Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 9

1677: 31: 93:

consistently enforce b) places an unnecessary impediment before editors seeking to make improvements to the article. This is precisely the opposite of what DS sanctions should be imposed for; limiting edits to editors with extended confirmation is appropriate, but the additional layer is absolutely overkill. There is no reason that this article should have sanctions which essentially lock in one iteration.

2939:: "Sarah Jeong, who was hired to join the New York Times editorial board last year, tweeted years ago "how much joy she got out of being cruel to old white men" and asked if white people are "genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun." The Times said that, while her "rhetoric is not acceptable," it would hire her anyway, citing her "important voice" in the national conversation." - The Hill 2121:, where higher sourcing requirements apply. If people don't think the existing sources are good enough, then we should omit the sentence entirely. Also, RS/P indicates that The Hill is more reliable than the Post (there's a clear consensus towards the Hill's reliability, not so much for the Post.) If you think The Post should be considered "less tabloidy" than The Hill, you can take it to 1593: 2599:

though after reviewing the prior discussion I can understand why others may disagree. All that being said, this is not a hill that I am willing to die on (no pun intended); it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me so if there's a general consensus here that this is undue weight or otherwise not necessary then I am totally fine with that decision as well.

606: 2960:: "dredged up a handful of years-old tweets Jeong wrote satirizing racist and sexist comments from people targeting her. "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she tweeted in 2014. The Times received calls for Jeong to be fired" - 899:

could dial back the amount of text on the talk-page, but has been editing this article constructively for months.) The NYTimes sentence is weak, its removal was fine: if the Times had dropped her, their justification for doing so would be an important part of the story, but this is just “The Times said ‘Meh’.” —

2945:: "several derogatory tweets aimed at white people that Jeong sent in 2014 were unearthed when the Gray Lady announced she was joining the paper. “Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” Jeong wrote in July 2014 in one of several old messages went viral." - Fox News 3565:

or can be right at one time but wrong at another. That could be because a) a few highly opinionated editors overtook the discussion or not enough were involved, b) facts/reporting/situational changes in the real world regarding the subject, 3) availability of new sources or other information. I don't

2598:

the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. I definitely agree that it would be undue weight to include just the "unacceptable" remark without noting that the Times stood behind Jeong though. Either way, I don't necessarily see a big problem with including that line,

2511:

I don't see a big problem with including that information in the article to be honest. It doesn't seem to be an undue weight issue, since arguably the controversy over the tweets and her hiring by the NYT is one of the main reasons why she is famous and why we now have significant coverage about her.

761:

As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that

359:

is crucial to the improvement of any article and a fundamental principle of WP, and these discretionary sanctions effectively prohibit bold edits to one of the prominent segments of the article. I don't see the prospect of disagreements over content (imagine that!) as a compelling reason to keep such

92:

The discretionary sanctions prohibiting bold edits to this page are absurd at this point in time. This is a low-traffic article that has received little continuing coverage—the requirement that all editors must obtain "consensus" for any edits to the tweets section is a) difficult and unreasonable to

3358:"stupid arguments on settled topics" - pretty superior and imperious tone, don't you think? "insinuations of hypocrisy" - wow that's like you're taking this personally. Guess that continues to explain and reconfirm why wiki editor and pageview numbers continue to shrink. Enjoy your shrinking ghetto. 2488:

reflects very poorly on you. Of course, your contributions to this talk page for more than a year have consisted of nothing but an obsessive desire to add negative information to the article, with complete disregard for any WP policies; so I guess your disregard for that particular guideline should

2288:

The Hill article doesn't provide any additional reporting work. It's only more quote-stuffed with additional tweets, which in my books don't make it any more useful or reliable. The NYP article quotes the same sources and provides the same amount of original reporting (zero), but at least the NYP is

1078:

in the Princeton definition. Whether or not you want to read the sentence you cherry-picked as covering or not covering news articles is irrelevant, because the page goes on to explicitly state that news articles are secondary sources. I have yet to hear a substantive argument or reason from you why

920:

I have no idea what you're talking about, and frankly, I'm just inclined to ignore you. SDB, I don't find your argument coherent. A primary source would be the statement released by the NYT itself; an article that covers the Times's statement is a secondary source, which is what's been provided. You

397:

Hypothetical BLP violations (I assume these would have to be by experienced editors, because the page is under extended protection) are not a reason to prolong overly restrictive DS sanctions. I just made a case based on Knowledge policy and the facts at hand, and addressed the types of broad policy

3494:

Consensus does not change by stubbornly repeating exactly the same arguments that have been roundly and repeatedly rejected before. Also, knock of the groundless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks: this thread (to which Sdb did not contribute) lacks anything meaningful and deserved to be

2338:

Concur with JBL. I think there’s a lot of merit to the argument about source reliability being context specific, but in this case the entire topic is about something that was on Twitter, and there’s no special advantage to an article that was published by a company headquartered in NY when covering

1147:

Articles contain both pertinent facts and relevant analysis. The fact we're discussing is that the NYT released a statement in which they "did not condone" the subject's tweets. This is rather straightforward and does not need to be accompanied by extensive "analysis" to be included in the article.

3057:

mention. This is something that interests only a small subset of the general reading public - bitter far-right failsons upset that a woman said something mean about white men once - I don't see that as being a broad enough interest group to lend this tempest in a teapot even a single line mention.

402:

be concerned with. To your argument, evidence for the risk of BLP violations has to do with patterns of behavior by editors, not the presence of "right wing blogs." I suppose to you, that's "empty rhetoric" because you think the page is fine as is and doesn't need any further improvements. I don't

1508:

edit is misleading in its presentation. Yes the Times said this, they also stood behind her (per both the cited source and Vox). If one wants to include that the NYT issued a statement where they said they do not condone the tweets they need to include the full context that that statement came as

1423:

This, too, is incorrect. The NYT own statement on the controversy surrounding her addition to its editorial board, by any objective evaluation, has broader connection and relevance to the story. This sentence should have never been removed in the first place with a) such spurious reasoning and b)

623:

is a policy about how much space to dedicate to particular events, not a Swiss-army knife to selectively remove certain viewpoints and statements that you disagree with or frame the subject in a way you don't like. I'm restoring the content, as you don't have consensus to implement this proposal.

368:

articles with less severe limits in place (Enforced BRD, which is another more appealing alternative). I understand why the DS were initially imposed, but they have served their purpose, and I think that it's against the interests of the platform and the community to keep this "nuclear option" in

130:

Frankly, I would have been quite sympathetic to an appeal for lifting the discretionary sanction as no-longer-needed, were it not for the editing history of the last few hours. Cannot support such an action at the moment given that editors are still willing to edit-war and name-call over what are

3320:

JBL are you always this dismissive and nasty? The prior discussion around this topic was "settled" due to non agreement, yet here again she is hitting the news for coming off the NYT Board which is again tied to her Twitter utterances - yet a reader of the page would lack the ability to see the

2308:

is, and vice versa. The Hill has more experience handling Washington leaks and political "gossip" while NYP has more experience handling NYC business. But if you use The Hill to establish relevance for some Republican statement, or the NYP to decide whether to include some scandal about some NYC

898:

Wikieditor19920’s hyperaggressive fillibustering demonstrates exactly why this page needs DS, and also suggests that WE19920 should probably be warned about stalking — notice their very first edits here are phrased to incorporate them into an ongoing dispute at other articles. (Sangdeboeuf also

383:

There is evidence that the issues that led to the DS still exist. On the other hand, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that the restrictions are unreasonably blocking constructive improvements. It's just empty rhetoric. If you really wish to push this further, you can formally appeal in the

286:

We're discussing the need for special BLP protections, which this user is purporting are unnecessary. When I link to numerous right-wing blogs and media sources that are still talking about this, it's only to refute the notion that the article is presumably no longer a target for BLP violations.

