Talk:Nellie Bowles

Daily Wire
Besides The Daily Wire being a highly WP:QUESTIONABLE source, it's not a secondary source for criticism of Bowles, required by WP:BLP, when that criticism is coming from TDW itself (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Daily Wire is a well-respected source. Editors appear to be biased against any conservative outlets. This from editor who cites to recognized poor sourcing such as Vox.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.207.62.209 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You'll have to take that up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" is similarly not acceptable, and your continued edit-warring of such material into this article will get you blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The matter of the correction is similarly non-relevant absent a reliable secondary source commenting on it — The Blaze is not a reliable secondary source. There doesn't appear to be any source which is sure of the reason for the correction - was it a factual error, an editing mistake, a fact-checking issue, a source which lied to the writer? - so including it absent such a secondary source would be WP:UNDUE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing with .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As an I. If the NYT correction is so important, it should be in the NYT's article. The only reason to include it here is for the WP:SYNTH purpose of denigrating the subject of this article, and that requires an independent secondary source which draws the conclusion the IP wants to show. Also, it is not satisfactory for half of a BLP to consist of negativity when no secondary source has reached a negative conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Though the Daily Wire is certainly among the most reliable, thus stated in this reply, however the claims about The Blaze are equally False as the previous claims about The Daily Wire, thus proves again the clear, obvious, certain invalid, baseless, distorted, prejudice, bias, bigotry, hatred, inDOCtrination, etc., thus participation within the intended falsehood, pretense, distortions, LIES, etc., Propaganda. 2A02:14F:1F1:7961:79D8:6CE4:DED7:455A (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This claim about The Daily Wire is clear, obvious more than skin, eyes, mouth, face with the individual's certain baseless prejudice, bias, bigotry, hatred, inDOCtrination, participation within common media Propaganda with massive falsehood, pretense, distortions, LIES, false claims, portrayals, narratives, ideas, concepts, misinformation, ma-information, disinformation.
 * In Fact [FACTs MATTER], The Daily Wire provide more correct, valid, proper information, often proven than all major individually, combined and minor media.
 * Simple, Period. 2A02:14F:1F1:7961:79D8:6CE4:DED7:455A (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Big to-do about not much
The contributors wanting to write a paragraph, about one phrase Bowles wrote in one article, well seems rather WP:UNDUE and highly POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Remember Wikipedia has rules about the biographies of living people; clearly the phrase "alt-right conspiracy" was a mischaracterization -- one phrase in hundreds of thousands of words she's written or spoken -- which was been acknowledged in print -- but to take that and blow it up out of proportion, and write a paragraph about it, to advocate for either the alt-right or pro-Israel movement, constitutes public shaming and violates Wikipedia's rules. There's a writing problem here too -- to give the context requires readers to wade into the extensive backstory, which means to even begin to describe it, would put the article out of WP:BALANCE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So why are all these small bits about writing about Elon Musk or the conference Further Future due but not this? She made a mistake covering two controversial subjects in one piece, and as a result got coverage for it. Sure, it might be embarassing for her, but that's not a reason for not covering it according to any BLP policy. The Algemeiner Journal might have a pro-Israeli POV, but it was just covered for a non-controversial statement directly quoting mr. Dayan's tweet. My insertion was just 68 words - the only problem here is that the article is so short you can claim weight issues even from small things. --Pudeo (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the article will get longer so maybe the whole idea of balance can come into focus; in a year's time, maybe (I'm adding to it as you can see). But let me see if I can explain how I see things. Look at the paragraph you just wrote. You spelled embarassing when it should be embarrassing (second r). Now suppose there's a Wikipedia article on you as a contributor; would it be fair to devote an entire paragraph to your spelling mistake? Like, maybe you'd feel there was a BLP violation like the whole purpose was to denigrate your character. In Wikipedia, as you know, we all need to abide by the rules regarding fairness, because not following them could boomerang on any of us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent additions
Ancestor information (if true) needs to be shown to be relevant to the subject of the article, ie NB as a reporter/journalist and would need to be referenced with reliable secondary research sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nellie Bowles just quitted the NY Times
For her motives see:

Nellie Bowles, A Very Exciting Introduction, in: Common Sense with Bari Weiss, November 5, 2021

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-very-exciting-introduction --Gerard1453 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)