Talk:Randi Weingarten

message: 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)
thread_title: Restoration of sourced material, removal of unreferenced material

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved giant "references" dump to talk page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  not quite a total consistent opponent of charter schools 

message: 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)
replies: text: seeing no objections, I have started some edits.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV and opinion journalism

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UFT/AFT clarity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism: anti-Semitism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Writing that section is on my Wikipedia to-do list. EdHistory101 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COVID-19