689:

for a lengthier explanation behind that judgment). That said, the removal of the NYT reaction on March 22nd, at best enjoyed a weak-consensus through silence and so it would be good to discuss the issue on its content (as opposed to procedural) merits to decide if its inclusion or exclusion is

779:

applied, and which, in my opinion, have long outlived their usefulness. Disallowing bold changes to an article in perpetuity without an extremely compelling reason is, IMHO, in direct contradiction to the spirit of Knowledge as an open-source encyclopedia and inhibits the process for improving

3337:

I am indeed deeply dismissive of posts that begin by repeated stupid arguments on settled topics and end with insinuations of hypocrisy based on nothing. If you would like to be treated respectfully, you can begin by treating with respect the previous editors of this page and the fact of an

2368:

I am wondering why the fact the subject's employers found the tweets "unacceptable" is not on the article? I mean, clearly, over a year later, the RS deems this to be factual, relevant information worth bringing up to the attention of the reader. The RS so underscores the importance of the

983:

The definition of a secondary source is not limited to that narrow definition, that is just one component of what makes a secondary source. That also does preclude the use of the sources that have already been provided. The Times's statement on her hiring is both germane and well-sourced.

1413:

The majority of articles covering this story, of course, include the NYT statement on the matter of her tweets and her hiring. Our job as editors is not to pick and choose which viewpoints are valid and which are not based on subjective criteria—it's to assess whether it's significant

1550:, she is now "a writer for the New York Times Editorial Board" & has bylines "at the Verge, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, New York Times Magazine, Motherboard, Forbes, the Guardian, and more." So it seems to me that her main employer is the New York Times, not The Verge. 1231:

allows that all viewpoints published in reliable sources must be afforded coverage. Your opinion about which viewpoints are valid and which are not is meaningless, and this one is of particular relevance because its by the organization that actually hired her. You are engaging in

531:

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.

2289:

closer to the scene and is more likely to know what it's talking about. The Hill article was published a few hours later and even reuses some identical wording to comment on the tweets, it's probably "inspired" by NYP (can't say plagiarised because there's no original content).

1484:

Yes really lol. Significant is the operative phrase in that. Unlike the nonsense that anything published in a reliable source has to go into an article that you apparently believe here but disbelieve elsewhere. As far as majority, proof by assertion does not an argument make.

2915:: "After the New York Times announced Jeong’s appointment to its editorial board, the alt-right used her old tweets to accuse her of being “racist” against white people. Journalists described this incident as an instance when erasing historical tweets would be justified." - 1280:

All encyclopedic content on Knowledge must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a

305:

BLP. This is about a set of discretionary sanctions that are limiting the extent to which experienced editors can improve and make bold changes to a page. There are many, many more controversial figures than Sarah Jeong, and such a strict set of DS is rarely applied.

2631:

I don't see this as being particularly due. "Woman had crabby tweets, film at 11." The Hill isn't exactly a stellar source, and I question what value this inclusion would have to a reader beyond rehashing years-old muckraking on Twitter. Is that really encyclopedic?

1148:

If we were to judge each sentence by the basis you're establishing (any newspaper article can be categorized as a primary source and must be removed on that basis alone), the size and substance of almost every article on Knowledge would be substantially diminished.

2793:. Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I clarify that overall that "Sangdeboeuf" guy does not want to modify the paragraph, as he has made amply evident, and that is his right, and that's why already included him on the tally of "against" on 09:25, 2 November 2019: 925:

to the situation, you've just defined it with the apparent assumption that it supports your point of view. It doesn't. There is agreement that the NYT hiring controversy belongs in the article, and an important piece of that is their own comment on the matter.

1020:

viewpoint to include in this section. You have given no substantive reason for removing this line except a lame, technical (and mistaken) argument, when the true reason you apparently want to exclude it is because you believe it's an example of

3479:

given (1) the extensive coverage of them in reliable sources and (2) the fact that they are a significantly noteworthy facet of her public profile and (3) it's difficult to understand the controversy without at least a single direct reference.

560:

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 Knowledge is

2321:

There is no "scene" here -- this is a Very Online Controversy, the location of the NYP's printing press didn't offer them any advantage in covering it. It's a crappy paper, there's no reason to use it when other alternatives are available.

2797:. At the time, the against the proposals were three: Sangdebeouf, JBL, and Simonm223. I find it a bit tiresome to have to document this with so much detail, as I am sure others do, but I do not wish for the misunderstandings to continue. 1418:

the proportion of coverage, and then include it in the article accordingly. What's under discussion here is a single sentence. Having been on this merry-go-round with SDB before, I presume the next "counter-point" will be "Oh, well it's an

2212:, they both are gossipy repackaging of social media statements. The Hill is tabloid for pundits, stronger on some things than others; NYP has home advantage in that NYC newspapers have a traditional role in covering each other's woes. 1750:

FWIW - I read the NYPost source and it is factual and reliable information. It is actually less tabloidy than the other source to The Hill. Reliability is often a matter of particulars on the specific page and the fact being cited. --

443:, 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: 1119:"the Times came to Jeong’s defense and stood by its decision to hire her ... While the Times explicitly stated that it 'does not condone' Jeong’s past tweets, it also made clear that it understood the context in which they were made" 2431:

the case that this whole event was not very important, and so not every single thing that was written about it needs to be covered in an encyclopedia article about Jeong. (Why does this idea seem so hard for you to understand?)

3098: 3612:

To your suggestion that you "were not involved." The archives of this talk page indicate you have been extensively involved in discussion about content on this page related to the tweets/racism accusations controversy.

3183:

is based on the reliability of the source. An individual editor's assessment of what's "interesting" is a much smaller part of the equation, and definitely does not hold much water if the content is published in enough

2659:

Overall, I think the whole episode is given more than enough weight in the article, and I stand by my view from the last time we discussed this that the Times' statement doesn't add to a meaningful understanding of the

300:

This is not about "special BLP protections." Requiring extended confirmation is enough to keep IPs from the editing the page, and any content linking to unreliable sources can be justifiably and immediately removed on

3263:- "Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” - "Caucasians were “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”" - "Dumbass fucking white people" - "#CancelWhitePeople" 2239:

source, by contrast, is shorter, punchier, and gives proportionally more space and prominence to the old tweets which "raised eyebrows", etc. I also don't see what any home-court "advantage" has to do with evaluating

2364:

The Times said in a statement at the time that it stood by its decision to hire Jeong and had reviewed the writer's social media accounts prior to her hiring, while calling the content of the tweets "unacceptable."

1043:"A newspaper or magazine article, if determined to be sufficiently authoritative, balanced and well researched, might be used as part of the analytical discourse ... In this case, the article is a secondary source." 3521:

disagreement than encourage a robust discussion. That type of behavior is disruptive and an abuse of the closure tool. But let's stick to the topic at hand, which is the inclusion of the language of the tweets.

336:. That's hardly a draconian restriction or an unreasonable standard, and it has not impeded any uncontentious improvements that the article, and it's actually a little strange that you're portraying it as such. 287:

They're not being suggested as sources for article content, but they're convincing evidence that the bitterness in right-wing circles that leads to BLP violations has not dissipated and remains an issue.

2724:"stood by its decision to hire Jeong"?", i.e., why not indeed? Both need to be included, as per Sangdebeouf. I don't think there is much room for misunderstanding of the sort: "because you seem to be 360:

a restriction in place. Instead of looking to obscure partisan sources to evaluate the likelihood of disruption, we should review the actual page traffic; this article attracts less than a few hundred

2266:

Goodness sake, the New York Post is definitely a tabloid. I can take or leave the Hill as a source; I don't think it's that great in general TBH. But the Post? No. Fire that into the sun as a source.

1283:

Your personal opinion that a significantly covered viewpoint is "trivial" is exactly the kind of editorial bias we should not be introducing in the article, either by excluding or including material.

484:

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

3513:

and the conversation has been open for a long period of time does it make sense to close a discussion. I see reasonable arguments being made as to why inclusion of the tweets is justified. If you or

2811:

My question was a genuine question – not, as I assume you thought, a suggestion rhetorically phrased as a question. There's nothing to agree with or disagree with, unless you're agreeing that it's a

3537:

On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later.

2720:

the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", and also full agreement with Sangdebeouf who wrote: "why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the

764:

SDB did not "answer" or address the concerns of the two (now three) dissenting editors in any substantive way, and the fact that SDB's unilateral removal of the content went unchallenged in the

2951:: "Sarah Jeong was appointed to The New York Times editorial board, it was discovered that she had sent dozens of vicious anti-White racist tweets over the years (Twitter had allowed these)" - 236:

Oh, and there's still IPs trolling this talk page as of February. I'm not buying the notion that the restrictions are no longer needed, and would argue against lifting them in a formal appeal.

3099:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/so-i-think-i-was-fine-trump-defends-promoting-baseless-conspiracy-theory-about-epsteins-death/2019/08/13/75547346-bde2-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html

453:

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

2969:: "New York Times editorial writer Sarah Jeong spent years tweeting vile insults about white people that would have ended her career had she written them about any other group or “race.”" - 2849:

I don't think it makes sense to expand that paragraph at this point; the Hill source only mentions the topic in passing, and it hasn't gotten much other coverage since the initial event. --

3289:

If similar tweets were made by white supremacists/nationalists wouldn't wiki writers use this as proof of their status and be labeled as such in opening of page and categories on bottom?

832:"discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" 3024:

item is also an opinion piece, not a reliable source. Most of that list is not worth pointing to. Going by our standards for reliable sources, the only remotely acceptable ones are the

1895:

material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources

3672:

the article says that Jeong was criticised in "conservative media". the reference for this seems to be the BBC, NYT and the Guardian. These don't seem like conservative media to me.

3566:

see a "widely held view" that the tweets should not be included. Bottom line: You should a) stop closing conversations, b) stop misusing oversight tools available to non-admins.

3467:

This discussion should not have been closed. Regardless, it doesn't seem worth going through the bureaucracy to re-open it. Instead, I think that all editors on this page should

230: 191:

The assertion that the tweets controversy has been forgotten and the restrictions no longer necessary (much less "absurd") are highly dubious. As of today there is an article in

1327:. There is no viewpoint more relevant and more significant on the topic of the NYT hiring controversy than the times itself, and it's been published widely in reliable sources. 227: 3278: 2662:

Are you sure you agree with them? Because if you agree with that, I think we can reasonably close this section as having reached a consensus not to expand the paragraph. --

2716:

the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", i.e., exactly with Michepman wrote: "My understanding was that the proposal was to include

780:

articles. If you would be willing to lift this unnecessarily stringent DS, then we'd be far more able to dedicate most of the discussion to content rather than procedure.

3675:

Can the claim be support by actual reference to conservative media or likewise, since left wing/centrist media also ran the story, just remove the word "conservative"?

787:

the New York Times' decision to bring her onto its editorial board. Their viewpoint is pertinent to the subject matter and should be afforded space in the article per

1909:; it's a tabloid. All it does here is recycle the CNN report along with quoting some of the old tweets for the sake of sensationalism. Not usable, in my opinion. — 3142: 796: 1407:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,

558:

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.

328:

controversy, that has been subjected to, and is still at risk for, bitter disputes and BLP violations. Even then, the only "burden" is to discuss any changes

234: 3304:

Why don't you go ask on some talk pages for white supremacists and nationalists instead of wasting the time of editors here rehashing stupid arguments? --

3000:

explicitly calls them "a handful of years-old tweets" that were satirical in the first place and had to be "dredged up". In portions not quoted above, the

1192:. Don't conflate policies on content that can genuinely be described as "trivia" or "factoids" with those regarding which viewpoints are worth including. 775:

I'll also note the irony in the fact that the very reason that these "procedural" issues are even relevant is because of the discretionary sanctions that

1620:

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

3044: 2458:, a year later, again raises the fact that Jeong's employer assessed Jeong's tweets as "unacceptable." Seems odd that Knowledge should censor out the 1107:

if they don't contain any analysis of the specific issue. It's also debatable how "well researched" they are if they're just quoting or paraphrasing a

232: 251:

We stick to RS not these blogs or dodgy sources (even though I really like some of these authors). See e.g. "That controversy has quieted down", from

3260:

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

739:'s proposal had any sort of "weak consensus" is patently false. SDB made the proposal in December, and two editors disagreed - indicating consensus 2924:: "Sarah Jeong, a new New York Times editorial board member, whose past tweets had led some to accuse her of being racist against white people." - 2548:"stood by its decision to hire Jeong"? That seems like a biased reading of the source.Overall, I think the whole episode is given more than enough 2516:-- the fact that something is in a good source doesn't automatically mean that it should be added. But when it comes to the specific issue of what 1039:

Does that mean you'll also refrain from giving your own "highly opinionated and subjective assessment" of the NYT's viewpoint? That would be great.

3153: 2905:, and others (see below) even quote the "forgotten" tweets in full, in 2019. Here's a sampler of 2019 articles, one year after the episode, where 252: 930:

requires we note all significant views that have been published on the topic, and the Times' "not condoning" her tweets is within that category.

2886: 1049:"Secondary sources are theoretical or critical texts which are part of the professional wisdom on or related to your primary object of study." 145:

Disagreement is to be expected on somewhat contentious BLPs, but we can all act like grown-ups. I think that at least downgrading the page to

2233:

about Jeong's history with the paper, including the circumstances of her leaving the editorial board. It's a proper piece of journalism. The

3561:

First, you should not be closing discussions at all given your non-neutral involvement in this thread. Second, consensus can and often is

3109: 2933:: "branded anti-Semitic for his tweets and Sarah Jeong, member of its editorial board, as racist against white people for hers" - The Hill 783:

Lastly, as for the actual merit of the content itself, inclusion is clearly warranted by policy. The controversy involved both her tweets

2125:, but I don't think you'd get anywhere - that seems like a fairly idiosyncratic opinion to me, since The Hill is, well, not a tabloid? -- 1446:

The only part of this comment (the most recent in a seemingly endless parade of tedious, wikilawyerly walls of words) that is salient is

226:

describes her tweets as "venomous", "anti-white", "racist attacks", and touts her as an example of "the media’s actual hatred of whites".

3257:

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

1025:

Highly opinionated and subjective assessments of the merits of viewpoints themselves are not how their relative weight is determined.

2877:

Yes. All indications are that the entire episode has been largely forgotten outside of a small cadre of professionally angry people.

2676:

Why the rush to close? So far, we have one either way, one for, three against. The proposal has been up only a bit over 48 hours.

3120: 2292:

It's important to know what each source's strengths are, because average reliability is of scarce use in specific disputes. The

1302: 1108: 465:

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. —

3580:

I wasn't involved at all until you started accusing me of acting inappropriately. If you think I've abused editing privileges,

1683:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

619:

Ah, yet another example of Sangdeboeuf serving as both judge, jury, and "executioner" (as in, executes changes w/o consensus).

198: 3143:

https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/opinion-when-social-media-monopolies-prey-on-freedom-of-expression-1567258586216.html

2404: 2230: 2210: 1712: 1448:

The majority of articles covering this story, of course, include the NYT statement on the matter of her tweets and her hiring

163:

Since I, as the admin who placed the particular discretionary sanction, am not comfortable lifting/modifying it at the moment

3701:

No, we use secondary sources here, not primary sources. All three references make very clear the sources of the criticism:

1341:

No, not even a little bit. That is not the key portion, and several other policies, and other portions of NPOV, prove that.

2489:

not be surprising. (None of this answers the question of why you suffer from this bizarre derangement, unfortunately.) --

1124:

The Princeton site isn't saying that news articles are always secondary sources; they're telling students how to evaluate

1118: 1103:, but the fact is there's very little sourcing to support either interpretation. It's hard to see how news sources can be 798: 652:

I see a process issue here, and I'm commenting on it. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you could raise it without

3598:

You should be willing to correct your behavior without intervention. If not, I have no problem going that route. Cheers.

1425: 638:

Could you perhaps find a less assholeish way to engage? Your message is hyper-personalized and contains no content. --

2234: 2207: 1866: 1648: 1162:

Considering that most Knowledge articles are made up of obsessive fan trivia, that would be no bad thing. We shouldn't

149:

and removing the DS on the section on her tweets would give everyone a lot more breathing room to improve the article.

3690: 3517:

disagree on the merits, it is appropriate to respond but not close the discussion. This seems more like an attempt to

3418: 3237: 3449:

acting as the self-appointed arbitrator of which discussions are worth continuing? This one was closed prematurely.

965:

I already quoted the policy definition of secondary sources, which refutes your statement. Once again, where is the

792: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3216: 2916: 1684: 1070:

You certainly don't see me making comments about the NYT "covering their own ass." The sources provided (BBC, NYT,

842: 220: 72: 67: 59: 38: 3279:#CancelWhitePeople: New York Times defends hiring tech writer after anti-white 'counter-trolling' tweets unearthed 1980:

Concur with Sangdeboeuf and JBL. We need fewer tabloid sources on Knowledge, not more. There's no value add here.

1206:

Users are free to disagree on the relevance of various statements and viewpoints. I for one am not convinced that

257:. A bit arduous to understand why you linked to these BLP-violating sources without trying to enflame old wounds. 3618: 3603: 3571: 3527: 3485: 3458: 3193: 1966:

I agree with Sangdeboeuf: there's no point in using a worse source for something when we have a better source. --

1531: 1473: 1437: 1332: 1288: 1241: 1197: 1153: 1084: 1030: 989: 935: 817: 661: 629: 591:

I think I've answered these objections. If there are no others, I propose removing the text as described above. —

408: 374: 311: 154: 98: 3453:

and it is inappropriate for users advocating for a certain side to be so heavily moderating talk page activity.

3067: 2983: 207: 3631: 3154:

https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/04/03/sarah-jeong-is-watching-the-web-from-portland-she-sees-a-pile-of-garbage/

3131: 2540:

to give a brief recap of the context for why Jeong's employment is newsworthy at all; this doesn't add any new

2184: 1831:

But it's not necessary, there is already an uncontroversial reliable source. Just the CNN source would suffice.

365: 3321:

material without going to Google or Twitter - seems to defeat the purpose of a proper and thorough Wiki page.

3164: 2863:

I don't believe it adds anything to the article. Frankly I think we've given undue weight to the tweets as is.

1274:

I didn't express a viewpoint about the NYT, I said that it's been covered in reliable, secondary sources. Per

2117:, the Post is considered a marginal source; that generally means it shouldn't be used for statements about a 550:

of anyone's judgement, so if that's what you mean, all the more reason to omit this information. Whether the

3750: 3722: 3630:"This thread" does not mean any and all past discussions about the same or similar issues. Either take this 3500: 3379: 3347: 3309: 2582: 2494: 2437: 2327: 2095: 2055: 1971: 1599: 1570: 1455: 1342: 1163: 949: 904: 643: 1464:

Refer to the citations that have already been provided. If you don't believe me, do the research yourself.

3539:

As JBL points out, you are simply rehashing old arguments. Those arguments failed to reach consensus. For

1465: 1233: 3342:

to the one that has been rejected, without any acknowledgement or understanding of why that happened.) --

3639: 3589: 3552: 3228: 3040: 2882: 2820: 2750: 2703: 2568: 2249: 2164: 1957: 1914: 1324: 1310: 1265: 1219: 1179: 1137: 1060: 1003: 974: 883: 854: 596: 574: 522: 470: 3110:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/459011-in-three-years-of-trumps-presidency-who-has-branded-whom

449:

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

3628:

First, you should not be closing discussions at all given your non-neutral involvement in this thread.

2891:

An interesting wiki editor position, that "the entire episode has been largely forgotten". The 2019

2591: 768:

for two weeks - likely because few editors watch this page - is irrelevant, because they did not gain

3678: 3614: 3599: 3567: 3523: 3481: 3454: 3338:

established consensus. (While consensus can change, it does not change by repetition of an argument

3189: 3004:

also says "The newspaper refused to cave" and that the "controversy has quieted down". The screed in

2979: 2802: 2733: 2681: 2622: 2467: 2381: 2304: 2150: 2081: 2065: 1932: 1924: 1890: 1822: 1783: 1735: 1720: 1692: 1527: 1469: 1433: 1420: 1328: 1284: 1237: 1193: 1171: 1149: 1080: 1026: 985: 960: 931: 922: 831: 813: 709: 657: 625: 566: 537: 404: 403:

think that's an appropriate use of DS, and I'll consider filing my request in the appropriate forum.

370: 307: 150: 94: 3087: 1661: 1623: 3063: 2925: 2854: 2667: 2637: 2604: 2541: 2525: 2344: 2271: 2180: 2130: 1985: 1665: 1627: 966: 868: 809: 719: 620: 193: 176: 136: 3359: 3322: 3290: 3746: 3718: 3496: 3375: 3343: 3305: 2578: 2490: 2433: 2323: 2299: 2091: 2051: 1967: 1905: 1566: 1551: 1512: 1488: 1451: 1429: 1352: 945: 917: 900: 705: 639: 555: 197:, where the writer is stewing about how she was rewarded for being a racist towards white people. 3121:

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/433867-selective-outrage-machine-goes-after-tucker-again

2226: 1104: 1048: 1042: 1013: 3363: 3326: 3294: 3223:

the disputed material. Closing thread which has devolved into tit-for-tat. Nothing new here. —

2970: 2537: 1100: 827: 805: 801: 752: 562: 547: 499: 268: 3635: 3585: 3548: 3514: 3446: 3409: 3224: 3036: 2952: 2878: 2868: 2816: 2746: 2699: 2648: 2564: 2549: 2294: 2245: 2160: 2033: 1953: 1910: 1836: 1801: 1777: 1759: 1555: 1306: 1261: 1215: 1175: 1133: 1056: 999: 970: 879: 850: 736: 693: 592: 570: 518: 485: 466: 440: 320:

The sanctions place absolutely no burden on editors' ability to improve the article, just a

47: 17: 2544:. Going by the above text, why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the 1079:

the NYT statement on her hiring is not worth noting with regard to the hiring controversy.

3686: 3536: 2975: 2961: 2901: 2798: 2729: 2695: 2677: 2618: 2517: 2463: 2377: 2146: 2077: 1928: 1818: 1346: 1071: 747:

Without the DS sanctions, this would just be another bold edit, but the sanctions require

701: 533: 202: 2025:

Gee four people in less than 24hrs aligned on such a minor thing, I've seen stranger! --

1716: 3008:

is a gross misrepresentation that again falls into the professionally angry bucket. The

1188:

The NYT's statement on her hiring is not a minor factoid. It's a relevant viewpoint per

3220: 3059: 2850: 2663: 2633: 2600: 2521: 2340: 2267: 2142: 2126: 2114: 1981: 1945: 1923:

No material is being added other than the quote itself. Therefore the cited text from

1275: 1250: 1228: 715: 481: 211: 172: 132: 2996:

are opinion pieces from the very professionally-angry cadre that I mentioned, and the

3581: 3540: 3476: 3472: 3450: 3185: 3180: 3054: 2485: 2310: 2213: 2122: 2118: 2047: 2007: 1899: 1211: 1189: 1075: 927: 846: 788: 653: 146: 1409:

in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

794: 759:

objections means consensus has been reached, but the policy says just the opposite:

3032:

pieces, whose treatment of the incident is in fact evidence that we should give it

2906: 2892: 2513: 2512:

until that controversy. That being said, we go by consensus on Knowledge, not just

2459: 2450:

It used to be on Knowledge we went by the sources. Above one "Joel B. Lewis" says

2241: 1814: 1128:

of publications for secondary-source material. It also happens to be written for a

697: 490: 361: 356: 259: 168: 164: 109: 3016:

gives it two sentences, does not quote Jeong's tweets, and says nothing about the

369:

place without overwhelming evidence that they are vital to "protect" the article.

