Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:34, 21 May 2020

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages (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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I refer to the absolutely non-anonymous people who signed an open letter rejecting allegations against her. I believe the criticism and defense of her are both addressed in the sections and see no reason why this should be the opening comment about her.SM-Mara (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. I hope you are not accusing all the people who have defended Weir, including an elderly Holocaust survivor, of being "fanatical Nazis." Your personal attacks and insults are getting out of hand, if so.SM-Mara (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

edits

There are things in this article that just dont belong in a BLP, specifically the material from CAMERA and the Unrepentent Marxist blog site. The material that is specific to IAK should be in the article on IAK, and the lead should be a summary of the article, not the somewhat jumbled mess it now is. As far as "hostility" or "critical", hostility speaks to ones state of mind, not something an encyclopedia should be doing, especially in an article on a living person. And I remind everybody editing here that WP:BLP applies to this article and this talk page and anywhere else you make edits related to living people. nableezy - 17:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy has written a message on a my talk page in defence of "Shamir" and Atzmon, in relation to this article's subject. Allow me to quote the article Nableezy didn't read:

I hope this puts some things into perspective.

--Edelseider (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Youre quoting from FrontPageMag, an unreliable source, to defend calling living people derogatory things on Misplaced Pages. That isnt how things work here. Quoting somebody who has been convited of libel for saying similar things about other Jews he finds to not be Zionist enough for his taste. nableezy - 19:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertions of material already excluded by other editors -- without talking

There seems to be an effort underway to keep inserting two items into this article that other editors have excluded on grounds that they're inappropriate. Witness the most recent edit by an anonymous IP address, which I believe shouldn't be editing under the arbitration. Other editors have previously excluded both of these insertions, one on the grounds that it's a random op-ed by one person and the other on the grounds that it requires much stronger sourcing to call someone (a third party living person, here) a white supremacist and anti-Semite. Rather than addressing these issues on the talk page, new editors keep coming and adding them back in without discussing. I'm concerned that it looks like a coordinated effort to hammer away until something gets through.SM-Mara (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If material from Andy Newman's Guardian op-ed piece is to be included (and I'm not saying it should), neutrality would require that material from the letter by Weir published by the Guardian in response to the op-ed should also be included. There is no working link to Weir's Counterpunch article in either Newman's op-ed or the current WP article. Given the date and the material cover, I'd guess that this WRMEA article is probably a copy. Some of Newman's criticisms relate to what Weir had reported of a speech by Nancy Scheper-Hughes. Here is a link to a Counterpunch article by Scheper-Hughes (albeit from 2010 rather than 2009): Counterpunch - Nancy Scheper-Hughes - Body Parts and Bio-Piracy, 25 October 2010.     ←   ZScarpia   15:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why this is becoming a question of pro-anti israel. It's not. It's a question of, has she palled around with holocaust deniers and white supremacists? IAK is not the electronic intifada. It's toxic to most pro-palestinian groups because of its associations with the far right. I don't know why that isn't mentioned here. It's unconscionable not to mention how many genuinely pro-palestinian groups have denounced her as a racist.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, those are some intense slurs you're throwing around. It sounds like you're trying to refer to the Jewish Voice For Peace vs Open Letter controversy, which is already covered on the page, though it doesn't appear Jewish Voice for Peace actually called Weir a "racist." Though you don't specify who you're referring to, it's my understanding that calling people white supremacists and holocaust deniers requires extremely strong sourcing, even on a talk page. "What associations with the far right" are you referring to? My reading of weir's response to these kinds of accusations indicates she rejects the claim of associations with people who've reposted her work or interviewed her or whatever. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/accusations.html SM-Mara (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Naturally she'd deny them. Here she is on a white supremacist talk show talking to a white supremacist. If you defend weir on account that Free American Hour is not, in fact, racist, you are either a moron or a hypocrite disregarding every value you purport to stand for. Accuse me of personal attacks but I'm 99% sure you are either Weir or a colleague of hers.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make throw wild accusations at me. And for the record, I'm not defending anyone, I'm arguing for a balanced, even-handed, facts-based approach and nothing less, or more. I'm stunned by attempts to totally misrepresent and slant facts, which is one reason I find Weir interesting. But this isn't about me. Or you. And I appreciate Misplaced Pages for making it possible for editors to continually hammer away at creating balanced, accurate information. SM-Mara (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally I find her total misrepresentation of facts more deplorable than interesting.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Important to include

Why doesn't Misplaced Pages include the second letter defending Weir against accusers - and defending other activist like Miko Peled? Letter is signed by such famous persons as Hanan Ashrawi, Professor Lawrence Davidson, and so many others.

It is http://www.uniteforpalestine.com/

Also why not a link for Richard Falk in the article? He deserves link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.92.145 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Alison Weir antisemitic allegations

Out of respect for 500/30 ECP I am posting content here I'd like to see on the page.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/roundtable-palestinian-solidarity/ and BDS cofounder, Electronic Intifada editor in chief signed this petition here against an associate of hers, Gilad Atzmon: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/palestinian-writers-activists-disavow-racism-anti-semitism-gilad-atzmon Shushugah (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Those sites are pure opinion and offer no objectivity. Loknar (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

link to Eugene Bird

please link Eugene Bird to his page https://en.wikipedia.org/Eugene_K._Bird.--DRIS92 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Innaccurate information

This article says Wier publishes a regular column at a publication called Unz Review. I checked as she is well known for https://israelpalestinenews.org and publishing in places like CounterPUnch but not for Unz. And sure enough, all Unz articles by her appear to say "Republished from..." at the bottom. So no evidence she writes for Unz, they are republishing her. This incorrect information should be removed.

Also the same user has removed the title of an article. I don't see any reason to remove the title of an article being discussed, as article titles can provide important context and information in their own right. --SM-Mara (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

With regard to being a columnist of the Unz Review, I went through the same thing on the article on Jonathan Cook. I'd say that the following are the verifiable facts: in both cases, on the Unz Review site, if you click on the 'Columnists' link, they are listed; articles by the two from elsewhere are re-published on the UNZ Review. What is true of Alison Weir and Jonathan Cook is true of other writers who are listed as UNZ Review columnists. From those facts, someone has constructed the claim that regular columns are written by the authors specifically for the Unz Review. That claim is not verifiable. The article should either be re-worded or the claim removed. Also, the authors are smeared by association: since some racist material is published on the Review, it is implied that they are racists also. I emailed Jonathan Cook asking what the arrangement was whereby his articles were re-published on the Review. I didn't receive a reply.     ←   ZScarpia   12:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

smears by association

Per WP:OR, sources and material included here must directly relate to the article subject. Not one word in any of the sources added refers to Weir. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. We dont smear people by association on this website, and finally per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, material removed as a BLP violation must gain a consensus prior to being restored. nableezy - 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead should not include material not in the article body. Thats what 4 reasons that edit should be reverted? RaphaelQS, if you do not remove that edit I will do it for you. Re-reverting a BLP violation is explicitly forbidden. nableezy - 19:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I didnt feel like allowing a BLP violation to remain in the lead of the article, so ive undone the edit again (with the BLP exception). If it is restored it will require an explicit consensus to do so. nableezy - 19:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. In previous sections, I have commented about the truth of the statement about Weir writing a column in the Unz Review.     ←   ZScarpia   03:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a smear but facts with many valid sources about the fact that the blog she's writing a column in is racist. By pretending the facts are a smear you're lying and by being dishonest like that and removing relevant facts from the article only because you don't like them you have acted in bad faith. Please do NOT revert again. --RaphaelQS (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles