Talk:Randi Weingarten

Restoration of sourced material, removal of unreferenced material
I have restored edits indicating that she worked part-time as a teacher. The information is pertinent and real, and backed up by references. [“[Weingarten] was set up with an unadvertised part-time position at Clara Barton High School, ten minutes from her home. She began this part-time gig in Fall of 1992.”] She then progressed to a full time position, "Education Notes," Spring 2003.

POV, unreferenced material is being removed.Gogue2 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved giant "references" dump to talk page
The current "references" section looks like the output of a database search for articles mentioning Weingarten. Given that we already have extensive inline references, I'm moving the extraneous refs to talk (so they are still available, but not cluttering up the article text.) EvanHarper (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
Even if you like Weingarten (and I think she does a generally good job), a lot of people have attacked her, and that belongs in the article.

Even if they're unfair, I like to know what the charges are and how she rebuts them, so that the next time I see these accusations, I have a convenient explanation of why they're wrong.

And it's required under WP:NPOV.

The usual critics are the Wall Street Journal and the Manhattan Institute. -- Nbauman (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

not quite a total consistent opponent of charter schools
According to the article, "she has consistently opposed charter schools". No, she was part (I think on the board) of 1–2 charter schools in New York City while she headed the UFT; the UFT was associated with the school/s, although I forgot its/their name/s and I forgot the sourcing. Perhaps she changed her mind and is now a total opponent or perhaps she opposed certain matters regarding charter schools. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
The entire issues section and som of the later parts of the bio seems very dependent on one very conservative newspaper, the  New York Post, which has had a consistent opposition to the teachers union for many years, and a general degree of editorial sensationalism that makes us very reluctant to use it for BLP. Even their factual reporting can not be assumed to be fair, and their editorial opinion, especially, is not a reliable source, and if used at all, must be complemented by other opinion. The most frequently cited other source is the New York Sun, of the same political opinion, tho less sensationalist. Other sources, such as  Stossel, are also of the same political bias. I have marked the  article as a POV problem. I don't really want to edit it myself, but I hope some other people will pay attention. However, since this is a BLP, I will if necessary remove some particularly unreliable sourcing.  DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * seeing no objections, I have started some edits.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I apologize for not noticing this sooner. Would love to discuss further with you on this matter. The New York Post and New York Sun are certainly reliable sources in my opinion. Though coming from the same political ideology, their reliability as a source is not in question. These papers may have their own bias, but they are accepted as reliable. Several other articles have been cited from Gay City News, New York Daily News, and the Huffington Post as references — all of which are on the other side of the political spectrum. I believe that the viewpoints from all sources have been represented fairly. In fact, I would say that not including viewpoints from the New York Post and New York Sun would result in a possible violation of NPOV. I will discuss this further if you'd like; I'd like to reach an understanding here. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and opinion journalism
DGG has a point. It's indisputable that the Post and the Sun count as reliable sources for news purposes. Many if not most of the issues section's citations, however, appear to come from op-eds and editorials. In the content guideline on identifying reliable sources, we can find clear guidance on this: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." For the moment, I think it makes the most sense to move this block of text into the criticism section, where it can replace the orphaned paragraphs of similarly sourced material that section currently comprises. After doing that, we can work to reintegrate those references and sources throughout the article while making clear, where needed, that they reference opinions. GGreeneVa (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * every source is usable for some purpose, including the NYPost. But we have frequently rejected in for bLP because of its sensationalism. I'm going to take another look here, and ifnecessary move this to another noticeboard or find the previous discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. For now I plan to keep making revisions where citations link to editorial opinions, rather than reported accounts. I have a strong sense that once I'm done, so much of the article will consist of critical opinion that we'll have to remove much of it, per WP:BALASPS. —GGreeneVa (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I find this article to be damaged throughout by a reliance on right-wing sources, which are defended here as reliable news sources, namely the New York Post and the New York Sun {now all but defunct), but which are and have been notoriously unreliable and, well, biased. Further, there is little stranger than to see Randi Weingarten, who is an observant Jew and whose wife is the rabbi of a major New York temple, accused of anti-Semitism. I can't recall a Wikipedia article, especially one of this length, that I have found more shockingly overt in its one-sidedness than this one. It smacks of the right-wing attacks on the teachers' union of the era in which the article was largely written. I feel compelled to assert that I have no relation of any kind whatsoever to Weingarten, to her family or friends, or to the union. I feel as though this comment of mine will have no effect, as there seem to be no arbiters of true NPOV to appeal to. Or if there is, I am unaware of it, for which i apologize. See comment from user DGG dated 12 December 2015 above, which had apparently no palpable effect. thank you for reading Actio (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Standardized testing
At the lede of the passage about standardized testing, the article has a blunt statement: "Weingarten opposes standardized testing." That overstates matters to an extent that requires reeling in, especially in a biography of a living person. The article attributes the assertion to two cites, which I'll tease out below.


 * First, a Huffington Post article that in its sole reference to Weingarten—without quoting her—says (w/ emphasis added): "… the fiercest opponents of testing, such as historian Diane Ravitch and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, say the requirement’s deleterious effects are far worse: They unfairly penalize poor students; they reduce children to the sum of a single score; and they discourage teacher creativity."
 * Second, a Wall Street Journal op-ed that calls Weingarten "a strong opponent of the testing requirements included in the No Child Left Behind education law signed by President Bush" (emphasis added) before quoting her saying that a test-cheating scandal "crystallizes the unintended consequences of our test-crazed policies."

Relying on the first cite treats a reporter's passing observation as an unimpeachable fact. That looks untenable, though, once the second cite—by describing Weingarten's opposition as specific to the No Child Left Behind Act, rather than aimed at testing as a whole—contradicts the first. Even if that contradiction were ignored, the WSJ op-ed seems useless here: as WP:NEWSORG explains, op-eds "are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

That leaves only one citation to back up the statement: a single line in a HuffPo report. Other news sources, however, paint Weingarten's view as more nuanced:


 * In a Wall Street Journal news article by Byron Tau, a direct quote—"overwhelming numbers of Americans think there is too much testing"—indicating that Weingarten dislikes not all testing, but excessive testing.
 * In a New York Times column, a direct quote—"people who claim to be market-based reformers want to sell the theory that there is a direct correlation between test scores, the effort of teachers and the success of children … It just ignores everything else that goes into learning"—that frames Weingarten's view as opposition to reliance on testing as the sole measure of teacher success.
 * In a Los Angeles Times news article, a direct quote—"testing should help inform instruction, not drive instruction. We need to get back to focusing on the whole child — teaching our kids how to build relationships, how to be resilient and how to think critically"—indicating that Weingarten rejects making tests the primary focus of classroom instruction.
 * In a New York Times news article, this direct statement about tenure reforms Weingarten has offered: "In Ms. Weingarten’s proposal … teachers would be evaluated using multiple yardsticks, including classroom visits, appraisal of lesson plans and student improvement on tests" (emphasis added).

The last bullet makes the idea that Weingarten opposes standardized testing look unsupportable. She can't oppose testing while proffering major reforms built, in part, around standardized tests.

Since this article is a biography of a living person, without better sourcing, the assertion about Weingarten's view on testing warrants speedy removal. —GGreeneVa (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Having seen no feedback or reply since flagging the problems with this section a week ago, I've made edits consistent with the references and notes offered above. —GGreeneVa (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I've been busy and could not respond. The way I see it is that there are so many conflicting sources that it probably shouldn't be simply reversed. If we wanted to change it to she opposes excessive testing, that might be appropriate. Or, something like "she has opposed it in the past but now supports reform". What are your thought? DaltonCastle (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The second suggestion might make sense if a source backed the statement that she once opposed testing. I see no such source, except for a fleeting HuffPo mention. What I see are news accounts in line with the cites I reeled off above:
 * This, from the NYT (emphasis added): "'This [a move to assess NYC teachers by their students' performance on standardized tests] can be used to inform instruction and advance it,' [Weingarten] said in an interview. 'If this is something that becomes a ranking facility, opinions will be very, very different. That door has now been closed.' Still, Ms. Weingarten said the reports answer only 'a very narrow question' of how a particular teacher’s students do on tests. 'She and others have long argued that there are many other criteria on which teachers should be evaluated.'"
 * This, from a 2006 issue of New York magazine: "The Brooklyn-born former high-school history teacher and Cardozo-trained lawyer [Weingarten] has used her position to oppose everything from schools chancellor Joel Klein’s focus on standardized testing (in contrast to 'true learning') to his proposed principal-accountability plan."