1793:

That's just one sentence we can provide readers with more in-depth reporting. --

830:. Fortunately, NOTNEWS was only one of the policies I mentioned; another states, 804:

presents a basis for excluding this line is a mistaken, as this policy prohibits

3754: 3726: 3694: 3643: 3622: 3607: 3593: 3575: 3556: 3531: 3504: 3489: 3462: 3413: 3405: 3383: 3367: 3351: 3330: 3313: 3298: 3232: 3197: 2872: 2864: 2858: 2824: 2806: 2754: 2737: 2707: 2685: 2671: 2641: 2626: 2608: 2586: 2572: 2529: 2498: 2471: 2441: 2385: 2348: 2331: 2313: 2275: 2253: 2216: 2188: 2168: 2154: 2134: 2099: 2085: 2059: 2040: 2026: 1989: 1975: 1961: 1936: 1918: 1840: 1832: 1826: 1808: 1794: 1787: 1773: 1766: 1752: 1739: 1724: 1696: 1669: 1631: 1574: 1559: 1535: 1519: 1495: 1477: 1459: 1441: 1359: 1336: 1314: 1292: 1269: 1245: 1223: 1201: 1183: 1157: 1141: 1088: 1064: 1034: 1007: 993: 978: 953: 939: 908: 887: 858: 821: 723: 665: 647: 633: 600: 578: 541: 526: 504: 474: 412: 392: 378: 344: 315: 295: 273: 246: 223: 180: 158: 140: 123: 102: 46:

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

3053:

about a BLP is not necessarily an indicator that the topic is encyclopedically

1772:

I don't think either source is necessary to be honest, the CNN story is enough.

3682: 2617:

the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision.

2613:

Agreed 100% with Michepman and with Sangdeboeuf that it is correct to include

1129: 385: 337: 288: 237: 2780:

the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision.

849:

as an argument against including them. I think the same logic applies here. —

3132:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-off-editorial-board

2064:

Their goalpost moving is also amusing: first it was an ungrounded appeal to

1349:

both show that just being published in a reliable source is not sufficient.

3165:

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/289037/the-lefts-race-war

745:

proceeded to make the same exact changes that had already been objected to.

1450:, but you don't actually provide any evidence to support the assertion. -- 3509:

No, that is not a valid reason to close a discussion. Only if there is a

2771:. I wholeheartedly agree with that "Sangdeboeuf" guy who said that, and 1708: 1305:

is a significant viewpoint; I don't. We'll see what others have to say. —

1121:), but even that doesn't tell us what to make of the "condone" statement. 841:

s response also quoted the tweets themselves, but an earlier discussion≤

229:

And that's not even mentioning the blogs that are still talking about it.

114: 1323:

You have presented absolutely no argument for your position, other than

2369:

employer's statement that it even links back to the its own article on

1941:

I think the subtext there is we shouldn't use garbage sources in BLPs.

863:

As to secondary coverage, according to policy such sources do not just

826:"Original reporting" is only one application of NOTNEWS, which states, 2159:

If you mean, "due to be forgotten, hopefully forever", then I agree. —

355:

for every single possible change to the section, no matter how minor.

1253:

says nothing of the kind. And your opinion about the validity of the

1210:

is all that meaningful or relevant. The next logical step would be a

791:

based on the fact that we have numerous reliable sources covering it.

2776:

Sangdebeouf - My understanding was that the proposal was to include

681:: I have removed the sentence related to the NYT-reaction since its 2563:

statement doesn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic. —

3495:

closed; no one is preventing you from starting a different one. --

1343:

Knowledge:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

871:. Which content of this type would you suggest we draw on for the 743:

the removal. Two months later, SDB returned to the discussion and

3088:

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/journalists-deleting-old-tweet.php

2454:

is a pretty good source for this article. Not once, but twice.

2765:

why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the

2577:

Yes, obviously this is right, thank you for spelling it out. --

944:

For the love of all that is holy please never ping me again. --

3049:

And again, I'll bring up that the existence of a source saying

2657:

your proposal to add that aside from the Hill to the article:

2553: 2298:

is more likely to be a good source on yesterday's pot holes on

2225:– I don't quite understand this. The article in question is by 1170:

analysis, however minor. That would be treating it effectively

3012:

item is a passing mention in a story about somebody else. The

1587: 998:

Where do you see any other definition of a secondary source? —

25: 1424:

without consensus. This is, in my view, part of a concerted,

439:

The whole paragraph about the hiring controversy is textbook

3634:

to the appropriate forum, or stop wasting everyone's time. —

2909:

deemed the Jeong tweets significant enough to mention them:

2376:

Seems relevant enough to include, and I propose it be done.

108:

I think if you want DS lifted, you should make a request on

2712:

No, my agreement is quite clear: "it is correct to include

2974:

Forgotten? The 2019 sources beg to differ. Cheers to all,

2520:

is suggesting here, then I am on board with including it.

1547: 845:

to quote the tweets, with several users explicitly citing

1585:

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

3475:. Consensus may well have been wrong. The tweets appear 2594:- My understanding was that the proposal was to include 2145:

never says the Post is "marginal." The citation is due.

1055:

analysis about the NYT statement in the above sources? —

461:

about a tech writer's social-media history, or b.) they

2790: 2786: 2772: 2760: 1867:"Sarah Jeong leaves the New York Times editorial board" 1505: 1321:

that have been publised by reliable sources on a topic.

686: 682: 2815:

question, in which case you could try answering it. —

2484:

Your inability to exhibit even basic compliance with

1952:

article doesn't add anything except sensationalism. —

1012:

In the definition offered by major universities like

828:"most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" 384:

proper forum, as has already been explained to you.

3374:

Always nice to have first impressions confirmed. --

2405:"Sarah Jeong out at New York Times editorial board" 1260:

viewpoint is no more valid than mine, I'm afraid. —

3545:previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances 2782:I have previously indicated my complete agreement 1099:is expressing genuine disapproval or simply doing 967:analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis 869:analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis 3404:Unhelpful discussion not related to the article. 2552:in the article, and I stand by my view from the 351:I disagree. It is absolutely a burden to obtain 3020:finding Jeong's old tweets "unacceptable". The 1208:The Times said ... it did not condone the posts 1166:contained in a source just because it contains 1132:, so its applicability here is quite limited. — 3215:Previous discussion on quoting Jeong's tweets 1095:Anyone is free to disagree whether or not the 867:something that was said; they offer their own 480:Just because it's "boilerplate" (or any other 2743:Both need to be included, as per Sangdebeouf. 554:"agrees it was poor judgement" appears to be 8: 1421:isolated criticism! It shouldn't be covered! 1117:seems to give the issue the most attention ( 3676: 3427:The following discussion has been closed. 3400: 3246:The following discussion has been closed. 3211: 2206:There is no functional difference between 2014:The following discussion has been closed. 2002: 1781: 435:Proposal: remove paraphrased NYT statement 1707:Jeong has recently left NYT (Reported by 171:would be the right venue to appeal them. 3733:Relevant past discussions are available 2008:focus on content, not other contributors 219:is sympathetic towards non-white racism. 3271: 3080: 2395: 1857: 1641: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3627: 2794: 2775: 2769:"stood by its decision to hire Jeong"? 2764: 2742: 2658: 2318: 2231:it goes into significantly more detail 2222: 1927:does not apply. The citation is due. 1894: 1565:Indeed, thanks. I have updated it. -- 1447: 1406: 1320: 1279: 1207: 1022: 760: 714:to make them aware of the discussion. 444: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1236:which no one's required to abide by. 131:pretty minor variations in phrasing. 7: 2698:, which is the point I was making. — 2653:seems to fairly unambiguously argue 2403:Byrnes, Jesse (September 28, 2019). 834:. The same sources that covered the 762:editor consent to do what they like. 332:making them, which is best practice 2046:Um ok why don't you take us all to 751:for any such change. You said that 2895:may beg to differ. Some, such as 2773:which triggered Michepman to reply 1105:"part of the analytical discourse" 509:And what does the reaction by the 206:labels her an "anti-white racist". 24: 3034:less weight than we currently do. 2745:That's not what I wrote at all. — 1428:effort to remove this section by 200:A few days earlier, a writer for 3711:mainly conservative social media 3511:clear and overwhelming consensus 3471:the matter. As I noted earlier, 2309:person, you'll be disappointed. 1675: 1591: 1045:Those are some pretty big "ifs". 685:violated the applicable DS (see 604: 29: 3208:Actual language from her tweets 2223:The Hill is tabloid for pundits 2072:". Next, it will probably be " 1303:"The Times does not condone it" 1076:each meet first set of criteria 215:using her as an example on how 3384:21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 3368:21:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 3352:20:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 3331:20:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 3314:15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 3299:15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 3233:03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 1740:00:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC) 1725:23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC) 1697:20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) 1670:16:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) 1632:16:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC) 569:to their overall importance. — 1: 3644:05:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 3623:15:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 3608:13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 3594:05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 3576:03:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 3557:02:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 3532:15:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 3505:01:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 3490:00:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 3463:18:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3414:18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 3219:, which effectively means to 3198:15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC) 2728:that the addition is undue". 2068:; when exposed, then it was " 806:original or routine reporting 800:SDB's assertion that somehow 579:05:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 565:, and such details are often 542:13:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 527:10:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 505:09:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 475:08:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 3543:, one would ideally present 3281:Retrieved September 28, 2019 3068:16:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 3045:16:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 2984:05:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 2887:20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 2873:19:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC) 2859:05:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2825:05:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 2807:00:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 2755:23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC) 2738:21:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC) 2708:21:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC) 2686:09:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC) 2672:07:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC) 2642:12:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2627:07:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2609:01:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2587:01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2573:01:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2530:00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2499:01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 2472:20:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) 2442:10:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC) 2386:04:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC) 2349:14:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2332:13:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2314:13:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2276:13:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2254:12:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2217:05:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2189:15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2169:08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2155:22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 2135:04:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 2100:01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 2086:00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 2060:23:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 2041:22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 1990:12:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 1976:12:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 1962:01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 1937:00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 1919:22:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1841:02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 1827:22:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1809:16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1788:16:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1767:15:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1509:part of a defense of Jeong. 969:you would like to include? — 613:—08:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 601:22:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC) 2554:last time we discussed this 2542:secondary-source evaluation 2339:this as far as I can tell. 1614:to reactivate your request. 1602:has been answered. Set the 921:haven't applied the policy 517:, namely one Sarah Jeong? — 515:the subject of this article 398:issues that administrators 3771: 2917:Columbia Journalism Review 1948:as a reliable source; the 1865:Levine, Jon (2019-09-28). 1649:| via NY Post cite CNN/NYT 1536:17:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1520:17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1496:13:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC) 1478:15:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1460:15:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1442:14:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1360:14:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1337:11:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1315:03:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1293:02:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1270:01:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1246:00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 1224:22:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1202:20:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1184:19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1158:17:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1142:04:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 1041:Princeton's website says, 3755:13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 3727:12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 3695:11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 3340:identical in all respects 3217:failed to reach consensus 2050:and see how that goes? -- 1703:Article should be updated 1542:Wrong employer in infobox 1089:19:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) 1065:20:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC) 1035:23:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 1023:covering their own asses. 