 2718: 2662: 2660: 2615: 2552: 2546: 2473: 2461:on the matter. 2375: 2374: 2367: 2358: 2357: 2351: 2347: 2345: 2337: 2325: 2319: 2318: 2306: 2300: 2299: 2298:. 2 August 2018. 2288: 2178:add this? "The 2158:Support option 3 2141:Support option 3 2118: 2117: 2110: 2101: 2100: 2094: 2090: 2088: 2080: 2068: 2062: 2061: 2049: 2043: 2042: 2041:. 2 August 2018. 2031: 1979:Support option 2 1971: 1969: 1962:Support Option 2 1859: 1848: 1846: 1841: 1836: 1790: 1788: 1783: 1778: 1740: 1734: 1707:Support Option 2 1673:Support option 2 1626: 1622: 1620: 1617: 1597:Snooganssnoogans 1576: 1533: 1429:Support option 2 1404:Support option 1 1387:Support option 2 1110: 1109: 1108:. 2 August 2018. 1098: 1089: 1088: 1077: 1066: 1065: 1063: 1061: 1050: 1014:Option 2: Jytdog 988: 986: 970: 964: 877: 839: 838: 836: 835: 820: 814: 813: 812:. 2 August 2018. 802: 796: 795: 784: 778: 777: 775: 774: 759: 753: 752: 750: 749: 734: 728: 727: 725: 724: 709: 703: 702: 700: 698: 687: 611: 605: 568:tells the story' 517:Support option 1 467:my old comment: 416: 415: 413: 412: 397: 391: 390: 388: 387: 372: 366: 365: 363: 362: 347: 338: 337: 335: 334: 319: 313: 312: 310: 308: 297: 116: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:Sarah Jeong 4338: 4337: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4116: 4114:Ready to close? 4093: 3995: 3990: 3978: 3973: 3926: 3921: 3852: 3849: 3809: 3806: 3776: 3719: 3687: 3685: 3640: 3634: 3613:Oppose Option 6 3586: 3585: 3584: 3571: 3570: 3563: 3550: 3549: 3540: 3530: 3528: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3498: 3491: 3487: 3459: 3427: 3425: 3366: 3360: 3357: 3355: 3317: 3311: 3308: 3306: 3288:Oppose Option 4 3263:some other page 3252: 3246: 3243: 3241: 3215:primary sources 3204: 3198: 3195: 3193: 3095: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3076: 3042: 3036: 3033: 3031: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2975: 2973: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2949: 2947: 2936: 2935: 2931: 2921: 2919: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2892: 2890: 2875: 2874: 2861: 2851: 2799: 2793: 2790: 2788: 2725: 2719: 2716: 2714: 2710: 2687:Oppose 3 and 3a 2670:Support 3 or 3a 2658: 2656: 2653:Oppose 3 and 3a 2605:Support 3 or 3a 2561:Support 3 or 3a 2550: 2544: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2369: 2368: 2361: 2348: 2338: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2290: 2289: 2285: 2275: 2267: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2112: 2111: 2104: 2091: 2081: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2018: 2003: 1967: 1965: 1844: 1839: 1834: 1832: 1786: 1781: 1776: 1774: 1754:the sources. 1738: 1732: 1624: 1618: 1615: 1613: 1511:Oppose option 2 1477:The Independent 1217:X and b) media 1115: 1114: 1113: 1100: 1099: 1092: 1079: 1078: 1069: 1059: 1057: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1037: 1016: 996:Oppose 1 and 1a 984: 982: 979:Oppose 1 and 1a 968: 962: 937:Oppose 1 and 1a 844: 843: 842: 833: 831: 822: 821: 817: 804: 803: 799: 786: 785: 781: 772: 770: 768:National Review 761: 760: 756: 747: 745: 736: 735: 731: 722: 720: 711: 710: 706: 696: 694: 689: 688: 684: 674: 663:National Review 651:Reason Magazine 609: 603: 542:oppose option 1 478:Oppose option 1 421: 420: 419: 410: 408: 399: 398: 394: 385: 383: 381:National Review 374: 373: 369: 360: 358: 349: 348: 341: 332: 330: 321: 320: 316: 306: 304: 299: 298: 294: 284: 273:National Review 261:Reason Magazine 241: 220: 211: 210: 209: 132:is for Option 2 113: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4336: 4334: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4298: 4297: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4211: 4210: 4175: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4132: 4131: 4115: 4112: 4102: 4101: 4088: 4087: 4053: 4052: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 3952: 3916: 3882:Keith Johnston 3768:Jason from nyc 3718: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3696: 3688:Rhododendrites 3679: 3662: 3648: 3627: 3610: 3583: 3582: 3561: 3538: 3515: 3514: 3510: 3469:New York Times 3461: 3458: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3436: 3428:Rhododendrites 3419: 3398: 3381: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3141: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3051: 3050: 3049: 2984: 2983: 2957: 2929: 2900: 2858: 2857: 2853: 2815: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2752: 2751: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2684: 2667: 2659:Rhododendrites 2650: 2629: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2558: 2537: 2520: 2496: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2377: 2376: 2359: 2320: 2301: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2242: 2241: 2216: 2198: 2180:New York Times 2173: 2163:Jason from nyc 2155: 2120: 2119: 2102: 2063: 2044: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2012: 2002: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1976: 1968:Rhododendrites 1959: 1937: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1766: 1747: 1746: 1725: 1704: 1687: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1631: 1607: 1590: 1566: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1508: 1444: 1426: 1401: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1304: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1270: 1269: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1150: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1112: 1111: 1090: 1067: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1028:New York Times 1021: 1015: 1012: 1011: 1010: 993: 985:Rhododendrites 976: 951: 934: 900:, not sources 841: 840: 815: 797: 779: 754: 729: 704: 681: 680: 676: 667:New York Times 644:New York Times 636: 634: 633: 618: 617: 591: 590: 560: 539: 513: 512: 511: 510: 493: 492: 475: 474: 473: 443: 442: 441: 440: 418: 417: 392: 367: 339: 314: 291: 290: 286: 277:New York Times 254:New York Times 246: 240: 237: 221: 212: 208: 207: 206: 205: 174: 173: 170: 162: 161: 157: 156: 153: 145: 115: 114: 111: 110: 109: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4335: 4323: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4299: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4283:Support close 4281: 4280: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4176: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4161: 4158: 4157: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4111: 4109: 4106: 4100: 4096: 4095:Lawrence King 4090: 4089: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4055: 4054: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4038: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3998: 3993: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3981: 3976: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3953: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3929: 3924: 3917: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3846: 3841: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3786:Lawrence King 3783: 3779: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3697: 3695: 3690: 3683: 3680: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3663: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3647: 3644: 3643: 3637: 3631: 3628: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3611: 3609: 3604: 3600: 3595: 3591: 3588: 3587: 3578: 3574: 3568: 3566: 3562: 3557: 3553: 3547: 3545: 3543: 3539: 3526: 3520: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3504: 3501: 3496: 3494: 3486: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3470: 3464: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3437: 3435: 3430: 3423: 