Talk:Bari Weiss

Problematic revert
Please explain this revert of yours. FIRE and NYCLU are both advocacy organizations (defending exactly the same kind of thing, civil rights) so why would you remove one but keep the other? It doesn't make any sense. I will wait for your response but in the interest of fairness I have in the meantime also removed the NYCLU ref until we can sort this issue out. Flaughtin (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

, I entirely agree with your removal of the NYCLU. They are both advocacy organizations, and both articles are from the organizations' own pages. If an outside RS mentions either source in relation to this event, it might in that case be worth including in the article. Without that context, it is probably not. Jlevi (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * They are advocacy organizations. So what? According to WP:RS:


 * Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.


 * I am familiar with FIRE and I think it should be included as well, because of its thorough research.


 * They are advocacy organizations defending civil rights? That's a disqualification? Does the NYT defend civil rights? Does Bari Weiss? --Nbauman (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice
Previously reverted vandalism causing Bing to say subject is a "scumbag" is discussed here: Teahouse (permalink)  --David Tornheim (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Archived version: Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1064 --David Tornheim (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Problematic removals
Any particular reasons why her designation as an "ardent zionist" (sourced to the Vanity Fair article about her) and the footnote to The Intercept piece of March 8, 2018 have been removed? Seems like certain demonstrations of her actions against those critical of Israel are being removed. --Reenthelawman (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it is effectively repetition. The next paragraph includes the line: "Andrew Sullivan described her as an 'unhinged Zionist', she responded saying she 'happily plead[s] guilty as charged'." Philip Cross (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply. And why remove The Intercept article?--Reenthelawman (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not my responsibility. See here. Philip Cross (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Philip. There were so many edits today, I couldn't properly track the person who removed it. The edits seems dubious to me, but as I'm not an editor, I don't feel comfortable undoing edits.--Reenthelawman (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I added it back. In the section above, the issue was of due weight (that is, advocacy organization statements aren't usually intrinsically worthy of inclusion). Reference in The Intercept clears this up for the NYACLU. Jlevi (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jlevi. Thought your edit made sense, but it's already gone. --Reenthelawman (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that you removed the reference to Greenwald's article for being too vague. Could you please explain? Seems quite relevant in the context where Weiss is claiming her differing viewpoint is being stiffled. --Reenthelawman (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the language I removed: 'In 2018, Glenn Greenwald accused Weiss of having made "blatantly inaccurate claims about ugly controversies in which [she] played a leading role."' Surely there is a quote from the same article that is both more informative/concrete about Greenwald's critique and (hopefully) less baldly polemical? Also, these alleged false claims by Weiss were actually made in 2018, so don't obviously belong in the education section. Zekelayla (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have assumed you would have read the article before removing anything. The underlying facts and actions date from Weiss' time at Columbia, not 2018 (that is the year of Greenwald's article), such that the wording was properly in the education section. More importantly, editing is one thing, outright (repeated) removal is another. A full and complete picture for Weiss must - in my view - include the alleged good and the alleged bad. Moreover, her actions while at Columbia (where she campaigned to have professors fired for what she deemed anti-semitic views, although independent investigations came to the conclusion that there were no anti-semitic comments made by those professors and that she was rather trying to censure viewpoints contrary to hers) are extremely relevant in the present context where she is alleging that she was mistreated because she had a differing viewpoint. --Reenthelawman (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You write that independent investigations concluded that Weiss was trying to censure viewpoints contrary to hers. However, the source we cite does not name Weiss and does not mention any student trying to censure contrary viewpoints. Please explain your claim. NedFausa (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect NedFausa, when you say "the source we cite", you should write "the source we have left in". The NYCLU statement on the actions of Weiss is pretty clear and concludes that "The attack on Professor Massad and other in the MEALAC Department is really about their scholarship and political expression." I really have no idea why that source was cut out of the wikipedia page. The report commissioned by Columbia University itself concluded that the professors - and specifically professor Massad - were victims of intimidation. In Salon, Juan Cole wrote  that "Although it was little noted in the press, the report did indeed acknowledge that Massad in particular and the department in general had been the target of an ongoing campaign of intimidation". In the Greenwald article that keeps getting deleted, he notes: "As Cole noted, the report found that the kind of systematic harassment Weiss now pretends to find so objectionable was actually directed at these Arab professors by her own ideological comrades" and that Weiss, after reading the report, "Weiss was furious and held press conferences and demonstrations to denounce it". You seem concerned about the fact that Weiss is not named personally in the report. Respectfully, that is a very technical viewpoint. She was the co-founder of Columbians for Academic Freedom and she was the face of the movement (giving press conferences as previously stated). She was personally the one who called the professors racists and wanted them fired . If that's not trying to censure contrary viewpoints, I don't know what is. --Reenthelawman (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the NYCLU source because, as I explained in my edit summary, it "does not mention Weiss or Columbians for Academic Freedom." The opinion piece in Salon likewise fails to mention either Weiss or Columbians for Academic Freedom. And the tweet you cite cannot be used as a source per WP:TWITTER because it involves claims about third parties. That leaves Greenwald. To cite either of his vicious attacks on Weiss, from August 31, 2017 and March 8 2018, respectively, would violate WP:NPOV. Just because you have found a famous journalistic rival who hates Bari Weiss does not mean we should add his vituperation to her BLP. NedFausa (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Vicious attacks on Weiss"? That is not a fair characterization and the articles are amply sourced and supported. With all due respect, I believe you are misusing WP:NPOV to exclude content you don't seem to like. WP:RS clearly states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". Moreover, you appear to have missed the article cited in the tweet you mention. In the article from the Columbia Spectator, Bari Weiss is specifically named and cited. She specifically calls the professors racists "Weiss responded, "We put the mentions of the publications in the film to expose the racism of these professors. I want everyone to think about what it would mean if these things were written about any other race." Can you square that statement with the result of Columbia's independent investigation? Of course not. The role of wikipedia is to present all sides and a complete portrait of a subject. By seemingly removing all negative mentions of Weiss, I don't believe we achieve that goal. --Reenthelawman (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Greenwald source repeatedly uses loaded and derogatory language rather than making its point straightforwardly. "Vicious" is hardly a stretch. However, I do think the source (barely) meets the standard for inclusion -- if we can find a quote which is both relevant and substantive (rather than pure derogation). It also would probably be preferable to cite a Greenwald source (such as are linked in the 2018 source) that is directly responsive to the events at Columbia, rather than to Weiss's 2018 comments, which are in danger of being given undue weight for the purposes of the section. Zekelayla (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I should add that the NYCLU statement directly mentions "Columbia unbecoming", which is the movie that was created and screened by Columbians for Academic Freedom. --Reenthelawman (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS advises: Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Let's see whether consensus supports citing smears by Glenn Greenwald, who has for years waged a vendetta against Bari Weiss. Naturally I shall abide by consensus. NedFausa (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, as far as I can tell, the Columbia finding of no antisemitism pertained to statements by professors in a classroom environment, whereas the complaint of antisemitism by Weiss pertained to "various statements written by some MEALAC professors in publications such as the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram." So, the accounts of Weiss and Columbia don't actually contradict regarding antisemitism. Zekelayla (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, well at least you've dropped any pretense of being objective on this issue. I guess you'll tell me Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton have a vendetta against Bari Weiss as well . The goal is to present both sides, not one viewpoint. The wikipedia page presents her side of the issue - by quoting her of all people - yet your are striving to ensure the criticism of her is muted for some reason. --Reenthelawman (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Grayzone is not RS, per wikipedia consensus. And I see no evidence that Ned's (well-founded) attitude about Greenwald is affecting his function as an NPOV editor. Zekelayla (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dark horse
Perhaps Yang was a dark horse candidate. But if the source doesn't say that, is it not improper for us to throw that in, with the source as the reference for it? Same with Marianne. Perhaps we should delete "dark horse." --2604:2000:E010:1100:C8B7:23F5:8F53:5C1F (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. That user's edits violated WP:NPOV and have been reverted. NedFausa (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --2604:2000:E010:1100:C8B7:23F5:8F53:5C1F (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-notable
Why are we covering the opinion of a non-notable person? Susan Celia Swan doesn't have a wp page. I would suggest we delete it .. unless we are going to include other opinions of other non-notable people.

The same goes for quoted Taylor Lorenz

And Jamal Jordan.

--2604:2000:E010:1100:C8B7:23F5:8F53:5C1F (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They're notable because they received WP:SECONDARY coverage in a high-quality reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinions section relies too much on WP:PRIMARY sources.
We're currently citing a ton of her opinion columns to summarize her views. While we can summarize her primary statements, it's obviously difficult and tricky to identify which are WP:DUE, and it makes it hard to provide any sort of context or meaning. Ideally we should be looking for secondary coverage of her columns and relying on those. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Jlevi (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not agreed. When the subject is what X thinks, then X is the most appropriate source. What Y thinks of what X thinks might help establish whether it's due, but should not be relied on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Current relationship status
The article states that Bari Weiss was in a relationship with Nellie Bowles during 2018–2019, implying that the relationship ended. However, this article indicates that she is still in a relationship with her as of July 2020. Quote: "Bari herself has been with her girlfriend, the journalist Nellie Bowles, for nearly two years, and seems deeply in love." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aburstein (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

C-Span EL
Hey. In this diff an IP user added a C-Span link to Bari Weiss' appearances. In this diff you remove that EL with the edit summary "unexplained removal of content". Is it possible that you misread the IP addition as a removal? Jlevi (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right. I have reverted my own mistaken edit. Thanks for pointing this out! I apologize for my confusion. NedFausa (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

a question of number

 * The eldest daughter among four sisters

Ambiguous: is she one of four sisters, or (a bit less likely but still a legitimate interpretation) does she have four sisters? —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Weiss's sexuality
She doesn't like to label herself, yet Weiss is put in the "Bisexual women" and "Bisexual writers" categories at the bottom. Is that appropriate?Mcc1789 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Also in 2018, she criticized the #MeToo movement"
What a stupid and empty sentence. Here is the source, and it says the criticized "excesses of" the #MeToo movement. That is slightly better, but still not worth citing. People, please, never write "X criticized Y". That is bad style and says nothing. In most cases, that supposed criticism is just disagreement and should be called that. When it is not, you need to say which aspect exactly was criticized.