1008:22:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 994:19:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 979:18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 954:16:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 940:15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 909:12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 888:04:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 859:04:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 822:02:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 724:03:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 666:01:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 648:01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 634:01:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 413:14:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC) 393:06:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC) 379:01:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC) 364:, and there are far more 345:00:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC) 316:23:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 296:22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 274:21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 247:21:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 181:03:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 159:03:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 141:02:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 124:01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 103:22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC) 3430:Please do not modify it. 3249:Please do not modify it. 2361:The Hill (2019) writes: 2302:'s main street than the 2074:emanations and penumbras 2017:Please do not modify it. 1575:12:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC) 1560:11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC) 1430:death by a thousand cuts 1130:specific writing seminar 3186:highly reliable sources 2690:Because you seem to be 1319:No, the key portion is 1053:theoretical or critical 556:your own interpretation 457:to say either a.) they 88:Discretionary sanctions 1817:ought to be restored. 1301:. You appear to think 1297:The key word there is 1164:document every factoid 755:implies that the lack 2694:that the addition is 1526:I am fine with this. 1051:Where do you see any 488:), other than Jeong. 42:of past discussions. 3715:Conservative critics 3473:consensus can change 3451:Consensus can change 2305:Hillsboro Free Press 2229:, not a pundit. And 548:evaluate the quality 209:In January, we have 3541:consensus to change 3469:continue to discuss 2926:The Washington Post 2761:wrote on 1 November 2371:The New York Times' 2319:closer to the scene 1212:request for comment 1172:as a primary source 772:in the first place. 770:talk page consensus 749:talk page consensus 690:preferred. Pinging 353:talk page consensus 194:The Sunday Guardian 3707:those on the right 3668:Conservative media 2759:One "Sangdeboeuf" 2227:a regular reporter 1906:The New York Times 843:found no consensus 808:- not substantial 683:recent re-addition 546:We're not here to 3697: 3681:comment added by 3665: 3664: 3632:WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE 3422: 3419:non-admin closure 3399: 3398: 3241: 3238:non-admin closure 2971:Tablet (magazine) 2179:Alrighty then. -- 2111: 2110: 2090:Alrighty then. -- 1790: 1618: 1617: 1522: 1498: 1362: 1016:. The NYT is the 567:out of proportion 563:not a news source 222:That same month, 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3762: 3432: 3416: 3401: 3282: 3276: 3251: 3235: 3212: 3167: 3162: 3156: 3151: 3145: 3140: 3134: 3129: 3123: 3118: 3112: 3107: 3101: 3096: 3090: 3085: 2953:Mint (newspaper) 2652: 2562: 2419: 2418: 2416: 2415: 2400: 2295:Oak Park Journal 2038: 2031: 2019: 2003: 1881: 1880: 1878: 1877: 1862: 1806: 1799: 1764: 1757: 1738: 1695: 1687:if appropriate. 1679: 1678: 1651: 1646: 1609: 1605: 1595: 1594: 1588: 1515: 1510: 1491: 1486: 1355: 1350: 1259: 1072:Associated Press 964: 877: 840: 735:The notion that 713: 612: 608: 607: 502: 498: 496: 493: 390: 342: 322:single paragraph 293: 271: 267: 265: 262: 243: 122: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:Sarah Jeong 3770: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3670: 3615:Wikieditor19920 3600:Wikieditor19920 3568:Wikieditor19920 3524:Wikieditor19920 3482:Wikieditor19920 3455:Wikieditor19920 3428: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3277: 3273: 3247: 3210: 3190:Wikieditor19920 3172: 3171: 3170: 3163: 3159: 3152: 3148: 3141: 3137: 3130: 3126: 3119: 3115: 3108: 3104: 3097: 3093: 3086: 3082: 3026:Willamette Week 3002:Willamette Week 2998:Willamette Week 2962:Willamette Week 2902:Willamette Week 2646: 2560: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2413: 2411: 2402: 2401: 2397: 2366: 2359: 2034: 2027: 2015: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1875: 1873: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1802: 1795: 1760: 1753: 1748: 1734: 1705: 1691: 1685:reliable source 1676: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1647: 1643: 1634: 1607: 1603: 1592: 1583: 1548:her own website 1544: 1528:Wikieditor19920 1513: 1489: 1470:Wikieditor19920 1466:WP:YOUCANSEARCH 1434:Wikieditor19920 1353: 1329:Wikieditor19920 1285:Wikieditor19920 1257: 1238:Wikieditor19920 1234:WP:STONEWALLING 1194:Wikieditor19920 1150:Wikieditor19920 1126:different types 1081:Wikieditor19920 1027:Wikieditor19920 986:Wikieditor19920 961:Wikieditor19920 958: 932:Wikieditor19920 875: 838: 814:Wikieditor19920 710:Wikieditor19920 691: 687:this discussion 658:Wikieditor19920 626:Wikieditor19920 605: 603: 500: 494: 491: 489: 437: 405:Wikieditor19920 386: 371:Wikieditor19920 338: 308:Wikieditor19920 289: 269: 263: 260: 258: 254:Willamette Week 238: 203:The Epoch Times 151:Wikieditor19920 113: 95:Wikieditor19920 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3768: 3766: 3758: 3757: 3730: 3729: 3703:far-right blog 3669: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3610: 3584:is thataway. — 3465: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3424: 3423: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3372: 3356: 3335: 3318: 3284: 3283: 3270: 3269: 3265: 3253: 3252: 3243: 3242: 3209: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3169: 3168: 3157: 3146: 3135: 3124: 3113: 3102: 3091: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2973: 2964: 2955: 2946: 2940: 2934: 2928: 2919: 2910: 2861: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2784:to this clause 2644: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2462:as they come. 2445: 2444: 2427:Because it is 2421: 2420: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2363: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2290: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2181:Pelirojopajaro 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2021: 2020: 2011: 2010: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1946:already counts 1883: 1882: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1786:comment added 1747: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1704: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1653: 1652: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1622: 1616: 1615: 1596: 1582: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1543: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1325:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1101:damage control 956: 912: 911: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 861: 781: 773: 727: 726: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 513:tell us about 436: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 362:visits per day 279: 278: 277: 276: 212:The Federalist 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 183: 127: 126: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3767: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3731: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3673: 3667: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3611: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3426: 3425: 3420: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3402: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3336: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3319: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3280: 3275: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3261: 3258: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3239: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3207: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3182: 3179:The test for 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3166: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3150: 3147: 3144: 3139: 3136: 3133: 3128: 3125: 3122: 3117: 3114: 3111: 3106: 3103: 3100: 3095: 3092: 3089: 3084: 3081: 3077: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2992:The items in 2991: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2959: 2954: 2950: 2944: 2938: 2932: 2927: 2923: 2918: 2914: 2908: 2904: 2903: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2795:three against 2792: 2788: 2785: 2781: 2779: 2774: 2770: 2768: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2656: 2650: 2645: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2597: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2536:It's typical 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2487: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2410: 2406: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2372: 2362: 2356: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2291: 2287: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066:WP:BLPSOURCES 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2039: 2037: 2032: 2030: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2004: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1950:New York Post 1947: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925:WP:BLPSOURCES 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1902: 1901: 1900:New York Post 1896: 1892: 1891:WP:BLPSOURCES 1888: 1887: 1872: 1871:New York Post 1868: 1861: 1858: 1854: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1800: 1798: 