 * Even an expansive reading of the article in the second bullet falls short of establishing Weingarten as a full opponent of standardized tests. It suggests a more nuanced truth: an argument against an overemphasis on standardized testing, not all tests.


 * I can invert the nuance I've offered: "Weingarten condemns a 'fixation on testing and data over everything else' as 'a fundamental flaw in how our nation approaches public education,' but accepts the use of standardized tests as one tool among several to evaluate student achievement and teacher performance." That seems in line with your first suggestion. Unless someone locates other sources, though, the assertion that Weingarten—a living person—flatly opposes standardized tests should go. —GGreeneVa (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Randi Weingarten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127185912/http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2008/071408.htm to http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2008/071408.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

UFT/AFT clarity
I don't think this article reads very well if you're not aware that the UFT is the NYC-local union and the AFT is the national union. The article doesn't come right out and say it, and I suspect it needs to be said more than once (redundantly) to be particularly useful. I'm not sure how to approach that, so I'm going to toss it out here. jhawkinson (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism: anti-Semitism
Weingarten had been criticized from several quarters for antisemitism/antisemitic tropes for her comment that American Jews who criticize teacher unions for not wanting to go back to in-person teaching are “part of the ownership class.” Sources of criticism referencd in a Jewish Journal article are set out below (there are like more). Shouldn’t this be added (including her response) to the criticism section?

StandWithUs: "As a non-partisan Israel education organization, StandWithUs takes no position on the debate over when schools should reopen," Roz Rothstein, cofounder and CEO of StandWithUs, said. "We work with many Jewish students and parents in Los Angeles and are extremely disappointed by Randi Weingarten's inaccurate and dangerous generalizations about our community. https://freebeacon.com/campus/teachers-union-head-rips-jews-in-interview-on-school-reopening/

StopAntisemitism.org: The Stop Antisemitism.org watchdog similarly tweeted, “We are nauseated that the head of the American Federation of Teachers Union has the audacity to help spread century old antisemitic tropes of Jewish financial control! AND she makes a six figure salary. Projecting much Nancy?” https://jewishjournal.com/news/335335/aft-head-says-jews-criticizing-unions-are-part-of-the-ownership-class/

Newsweek: Newsweek Deputy Opinion Editor Batya Ungar-Sargon tweeted that Weingarten’s remarks were “blatant anti-Semitism on full display,” adding that “the decision to pander to public school teachers refusing to go back to in person learning cost poor children a year of schooling. Its repercussions on inequality will reverberate for GENERATIONS. Instead of taking responsibility, Weingarten accuses Jews of pulling up the ladder.” https://jewishjournal.com/news/335335/aft-head-says-jews-criticizing-unions-are-part-of-the-ownership-class/

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East: "Weingarten's comments represent a growing antisemitism within the progressive Left – which spends its days seeking out fictional ideas weaved in identity politics such as ‘ownership class,'" Romirowsky said. "Anti-semitism is a form of racism. Until racism in all of its varieties is no longer tolerated, it will flourish." https://freebeacon.com/campus/teachers-union-head-under-fire-for-anti-semitic-comments/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossianthegreat (talk • contribs) 07:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It is worth noting that those who are criticizing are on the right of the political spectrum (Stand with Us). The third cited article doesn’t even hold the quote.

The full context of the quote was an interview within the Jewish community. The intersectionality here wasn’t “Jews own the world” but instead “the Jews in this room who are part of the ownership class”

While it is very leftist, it is by no means anti-Semitic. It’s also dubious given that she is married to a rabbi. Misterniceguii (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19
A previous edit added two sentences related to the pandemic to the first paragraph of the article. Any content about COVID-19 and schools should be in its own section and fully reflect Weingarten's personal involvement and statements and not be focused on larger union actions. EdHistory101 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised that the article now contains exactly zero mentions of COVID-19 and Weingarten's actions in response to it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Writing that section is on my Wikipedia to-do list. EdHistory101 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)