3420: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3399: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3384:Strong Oppose 3382: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3369: 3363: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3327: 3323: 3320: 3314: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3286: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3255: 3249: 3238: 3237:Roseanne Barr 3234: 3233: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3201: 3191: 3190:WP:CITEBUNDLE 3187: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3158:) refers to " 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3142: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3122: 3117: 3113: 3108: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3098: 3092: 3080: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3068: 3064: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3045: 3039: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2972: 2968: 2961: 2958: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2933: 2930: 2917: 2916: 2915:Madame Figaro 2911: 2904: 2901: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2878: 2872: 2870: 2868: 2866: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2850: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2835: 2832: 2828: 2823: 2818: 2805: 2802: 2796: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2737: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2728: 2722: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2692: 2688: 2685: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2668: 2666: 2661: 2654: 2651: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2628: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2566: 2562: 2559: 2557: 2554: 2553: 2547: 2541: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2453: 2450: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2409: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2372: 2366: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2343: 2335: 2331: 2324: 2321: 2316: 2312: 2305: 2302: 2297: 2293: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2272: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2225:is a kind of 2224: 2220: 2217: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2156: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2115: 2109: 2107: 2103: 2098: 2086: 2078: 2074: 2067: 2064: 2059: 2055: 2048: 2045: 2040: 2036: 2030: 2027: 2023: 2015: 2010: 2008: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1977: 1975: 1970: 1963: 1960: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1872: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1849: 1847: 1842: 1837: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1784: 1779: 1770: 1767: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1735: 1729: 1726: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1627: 1621: 1611: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1589: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1512: 1509: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1479: 1478: 1473: 1472: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1453: 1448: 1445: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1301: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1250:Strong oppose 1248: 1247: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1161: 1156: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1120: 1117: 1116: 1107: 1103: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1086: 1082: 1076: 1074: 1072: 1068: 1055: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1024: 1019: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 994: 992: 987: 980: 977: 975: 972: 971: 965: 959: 955: 954:Strong oppose 952: 950: 946: 942: 938: 935: 933: 929: 925: 921: 918: 917: 916: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 890: 885: 881: 876: 872: 868: 864: 863: 859: 855: 852: 848: 829: 825: 819: 816: 811: 807: 801: 798: 793: 789: 783: 780: 769: 765: 758: 755: 744: 740: 733: 730: 718: 714: 708: 705: 692: 686: 683: 679: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 646: 645: 639: 632: 628: 624: 620: 619: 616: 613: 612: 606: 600: 596: 595:Strong oppose 593: 592: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 540: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 515: 514: 509: 505: 501: 497: 496: 495: 494: 491: 487: 483: 479: 476: 470: 466: 465: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 445: 444: 439: 435: 431: 428: 425: 424: 423: 422: 406: 402: 396: 393: 382: 378: 371: 368: 357: 353: 346: 344: 340: 328: 324: 318: 315: 302: 296: 293: 289: 282: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 258: 256: 255: 249: 244: 238: 236: 235: 231: 227: 219: 204: 200: 196: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 183: 179: 171: 168: 164: 163: 159: 158: 154: 151: 146: 143: 139: 138: 137: 133: 129: 125: 120: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4321: 4287:Innisfree987 4282: 4264:Innisfree987 4235:Scaleshombre 4178:Oppose close 4177: 4159: 4141:Scaleshombre 4104: 4103: 4063:. When you 4057:User:wumbolo 4009: 3842: 3790:Paul Siraisi 3748:Innisfree987 3720: 3698: 3681: 3664: 3639: 3629: 3617:Softlavender 3612: 3594:Figureofnine 3589: 3576: 3555: 3529:. Retrieved 3519: 3511: 3490: 3489: 3482: 3479:white people 3467: 3465: 3462: 3438: 3421: 3409:Innisfree987 3400: 3383: 3377: 3328: 3292:Softlavender 3287: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3143: 3107:Figureofnine 3079:Figureofnine 3058:Figureofnine 3053: 2991:— Preceding 2988: 2974:. Retrieved 2970: 2960: 2948:. Retrieved 2944:The Guardian 2942: 2932: 2920:. Retrieved 2913: 2903: 2891:. Retrieved 2880: 2854: 2846: 2837: 2827:conservative 2819: 2816: 2735: 2711: 2690: 2686: 2669: 2652: 2640:Innisfree987 2631: 2613:Figureofnine 2608: 2604: 2564: 2560: 2549: 2539: 2522: 2517: 2502: 2498: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2451: 2426: 2399: 2381: 2333: 2323: 2314: 2309:Kludt, Tom. 2304: 2295: 2286: 2278: 2270: 2245: 2231:Innisfree987 2218: 2212: 2204: 2200: 2184:Quinn Norton 2179: 2175: 2157: 2140: 2124: 2076: 2066: 2057: 2052:Kludt, Tom. 2047: 2038: 2029: 2021: 2013: 2006: 2004: 1982: 1978: 1961: 1944: 1896: 1857:Figureofnine 1835:petrarchan47 1831: 1777:petrarchan47 1773: 1768: 1750: 1737: 1727: 1715:Softlavender 1706: 1689: 1672: 1638: 1633: 1609: 1592: 1574:Figureofnine 1568: 1556:Innisfree987 1550: 1510: 1488: 1483:The Guardian 1482: 1476: 1471:The Guardian 1470: 1456: 1446: 1428: 1416:93.36.191.55 1411: 1407: 1403: 1386: 1360:Daily Caller 1359: 1342:Quinn Norton 1253: 1249: 1222: 1219:reporting on 1218: 1214: 1178:The Guardian 1157:established. 1118: 1105: 1084: 1058:. Retrieved 1048: 1040: 1033: 1026: 1022: 1017: 995: 978: 967: 957: 953: 941:Softlavender 936: 919: 901: 897: 893: 892: 875:Figureofnine 870: 866: 865: 846: 845: 832:. Retrieved 827: 818: 809: 800: 791: 782: 771:. Retrieved 767: 757: 746:. Retrieved 742: 732: 721:. Retrieved 719:. 2018-08-02 716: 707: 695:. Retrieved 685: 677: 671:Quinn Norton 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 642: 640: 637: 608: 598: 594: 567: 563: 541: 529:93.36.191.55 524: 520: 516: 477: 468: 450: 446: 426: 409:. Retrieved 404: 395: 384:. Retrieved 380: 370: 359:. Retrieved 355: 331:. Retrieved 329:. 