1792: 1791: 1789: 1785: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1765: 1763: 1758: 1756: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1650: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1613: 1610:parameter to 1601: 1597: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1546:According to 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1521: 1517: 1516: 1507: 1504:I agree that 1497: 1493: 1492: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1412: 1410: 1404: 1403: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1256: 1252: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1230: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1110: 1109:press release 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1044: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 991: 987: 982: 981: 980: 976: 972: 968: 962: 957: 955: 951: 947: 943: 942: 941: 937: 933: 929: 924: 923:WP:PROPORTION 919: 918:Joel B. Lewis 916: 915: 914: 913: 910: 906: 902: 897: 896: 889: 885: 881: 878:s response? — 874: 870: 866: 862: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 837: 833: 829: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 797: 795: 793: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 771: 767: 763: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 731: 730: 729: 728: 725: 721: 717: 711: 707: 706:Joel B. Lewis 703: 699: 695: 688: 684: 680: 677: 676: 667: 663: 659: 655: 654:calling names 651: 650: 649: 645: 641: 637: 636: 635: 631: 627: 622: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 611: 602: 598: 594: 581: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 539: 535: 530: 529: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 503: 497: 487: 483: 479: 478: 477: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 451: 450: 448: 442: 434: 414: 410: 406: 401: 396: 395: 394: 391: 389: 382: 381: 380: 376: 372: 367: 363: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 343: 341: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 318: 317: 313: 309: 304: 299: 298: 297: 294: 292: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 275: 272: 266: 256: 255: 250: 249: 248: 244: 241: 235: 233: 231: 228: 225: 221: 218: 214: 213: 208: 205: 204: 199: 196: 195: 190: 189: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 161: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 143: 142: 138: 134: 129: 128: 125: 121: 119: 118: 111: 107: 106: 105: 104: 100: 96: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3677:— Preceding 3674: 3671: 3562: 3544: 3518: 3510: 3468: 3442: 3437: 3429: 3339: 3288: 3274: 3266: 3262: 3259: 3256: 3248: 3160: 3149: 3138: 3127: 3116: 3105: 3094: 3083: 3075: 3050: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2966: 2957: 2948: 2942: 2936: 2930: 2921: 2913:October 2019 2912: 2900: 2896: 2812: 2783: 2777: 2766: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2691: 2654: 2614: 2595: 2557: 2545: 2538:news writing 2455: 2451: 2428: 2412:. Retrieved 2408: 2398: 2390: 2375: 2370: 2367: 2360: 2303: 2293: 2235: 2205: 2112: 2073: 2069: 2035: 2028: 2024: 2016: 1949: 1942: 1904: 1898: 1874:. Retrieved 1870: 1860: 1852: 1813:Agreed, the 1803: 1796: 1761: 1754: 1749: 1731: 1706: 1688: 1680: 1660: 1657: 1644: 1636: 1619: 1611: 1600:edit request 1584: 1545: 1511: 1503: 1487: 1415: 1408: 1405:Oh, really? 1351: 1298: 1254: 1167: 1125: 1123: 1114: 1112: 1096: 1052: 1047: 1040: 1018:most obvious 1017: 872: 864: 835: 784: 776: 769: 765: 756: 748: 744: 740: 732: 678: 621:WP:RECENTISM 609: 590: 559: 551: 514: 510: 462: 458: 454: 452: 446: 438: 399: 387: 366:high-profile 357:Bold editing 352: 339: 333: 329: 325: 324:regarding a 321: 302: 290: 253: 239: 216: 210: 201: 192: 116: 115: 91: 78: 43: 37: 3636:Sangdeboeuf 3586:Sangdeboeuf 3549:Sangdeboeuf 3515:Sangdeboeuf 3447:Sangdeboeuf 3225:Sangdeboeuf 2967:August 2019 2949:August 2019 2943:August 2019 2931:August 2019 2922:August 2019 2817:Sangdeboeuf 2747:Sangdeboeuf 2700:Sangdeboeuf 2649:Sangdeboeuf 2592:Sangdebeouf 2565:Sangdeboeuf 2373:statement. 2246:Sangdeboeuf 2161:Sangdeboeuf 2070:the subtext 1954:Sangdeboeuf 1911:Sangdeboeuf 1782:—Preceding 1307:Sangdeboeuf 1299:significant 1262:Sangdeboeuf 1216:Sangdeboeuf 1176:Sangdeboeuf 1134:Sangdeboeuf 1057:Sangdeboeuf 1000:Sangdeboeuf 971:Sangdeboeuf 880:Sangdeboeuf 851:Sangdeboeuf 737:Sangdeboeuf 694:Sangdeboeuf 593:Sangdeboeuf 571:Sangdeboeuf 519:Sangdeboeuf 467:Sangdeboeuf 463:did condone 459:didn't care 224:Ann Coulter 36:This is an 3717:, etc. -- 3267:References 3076:References 3037:XOR'easter 3006:The Tablet 2976:XavierItzm 2958:April 2019 2937:March 2019 2879:XOR'easter 2799:XavierItzm 2730:XavierItzm 2678:XavierItzm 2619:XavierItzm 2518:XavierItzm 2464:XavierItzm 2414:2019-09-29 2391:References 2378:XavierItzm 2147:XavierItzm 2078:XavierItzm 1929:XavierItzm 1876:2019-09-29 1853:References 1819:XavierItzm 1637:References 1604:|answered= 1426:disruptive 812:coverage. 802:WP:NOTNEWS 753:WP:SILENCE 702:PackMecEng 534:PackMecEng 3060:Simonm223 3051:something 2851:Aquillion 2664:Aquillion 2634:Simonm223 2601:Michepman 2556:that the 2522:Michepman 2341:Michepman 2268:Simonm223 2127:Aquillion 1982:Simonm223 1681:Not done: 1014:Princeton 810:secondary 716:Abecedare 486:WP:REHASH 441:recentism 173:Abecedare 133:Abecedare 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 3691:contribs 3679:unsigned 2994:The Hill 2897:The Hill 2726:agreeing 2696:WP:UNDUE 2692:agreeing 2456:The Hill 2452:The Hill 2409:The Hill 2357:The Hill 2300:Oak Park 1943:The Hill 1736:abequinn 1713:The Hill 1693:abequinn 1514:nableezy 1490:nableezy 1416:based on 1354:nableezy 1347:WP:UNDUE 1113:So far, 3360:Rsarlls 3323:Rsarlls 3291:Rsarlls 3221:exclude 2655:against 2143:WP:RS/P 2115:WP:RS/P 2006:Please 1903:is not 1784:undated 1746:NY Post 1717:Mayimbú 1658:X to Y 1468:, too. 1276:WP:NPOV 1251:WP:NPOV 1229:WP:NPOV 766:article 741:against 733:Comment 708:, and 698:Wumbolo 482:WP:IDLI 388:~Swarm~ 340:~Swarm~ 291:~Swarm~ 245:🐝🐝🐝 39:archive 3741:, and 3683:‎Ebefl 3582:WP:ANI 3519:stifle 3477:WP:DUE 3406:Citing 3181:WP:DUE 3055:WP:DUE 2865:Citing 2660:topic. 2550:weight 2486:WP:AGF 2460:WP:RSs 2123:WP:RSN 2119:WP:BLP 2048:WP:SPI 1897:. The 1833:Citing 1774:Citing 1730:Done. 1581:Career 1552:Aapjes 1281:topic. 1190:WP:DUE 928:WP:DUE 865:report 847:WP:DUE 789:WP:DUE 495:umbolo 400:should 334:anyway 330:before 326:single 264:umbolo 147:WP:1RR 3563:wrong 3018:Times 2907:WP:RS 2893:WP:RS 2767:Times 2763:that 2722:Times 2558:Times 2546:Times 2514:WP:RS 2429:still 2242:WP:RS 2029:Green 1815:WP:RS 1797:Green 1755:Green 1662:dmode 1624:dmode 1608:|ans= 1598:This 1255:Times 1097:Times 873:Times 836:Times 552:Times 511:Times 455:Times 447:Times 240:Swarm 169:WP:AE 165:WP:AN 110:WP:AN 16:< 3751:talk 3745:. -- 3743:here 3739:here 3735:here 3723:talk 3687:talk 3640:talk 3619:talk 3604:talk 3590:talk 3572:talk 3553:talk 3528:talk 3501:talk 3486:talk 3459:talk 3410:talk 3380:talk 3364:talk 3348:talk 3327:talk 3310:talk 3295:talk 3229:talk 3194:talk 3064:talk 3041:talk 3028:and 3022:Mint 3010:WaPo 2980:talk 2899:and 2883:talk 2869:talk 2855:talk 2821:talk 2813:good 2803:talk 2791:here 2789:and 2787:here 2778:both 2751:talk 2734:talk 2718:both 2714:both 2704:talk 2682:talk 2668:talk 2638:talk 2623:talk 2615:both 2605:talk 2596:both 2583:talk 2569:talk 2526:talk 2495:talk 2468:talk 2438:talk 2382:talk 2345:talk 2328:talk 2311:Nemo 2272:talk 2250:talk 2236:Post 2214:Nemo 2209:and 2185:talk 2165:talk 2151:talk 2131:talk 2113:Per 2096:talk 2082:talk 2056:talk 1986:talk 1972:talk 1958:talk 1933:talk 1915:talk 1889:See 1837:talk 1823:talk 1778:talk 1721:talk 1715:).-- 1711:and 1666:talk 1628:talk 1571:talk 1556:talk 1532:talk 1506:this 1474:talk 1456:talk 1438:talk 1345:and 1333:talk 1311:talk 1289:talk 1266:talk 1242:talk 1220:talk 1198:talk 1180:talk 1168:some 1154:talk 1138:talk 1085:talk 1061:talk 1031:talk 1004:talk 990:talk 975:talk 950:talk 936:talk 905:talk 884:talk 855:talk 818:talk 720:talk 679:Note 662:talk 644:talk 630:talk 610:Done 597:talk 575:talk 538:talk 523:talk 471:talk 445:The 409:talk 375:talk 312:talk 177:talk 155:talk 137:talk 99:talk 3747:JBL 3719:JBL 3547:. — 3497:JBL 3445:is 3443:Why 3376:JBL 3344:JBL 3306:JBL 3030:CJR 3014:CJR 2579:JBL 2491:JBL 2434:JBL 2324:JBL 2244:. — 2092:JBL 2076:." 2052:JBL 1968:JBL 1780:) 1709:CNN 1606:or 1567:JBL 1452:JBL 1214:. — 1174:. — 1115:Vox 946:JBL 901:JBL 785:and 777:you 757:new 640:JBL 501:^^^ 303:any 270:^^^ 217:NYT 167:or 3753:) 3737:, 3725:) 3713:, 3709:, 3705:, 3693:) 3689:• 3642:) 3621:) 3606:) 3592:) 3574:) 3555:) 3530:) 3503:) 3488:) 3461:) 3412:) 3382:) 3366:) 3350:) 3329:) 3312:) 3297:) 3231:) 3196:) 3188:. 3066:) 3043:) 2982:) 2965:* 2956:* 2947:* 2941:* 2935:* 2929:* 2920:* 2911:* 2885:) 2871:) 2857:) 2823:) 2805:) 2753:) 2736:) 2706:) 2684:) 2670:) 2640:) 2625:) 2607:) 2585:) 2571:) 2528:) 2497:) 2470:) 2440:) 2432:-- 2407:. 2384:) 2347:) 2330:) 2322:-- 2274:) 2252:) 2187:) 2167:) 2153:) 2133:) 2098:) 2084:) 2058:) 1988:) 1974:) 1960:) 1935:) 1917:) 1893:: 1869:. 1839:) 1825:) 1723:) 1668:) 1630:) 1612:no 1573:) 1558:) 1534:) 1518:- 1494:- 1476:) 1458:) 1440:) 1432:. 1358:- 1335:) 1313:) 1291:) 1278:: 1268:) 1244:) 1222:) 1200:) 1182:) 1156:) 1140:) 1087:) 1074:) 1063:) 1033:) 1006:) 992:) 977:) 952:) 938:) 907:) 886:) 857:) 820:) 722:) 704:, 700:, 696:, 664:) 656:. 646:) 632:) 599:) 577:) 540:) 525:) 473:) 411:) 377:) 314:) 179:) 157:) 139:) 120:iz 112:. 101:) 64:← 3749:( 3721:( 3685:( 3638:( 3617:( 3602:( 3588:( 3570:( 3551:( 3526:( 3499:( 3484:( 3457:( 3421:) 3417:( 3408:( 3378:( 3362:( 3346:( 3325:( 3308:( 3293:( 3240:) 3236:( 3227:( 3192:( 3062:( 3039:( 2978:( 2881:( 2867:( 2853:( 2819:( 2801:( 2749:( 2732:( 2702:( 2680:( 2666:( 2651:: 2647:@ 2636:( 2621:( 2603:( 2581:( 2567:( 2561:' 2524:( 2493:( 2466:( 2436:( 2417:. 2380:( 2343:( 2326:( 2270:( 2248:( 2183:( 2163:( 2149:( 2129:( 2094:( 2080:( 2054:( 2036:C 1984:( 1970:( 1956:( 1931:( 1913:( 1879:. 1835:( 1821:( 1804:C 1776:( 1762:C 1732:| 1719:( 1689:| 1664:( 1626:( 1569:( 1554:( 1530:( 1472:( 1454:( 1436:( 1411:. 1331:( 1309:( 1287:( 1264:( 1258:' 1240:( 1218:( 1196:( 1178:( 1152:( 1136:( 1111:. 1083:( 1059:( 1029:( 1002:( 988:( 973:( 963:: 959:@ 948:( 934:( 903:( 882:( 876:' 853:( 839:' 816:( 718:( 712:: 692:@ 660:( 642:( 628:( 595:( 573:( 536:( 521:( 492:w 469:( 407:( 373:( 310:( 261:w 242:– 175:( 153:( 135:( 117:L 97:( 50:.

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

Index