Talk:Bari Weiss/Archive 1

Proquest Citations

Proquest search results are essentially useless as citation links; very few people have access to university libraries. Some sort of stable direct link should be supplied. Two simple searches yield:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/nyregion/columbia-panel-clears-professors-of-antisemitism.html

https://www.villagevoice.com/2005/04/05/columbia-whitewashes-itself/

Rskurat (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Both are fixed. Jlevi (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the "An Academic Freedom Fighter" article is cited to ProQuest. I tried to find it, and the article shows up on Campus Watch, which looks like a web spin-off of a think tank. As such, if that is the original source, I would prefer to remove it (especially since there are better sources). However, the article contains a link to the Jerusalem Post. However however, this link is dead, and the link on archive.org is a dead page. Jlevi (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Columbia Daily Spectator

The Columbia Daily Spectator had half a dozen stories about Columbians for Academic Freedom which you can find wiht the Google search:

site:columbiaspectator.com "Columbians for Academic Freedom"

I think The Forward and Electronic Intifada also had coverage. That doesn't include partisan (but WP:RS) sites like MondoWeiss. --Nbauman (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Bari Weiss vs Columbians for Academic Freedom

Is this an article about Bari Weiss or Columbians for Academic Freedom? It seems like it is much more about Columbians for Academic Freedom. --Theredproject (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Twitter Controversy

Do we honestly need a section for a twitter controversy? Literally every WP:BLP will end up in a twitter controversy if they have twitter. Hardly something that should be in a wiki article. S806 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted section because of WP:NOTNP S806 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Greenwald

This article has quite a bit of useful information and seems to be the only article focusing Weiss herself (apart from this Wikipedia piece):

• Glenn Greenwald: The NY Times’s Newest Op-Ed Hire, Bari Weiss, Embodies its Worst Failings—and its Lack of Viewpoint Diversity In: The Intercept, 31 August 2017.

Unfortunately, a couple of users don't want a link in the article. --Babel fish (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

At first glance i see no issue with listing in the external link section. He possible could also be used as a source to expand the article. The reasons stated for removal in the version history don't seem to make much sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

−

Weiss has been criticized for her views on Israel, political correctness, and Islam. A self described "unhinged Zionist," Weiss was criticized by fellow journalist Glenn Greenwald for her views on Israel. In August of 2017, Greenwald wrote:

Her relatively short career as a writer and activist has been overwhelmingly devoted to one issue: a defense of the Israeli government and a corresponding smear campaign against its critics. Her targets have tended overwhelmingly to be Muslim and/or Arab, often in the context of campus politics.

Greenwald also charged with participating in campaigns of harassment and imtimidation:

She explained that she “got involved in journalism through activism” — specifically, activism against Arab and Muslim professors at Columbia whom she accused of bullying Jewish and Israeli students. That was as part of an incredibly ugly campaign, launched by the film “Columbia Unbecoming” to depict those Arab professors — members of one of America’s most marginalized groups — as oppressors of Jewish students. One of the Arab professors targeted by that campaign, Joseph Massad, described it as “the latest salvo in a campaign of intimidation of Jewish and non-Jewish professors who criticize Israel.” The New York Civil Liberties Union condemned the campaign and that film — which Weiss credits as having catalyzed her interest in journalism — as a witch hunt designed to punish Israel critics... Weiss’s attacks on Muslim and Arab professors weren’t limited to the Columbia campaigns. She also participated in the campaign to destroy the reputation of Nadia Abu El-Haj, an American-born rising star in the academic world who had received a Fulbright scholarship and a fellowship at Harvard. Abu El-Haj, a doctorate of anthropology, has a Palestinian-Muslim father and an American Episcopalian mother.

References

The text written above is WP:UNDUE and should not be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree and will argue for the inclusion of this, since this person is clearly strongly influenced by Zionist Nationalist zeal which is clear in her reporting and condemnation of others and their views. 108.162.139.23 (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RS describe her as conservative

The RS description should be presented first. Her own self-description should be added at the end. The RS description should not be framed as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, because these are RS, not opinion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

30 Jan: Disagree - there is no more reliable source than Weiss, herself, describing on camera what her political views are. I note further that BusinessInsider is not exactly known for high-quality journalism. It's quite a clickbaity site.

Finally, your idea that third-party description must take precedence over the person's self description is not workable. Otherwise any news outlet with an agenda could label someone with highly-charged words ("communist", "fascist", etc) and Wikipedia would have no choice but to adhere to that description over the person's own protestations. Self-description should take precedence unless there is a very good reason to suspect the person is misrepresenting themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.75.196 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We include self-descriptions but per the neutral point of view policy, we represent what independant reliable sources say and don't give precedence to self description - however I agree that Business Insider is not that good of a source and we should see how better sources describe Weiss. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, Weiss is not a RS. And it's not the first instance where individuals associated with the "Intellectual Dark Web" claim to hold non-partisan or centrist views when RS firmly describe them as holding conservative views (Rubin, Peterson, Weiss). In many ways, it appears that these figures seek to portray themselves as less partisan than they truly are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dave Rubin is libertarian, and Jordan Peterson is not conservative. Read the articles, or sources at least. wumbolo ^^^ 11:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

On the Rubin page, IP numbers keep trying to label him as a "classical liberal", because that's what Rubin self-describes as. Peterson is described as a conservative by RS[1][2], yet he like so many other members of the IDW calls himself by something less partisan, such as "traditionalist"[3] and "classically liberal".[4] You should heed your own advice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There are sources describing Peterson as liberal [5], but that is all irrelevant as this is the talk page for the article about Bari Weiss. With regards to Weiss, here's a column by David A. French: [6], and according to the JTA, "Her writing, which includes criticism of the right and the left, doesn’t lend itself easily to labels." [7] wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are op-eds by Ben Shapiro and David French. The JTA source is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is disagreement between our RS about what Weiss's views are. Yes, a couple describe her as conservative, but others call her "heterodox", centrist, or variations thereof. Surely the most accurate description would be to note that her political views aren't necessarily clear? Leading the paragraph with the line "Weiss is a conservative", as if that is some kind of settled fact, is fairly misleading for readers. - Feb 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.75.196 (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what sources you're looking at. I found [8] and [9]. I don't know if any of these are reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 11:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You can also add: <https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-nyt-editor-bari-weiss-found-herself-at-the-center-of-the-metoo-debate/>, which talks about how her views "don't lend themselves easily to labels", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.75.196 (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversy/criticism

There are too many statements that mention controversy or criticism that fail to explain what the controversy or criticism is. As such, they are pointless. All these statements need to be expanded with actual details. Ashmoo (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Name-calling episode

I just came here to check out this journalist's webpage because I've just learned she rather famously called a Presidential candidate an "Assad Toadie" on the Joe Rogan Experience from 2:32:00 and lo! what do I find? a slow edit war going on. I'm not allowed to talk about any of the warriors involved, because, well, that's how wikipedia works. ^^ Here is a reference that can be used from fair.org: Corporate Media Target Gabbard for Her Anti-Interventionism—a Word They Can Barely Pronounce should someone want to add actual details about her controversial statements to the article. (Rogan obviously wasn't impressed.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)