Maybe that source can used for something else, that is why I moved it here instead of deleting it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Second marriage
The "Personal life" section says, "As of 2021, the two [Weiss and Nellie Bowles] are engaged", but the "spouses" section of the infobox states, "Nellie Bowles ​(m. 2021)". Which one is correct? JezGrove (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The New Seven Dirty Words?
Has this book been published? I found early mentions of deals with publishers Holt and Crown, but no later mentions (other than on Goodreads) of its actually having been published. –  Kekki1978  (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent sources with significant coverage
The following are some recent sources with significant coverage that may be worth incorporating and for evaluating appropriate weight to devote to various elements of Weiss' biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Source to improve the article
This secondary source would seem to have good background on the recent years of Bari Weiss' career, as she has left the New York Times and moved to editing and publishing via the Free Press. How Bari Weiss broke the media, New Statesman, 23 February 2023.

Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, so not easily accessible. Anyone have Wikipedia-access and might be able to take a look? N2e (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Refaat Alareer feud and death
On October 30, 2023, Weiss posted a thread on Twitter attacking The New York Times'' for platforming Palestinian voices critical of Israel. Weiss specifically singled out Palestinian writer and activist, Refaat Alareer for a comment he made about debunked Israeli atrocity propaganda related to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. In response to Weiss’ tweet, which went viral, Alareer warned, “If I get killed by Israeli bombs or my family is harmed, I blame Bari Weiss [...] Many maniacal Israeli soldiers already bombing Gaza take these lies and smears seriously and they act upon them”. Alareer attached a screenshot of his inbox showing an influx of direct messages from users threatening his life. On December 8 2023, Alareer and his entire family were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Alareer’s death prompted widespread backlash on social media against Weiss with tens of thousands of users accusing her of putting a target on his back. “Bari Weiss” was Twitter’s top trending topic in the News section for the day. Weiss has not acknowledged Alareer’s death.''

The above paragraph recently added and then removed from her bio. It is likely a notable incident, but it isn't yet covered in mainstream news, rather just on Twitter as it is a current event, so I suggest we keep it out of the main article until it has proper mainstream coverage and then we can rework it based on that coverage. -- Wardsback3321 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Someone who&#39;s wrong on the internet (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it even notable? She sent a single tweet. His blaming her for further responses based off of one trivial interaction doesn't seem to rise to the level that would merit inclusion in an article. TracingWoodgrains (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I vote to KEEP this paragraph and am disappointed to see it removed so quickly. Keep it for now. Do not remove things that are sourced. We can add references over time. And remember, this is not a fan page. This page should not be locked up. You are locking it because you don't want democratic processes to take place. Myatrrcc (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is some coverage of the situation so far. I hope to see this paragraph incorporated back into the article. Let's be honest. Bari Weiss had never trended more on Twitter than today. Myatrrcc (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never been on twitter and I've heard of it through the media. In fact I came to wp to see if it was mentioned.  Not surprised that it wasn't.  That led me to this wp underbelly. 2600:1011:B32E:79A4:710B:241F:514F:12 (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

https://thecurrent.pk/palestinian-poet-dr-refaat-alareer-killed-in-israeli-strike-in-gaza/

Who is censoring this page?
Why is this page locked to the point where I am unable to make edits? Some interesting edits were made to the page. Is this a Bari Weiss fan page or something?Myatrrcc (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This page was placed under extended confirmed protection. Separately, tweets are not reliable sources except under narrow circumstances which don't really apply here. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. As for my own take on this, having something trend on twitter might be a good rationale to talk about it on twitter. But Wikipedia isn't twitter, and it isn't a stenograph of things that happen on twitter. If it is picked up in reliable sources, then we should include something on it, though perhaps not at the level of detail as the above. Einsof (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another problem with the proposed Refaat Aleer text is that it is far too long and would constitute undue weight per WP:UNDUE, so it would probably be a neutrality violation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of articles documenting Bari Weiss's role in Alareer's assassination, which is now known to have been targeted by the IDF. However, you lock up this page because you don't want anyone to know the truth. Shame on you!

https://thecurrent.pk/palestinian-poet-dr-refaat-alareer-killed-in-israeli-strike-in-gaza/

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231209-university-of-texas-students-protest-against-journalist-over-rafat-al-areers-death/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3cmxyfgWxA Myatrrcc (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Mistaken word choice.

 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff): As of 2024, Weiss had visited Israel over 15 times, including after the October 7 attacks, and described pro-Israel social media commentators to former Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky, whose years in prison made him an icon of the movement to free Jews from the Soviet Union.[78]

The word “described” ought to be something like “compared.”
 * Why it should be changed: “Compared to” would make sense. “Described to” doesn’t in this context.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): No citation needed. Just read the sentence to see if it makes sense.

Jkalm (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ thank you for your suggestion! Confirmed it is valid based off what the source is saying. Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Jkalm (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)