2018-08-02 326: 317: 305:. Retrieved 295: 287: 281:Quinn Norton 276: 272: 268: 264: 260: 252: 250: 247: 242: 222: 213: 175: 135: 131: 127: 78: 43: 37: 4018:Sangdeboeuf 3991:S Philbrick 3974:S Philbrick 3938:this editor 3922:S Philbrick 3874:Sangdeboeuf 3827:GreenIn2010 3798:Sangdeboeuf 3777:S Philbrick 3351:WP:BLPCRIME 3267:Sangdeboeuf 3223:Sangdeboeuf 3176:Sangdeboeuf 2918:(in French) 2831:antisemitic 2590:Sangdeboeuf 2507:Sangdeboeuf 2429:" is under 2328:News, ABC. 2071:News, ABC. 1949:Sangdeboeuf 1756:Gandydancer 1677:K.e.coffman 1658:Sangdeboeuf 1536:Sangdeboeuf 1498:Sangdeboeuf 1155:prima facia 902:in the fray 36:This is an 4042:Nodekeeper 4014:BLP policy 3955:Sphilbrick 3906:XavierItzm 3890:XavierItzm 3878:Nodekeeper 3831:XavierItzm 3802:MathHisSci 3794:Proustfala 3764:Nodekeeper 3732:Dialectric 3717:Discussion 3703:XOR'easter 3512:References 3443:XOR'easter 2855:References 2694:XOR'easter 2586:due weight 2279:References 2022:References 1987:XOR'easter 1643:Nodekeeper 1223:commenting 1041:References 1000:XOR'easter 834:2018-08-02 773:2018-08-02 748:2018-08-02 723:2018-08-02 717:Reason.com 678:References 661:, and the 580:XavierItzm 572:XavierItzm 411:2018-08-02 386:2018-08-02 361:2018-08-02 333:2018-08-02 327:Reason.com 288:References 195:Abequinn14 178:Abequinn14 124:Being bold 4307:Abecedare 4303:WP:AN/RFC 4218:Abecedare 4189:offensive 4121:Abecedare 3963:pingó mió 3959:Galobtter 3669:Simonm223 3341:pingó mió 3337:Galobtter 3156:Le Figaro 3152:Source #2 3148:Source #1 3135:pingó mió 3131:Galobtter 2976:August 5, 2950:August 5, 2922:August 5, 2893:August 5, 2834:far-right 2636:WP:WEASEL 2632:Oppose 3a 2565:ad naseum 2459:reporting 2271:Option 3a 2227:WP:WEASEL 1814:kencf0618 1368:pingó mió 1364:Galobtter 1282:pingó mió 1278:Galobtter 1191:pingó mió 1187:Galobtter 1147:WP:YESPOV 1128:pingó mió 1124:Galobtter 638:Option 1a 230:pingó mió 226:Galobtter 98:Archive 9 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 4069:this one 3942:Tutelary 3782:Lokiloki 3752:Lokiloki 3699:Oppose 6 3682:Oppose 6 3603:contribs 3577:BBC News 3531:2 August 3463:Option 6 3439:Oppose 4 3422:Oppose 4 3388:Galestar 3116:contribs 3067:contribs 3005:contribs 2993:unsigned 2817:Option 4 2736:Comment: 2622:contribs 2342:cite web 2334:ABC News 2315:CNNMoney 2296:BBC News 2085:cite web 2077:ABC News 2058:CNNMoney 2039:BBC News 2014:Option 3 2007:Option 3 1866:contribs 1751:Option 2 1711:WP:UNDUE 1583:contribs 1551:Option 2 1201:Lokiloki 1182:Fox News 1163:Lokiloki 1119:Option 2 1106:BBC News 1060:2 August 1023:Option 2 884:contribs 810:BBC News 743:Fox News 697:2 August 659:FOX News 469:Comment: 356:Fox News 307:2 August 271:and the 269:FOX News 248:Option 1 4196:Fortune 3866:Jdcomix 3760:Jdcomix 3728:Ikjbagl 3724:ESparky 3378:Support 3333:alleged 2997:Wumbolo 2774:Ikjbagl 2759:Jdcomix 2741:Ikjbagl 2674:Icewhiz 2413:Ikjbagl 2402:Ikjbagl 2350:|last1= 2219:Comment 2207:" is a 2201:Comment 2188:ESparky 2176:Comment 2145:Jdcomix 2127:Ikjbagl 2093:|last1= 1690:Support 1593:Support 1516:ESparky 1447:Support 1346:ESparky 1259:Ikjbagl 854:ESparky 847:Comment 828:Twitter 623:ESparky 564:Support 500:ESparky 455:Ikjbagl 430:ESparky 405:Twitter 142:WP:NPOV 39:archive 4249:Citing 4200:Citing 4077:Jytdog 4065:posted 3996:(Talk) 3979:(Talk) 3927:(Talk) 3862:Citing 3853:umbolo 3810:umbolo 3740:Drmies 3652:Jytdog 3590:Oppose 3475:tweets 3401:Oppose 3361:umbolo 3329:Oppose 3312:umbolo 3247:umbolo 3199:umbolo 3144:Oppose 3090:umbolo 3054:Oppose 3037:umbolo 3018:Jytdog 2829:, and 2822:tweets 2794:umbolo 2720:umbolo 2691:et al. 2527:GRuban 2499:Oppose 2484:Jytdog 2476:Jytdog 2466:Jytdog 2452:oppose 2251:Jytdog 2246:oppose 2213:saying 2209:WP:WTW 2205:noting 1983:et al. 1945:remove 1897:before 1769:Oppose 1728:Oppose 1694:GRuban 1634:Oppose 1619:umbolo 1492:, and 1474:, and 1257:story. 