Talk:Alison Weir (activist)

Criticism of Weir is downplayed and framed with deprecatory language

This is not a balanced article, especially given an increasing level of criticism of Weir's allegations and use of tropes that reflect historic antisemitism.Chip.berlet (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You think? WP has jumped the tank - I have had my own contributions seriously censored, so no doubt this article exists in such a form & if you try to change it to make it more balanced, they'll simply change it back to fit their agenda--Appscholar (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alison Weir on accusations made against her by the JVP: Euro Folk Radio - Alison Weir under Attack by Jewish Voices for Peace, 9 June 2015.     ←   ZScarpia   16:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I find it astonishing that a sentence like "Weir is known for her negative attitude about Israel" could remain in the first paragraph -- and without any citation. That's an opinion, a personal judgment, and highly unprofessional. I also find it astonishing that accusations against Weir are repeated wholesale but the editor chose to remove any reference to thousands of people who rejected the accusations, including many highly prominent ones.

The editor also chose to remove direct quotations from Weir's work, direct quotations from reviews of her work, and direct quotations from articles about her work. This is biased censorship, not impartial editing.SM-Mara (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that Weir should ask for her page to be locked like most politicians seem to have.SM-Mara (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@SM-Mara: Politicians' pages are typically protected to preclude vandalism, while this situation is a content dispute. GAB^gab 17:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Though honestly that seems kind of unfair when some people who've been on wikipedia a long time can go in and put any info they like without balance, and observers with last experience can't correct that. But perhaps us newbies can raise concerns we see through a different channel than editing?SM-Mara (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real learning curve on Wikipedia, and some of the subject areas (such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, naturally, as well as nationality issues in general) are very much disputed and have caused many headaches all around. However, one of the biggest strengths of Wikipedia (in my opinion) is that it's easy to break away and find another quiet subject area to work on (music, technology, history, etc.) that is not so heated. Just my 2 cents. GAB^gab 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but I was actually concerned about the potential unfairness of the resulting articles on this topic, not unfairness to users like me. Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the world's source on many topics and so the primary concern is the accuracy, fairness, and quality of the articles. Thanks to editors like you who clearly work hard on this...SM-Mara (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is strange that SM-Mara (talk · contribs) should go on droning about "unprofessional" this or that when Wikipedia clearly is made, or meant to be made, by amateurs (unpaid volunteers). If SM-Mara is indeed paid to edit certain pages because he or she is, just a thought, a professional from some PR agency, he or she should be a little more discreet about it.

Anyway, Alison Weir is known for her visceral hostility to Israel: http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/199809/stanford-professor-recommends-anti-semitic-website-to-readers-then-kind-of-takes-it-back, http://stanfordreview.org/article/stanfords-most-radical-professor-strikes-again/. --Edelseider (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that professional quality *should* be a standard. We are all capable of working together to create quality articles. Please stop your personal aggression and insults towards me. I'm very willing to talk civilly.SM-Mara (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Concern about edit that introduces a definite opinion/perspective to the very first paragraph

Edelseider changed a line from the lead paragraph that said Weir was known for views "critical" of Israel to "hostile" towards Israel. This seems to me an inappropriately perspective-based summary of Weir's views to go into the opening paragraph. I would think the opening paragraph shouldn't express a point of view about the topic Weir addresses.SM-Mara (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the referenced article:

Several of these outlets have been credibly accused of publishing anti-Semitic content. But one of them has been so blatant in its anti-Jewish invective that it has even been denounced by other members on Palumbo’s list. If Americans Knew (IAK), a non-profit founded by activist Alison Weir, has the rare distinction of being condemned for furthering anti-Semitism by the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation. Weir earned this remarkable wall-to-wall opprobrium by promoting anti-Semitic myths, working with white supremacists, and publishing anti-Jewish content on IAK’s web site.

And here is the same article's conclusion:

Palumbo-Liu did not condemn the site’s anti-Semitism, or explain how an outlet rife with anti-Semitic content could be in any way considered to be disseminating “useful information from reliable, neutral sources.” One wonders if such a pseudo-retraction would satisfy anyone if the site being promoted trafficked in anti-black or anti-Muslim content, rather than anti-Jewish material.

It is safe to say that the author doesn't consider Weir merely "critical" but downright "hostile". Our article's introduction must reflect that.

--Edelseider (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why must it? The article is about Weir, not about the author of the article you're citing. The opening paragraph of the wikipedia article should contain balance on the issues of Weir, Israel and Palestine. Saying that she is "known" for being hostile to Israel doesn't do that. Known for being "critical" of Israel was more balanced and accurate. Furthermore, the quote you provide doesn't talk about Israel at all, so the edit isn't supported by the quote. The claim that Weir "worked with" white supremacists is dismissed by literally thousands of people, including very prominent ones, and is categorically rejected by Weir herself, as is quickly confirmed by anyone reading up on the subject. Accusations of anti-Semitism are common around the topic of Israel and Palestine, and are incredibly controversial. The idea that this needs to be the first source and first bit of information in the article is totally unbalanced, especially given that these issues are addressed in detail below.SM-Mara (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Thousands of people" were fanatical Nazis, too, including very prominent ones. It is not the numbers that count, or the (anonymous!) (allegedly) "very prominent people", but the company Weir keeps. She has been called out publicly for her support of the Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis "Israel Shamir" and Gilad Atzmon (read this article by Steven Plaut on them). Given the reason of her prominence, this is notable and must figure in the article. --Edelseider (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)