1227:Jytdog 924:GRuban 920:Oppose 906:Jytdog 871:Reason 867:Oppose 851:source 550:Jytdog 451:oppose 447:Oppose 4165:SWL36 4010:right 3886:-- ψλ 3772:Oren0 3744:Oren0 3736:SWL36 3641:Slash 3493:-- ψλ 3483:Times 2572:SWL36 2551:Slash 1828:WP:PA 1739:Slash 1034:Times 969:Slash 610:Slash 16:< 4311:talk 4291:talk 4268:talk 4253:talk 4239:talk 4222:talk 4204:talk 4182:here 4169:talk 4145:talk 4125:talk 4081:talk 4061:this 4046:talk 4022:talk 3946:talk 3910:talk 3894:talk 3870:Nuke 3835:talk 3819:AyaK 3815:talk 3707:talk 3673:talk 3656:talk 3621:talk 3599:talk 3533:2018 3447:talk 3413:talk 3392:talk 3296:talk 3271:talk 3227:talk 3180:talk 3170:and 3112:talk 3063:talk 3022:talk 3001:talk 2978:2018 2952:2018 2924:2018 2895:2018 2778:talk 2763:talk 2745:talk 2698:talk 2678:talk 2644:talk 2618:talk 2594:talk 2576:talk 2531:talk 2511:talk 2488:talk 2480:talk 2470:talk 2439:talk 2427:Note 2417:talk 2406:talk 2388:talk 2354:help 2255:talk 2235:talk 2192:talk 2167:talk 2149:talk 2131:talk 2097:help 1991:talk 1953:talk 1931:talk 1905:talk 1862:talk 1818:talk 1804:talk 1760:talk 1719:talk 1698:talk 1681:talk 1662:talk 1647:talk 1639:fact 1601:talk 1579:talk 1560:talk 1540:talk 1520:talk 1502:talk 1466:WaPo 1438:talk 1434:Phil 1420:talk 1395:talk 1391:AyaK 1350:talk 1263:talk 1231:talk 1205:talk 1167:talk 1062:2018 1004:talk 945:talk 928:talk 910:talk 880:talk 858:talk 699:2018 627:talk 584:talk 576:talk 554:talk 533:talk 504:talk 486:talk 482:AyaK 459:talk 434:talk 309:2018 199:talk 182:talk 167:NPOV 4016:. — 3692:\\ 3635:Red 3432:\\ 3367:^^^ 3318:^^^ 3253:^^^ 3205:^^^ 3096:^^^ 3043:^^^ 2800:^^^ 2726:^^^ 2663:\\ 2545:Red 2390:) 1972:\\ 1927:JBL 1901:JBL 1800:JBL 1733:Red 1625:^^^ 1494:CJR 1489:Vox 1462:CNN 1457:Vox 1452:CJR 989:\\ 963:Red 604:Red 4313:) 4293:) 4270:) 4255:) 4241:) 4224:) 4206:) 4194:. 4171:) 4147:) 4127:) 4083:) 4048:) 4024:) 3965:) 3948:) 3940:. 3912:) 3896:) 3884:, 3880:, 3876:, 3872:, 3868:, 3864:, 3860:, 3856:, 3847:, 3837:) 3829:. 3825:, 3821:, 3817:, 3813:, 3804:, 3800:, 3796:, 3792:, 3788:, 3784:, 3780:, 3774:, 3770:, 3766:, 3762:, 3758:, 3754:, 3750:, 3746:, 3742:, 3738:, 3734:, 3730:, 3726:, 3709:) 3675:) 3658:) 3632:. 3623:) 3601:• 3575:. 3564:^ 3554:. 3541:^ 3497:● 3449:) 3415:) 3394:) 3343:) 3298:) 3273:) 3229:) 3182:) 3172:#4 3168:#3 3137:) 3114:• 3065:• 3024:) 3007:) 3003:• 2989:-- 2969:. 2941:. 2912:. 2885:. 2879:. 2862:^ 2780:) 2765:) 2747:) 2700:) 2680:) 2646:) 2620:• 2596:) 2578:) 2533:) 2513:) 2490:) 2441:) 2433:. 2419:) 2382:-- 2362:^ 2346:: 2344:}} 2340:{{ 2332:. 2313:. 2294:. 2257:) 2237:) 2194:) 2169:) 2151:) 2133:) 2125:-- 2105:^ 2089:: 2087:}} 2083:{{ 2075:. 2056:. 2037:. 1993:) 1955:) 1933:) 1907:) 1864:• 1840:คุ 1820:) 1806:) 1798:-- 1782:คุ 1762:) 1721:) 1700:) 1683:) 1664:) 1649:) 1603:) 1595:. 1581:• 1562:) 1542:) 1522:) 1504:) 1486:, 1468:, 1464:, 1460:, 1454:, 1440:) 1422:) 1397:) 1370:) 1352:) 1284:) 1265:) 1233:) 1207:) 1193:) 1169:) 1130:) 1104:. 1093:^ 1083:. 1070:^ 1006:) 947:) 930:) 912:) 904:. 882:• 860:) 826:. 808:. 790:. 766:. 741:. 715:. 629:) 586:) 556:) 535:) 506:) 488:) 461:) 436:) 403:. 379:. 354:. 342:^ 325:. 232:) 201:) 184:) 134:. 94:→ 64:← 4309:( 4289:( 4266:( 4251:( 4237:( 4220:( 4202:( 4167:( 4143:( 4123:( 4079:( 4044:( 4020:( 3961:( 3944:( 3908:( 3892:( 3850:w 3833:( 3807:w 3705:( 3671:( 3654:( 3619:( 3605:) 3597:( 3535:. 3503:✓ 3500:✉ 3445:( 3411:( 3390:( 3358:w 3339:( 3309:w 3294:( 3269:( 3244:w 3225:( 3196:w 3178:( 3154:( 3133:( 3118:) 3110:( 3087:w 3081:: 3077:@ 3069:) 3061:( 3034:w 3020:( 2999:( 2980:. 2954:. 2926:. 2897:. 2791:w 2776:( 2761:( 2743:( 2717:w 2696:( 2676:( 2642:( 2624:) 2616:( 2609:2 2592:( 2574:( 2529:( 2509:( 2494:) 2486:( 2478:( 2468:( 2437:( 2425:" 2415:( 2404:( 2386:( 2373:. 2356:) 2336:. 2317:. 2253:( 2233:( 2203:" 2190:( 2165:( 2147:( 2129:( 2116:. 2099:) 2079:. 2060:. 1989:( 1951:( 1929:( 1903:( 1868:) 1860:( 1845:ก 1816:( 1802:( 1787:ก 1758:( 1717:( 1696:( 1679:( 1660:( 1656:— 1645:( 1616:w 1599:( 1585:) 1577:( 1558:( 1538:( 1518:( 1500:( 1436:( 1418:( 1393:( 1366:( 1348:( 1280:( 1261:( 1229:( 1203:( 1189:( 1165:( 1126:( 1064:. 1002:( 943:( 926:( 908:( 886:) 878:( 856:( 837:. 776:. 751:. 726:. 701:. 625:( 582:( 574:( 552:( 531:( 502:( 484:( 457:( 432:( 414:. 389:. 364:. 336:. 311:. 228:( 197:( 180:( 152:. 144:. 121:) 117:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index