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)

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 Wikipedia. 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.[1][2]--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.[3] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

I do not believe Alison Weir to be an anti-semite. I read a pamphlet she wrote about how being pro-Palestine does not mean being antisemitic. It was published in the early 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C200:1D90:0:0:0:10B0 (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

link to Eugene Bird

please link Eugene Bird to his page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

RaphaelQS, Did you really just revert a good faith claim of a BLP violation without a consensus? Did you do it while making an unambigous personal attack? nableezy - 06:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a good faith claim like I explained but a a disruptive revert based on a lie (claiming that the sourced facts are a smear). This isn't subject to interpretation and personal opinion. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources --RaphaelQS (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a single one of those sources mentions Weir. And she isnt even writing a column there. There are two users saying this is a BLP violation, and you are calling us liars and saying we are acting in bad faith, all the while ignoring WP:OR and WP:BLP. Along with WP:NPA thats three policies youre violating here. nableezy - 06:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not calling you both liars, I'm saying YOU're lying when you call the sourced facts "smear". --RaphaelQS (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so the person that agreed with me isnt a liar. Cool. You are in fact smearing Weir, and I hope somebody puts a stop to it. nableezy - 06:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire inclusion of there being an Unz column is OR. The link is to a listing of Weir columns that appear on Unz, but those are all reproductions of what is hosted on sites associated with If Americans Knew (eg this is a reprint of this). There is a, no reliable sourcing for her having a column there, and b. not one source saying anything about her in any of the recent addition. This is a BLP violation, and if it is not self-reverted I'll be asking for administrative help in dealing with it. nableezy - 06:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and if you look at the bottom of the source at Weir's site you'll see a CC BY 4.0 license. Meaning that anybody on the internet can legally copy Weir's column and host it on their site without Weir having anything to do with it. This is a garbage edit and that its been added and restored three times should result in some sort of block. nableezy - 06:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

She does not write a column for Unz, those all say Republished from If Americans Knew by permission of author or representative. That permission is the CC BY license. Ive removed this blatant BLP violation once more. nableezy - 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Unz has a list of their columnists, see the menu at the top. She is not on it. Zero^talk

In any case, many if not most of the writers in the 'columnists' list aren't what would be commonly considered as such, people who write pieces specifically for the site rather than people whose pieces from elsewhere are reprinted.     ←   ZScarpia   13:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe Alison Weir to be a racist and hopes that is removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C200:1D90:0:0:0:10B0 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Weir defense

Several defenses of Weir appeared, including one by me, "Ms Weir Goes to Washington", which appeared on CounterPunch in September 2016. IMHO this should appear on the article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfcwiki (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Counterpoint. I would also like to see this added into the article. I was offended when I read character assaults on wiki and would like more sources like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B050:DDFB:C341:1AB9:1AF1:429 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That isnt a strong source, as the author has no academic expertise on the topics of Israel, Palestine, or the American involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 02:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Absurd right-wing activism added to this article?

What on earth is this part? For goodness' sake. We ought all to do better.

From article:

Weir has partnered with white supremacists and Holocaust deniers including Christian Identity leader and conspiracy theorist Clayton Douglas and American Free Press, both designated as hate advocates by the Southern Poverty Law Center. On Douglas' radio show, Weir "dismissed allegations that he was a racist, did not challenge his repeated assertions of Jewish control of the world, and did not protest when he played a speech by former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke." The anti-Zionist group U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation said that "Weir made little to no effort to challenge, confront, or rebut any of these views." She has also worked with the Nation of Islam. SM-Mara (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What is more, this part should most certainly be revised as well. Goodness.

> Writing in CounterPunch, Weir said that Israel harvests Palestinian organs which has been described as an updating of the medieval blood libel that Jews harvest the blood of gentile children. She has asserted that the original libel was itself also true. SM-Mara (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the issue with this content exactly? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The issues include that “Weir has partnered with white supremacists and Holocaust deniers…” does not cite any reliable source, instead relying on a fringe opinion piece to make a factual claim (“partnering”) as well as to put in strong negative claims about living persons.

There also seems to be not citation to support the claim she “worked with the Nation of Islam.” SM-Mara (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Re the first claim, we cite The Tablet, who write: Alison Weir of “If Americans Knew,” who complained about there being too many Jews on the Supreme Court, championed the medieval blood libel, and repeatedly partnered with white supremacists and Holocaust deniers like Southern Poverty Law Center-designated Clayton Douglas.[4] (They in turn cite a primary source which we wouldn't want to link to: a YouTube on Clayton Douglas' account where he hosts her on his show.) And we cite The Forward, which says: In 2010, Weir was a guest on the talk radio show of Clay Douglas, a conspiracy theorist from New Mexico associated with the antisemitic “Christian Identity Theology” movement, which considers Jews to be satanic, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Douglas has published antisemitic screeds, according to the SPLC, questioning, for example, whether Jews are “behind the destruction of America.” [5] Perhaps we should amend our wording to be closer to the Forward version, as "partnered" is a somewhat vague word.

Re NOI, we cite The Forward again, who write: Her message has appeared in “The Final Call,” a publication of the Nation of Islam, according to the ADL; she was photographed with Ashahed Muhammad of the NOI at an American Muslims for Palestine event. Muhammed is the author of the book “The Synagogue of Satan.”

The Tablet piece is headed "News" although it does read more opinion to me. It's not fringe though. Both publications, especially The Forward, are considered RS by WP, I believe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Another Tablet piece, also marked news, also has this content: Weir has worked repeatedly with white supremacists, while never challenging their bigoted claims. For instance, in a series of appearances on the radio show of white supremacist and Holocaust denier Clayton Douglas, Weir dismissed allegations that he was a racist, did not challenge his repeated assertions of Jewish control of the world, and did not protest when he played a speech by former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke. Writes the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, “Weir made little to no effort to challenge, confront, or rebut any of these views; on the contrary, she continued to appear on the show.” Weir has also published repeatedly at the American Free Press, a white supremacist anti-Semitic site that is designated as a hate outlet by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[6] We should maybe add this source. Her association with Douglas was described in detail here, but that doesn't seem to be an RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

An additional source for NoI would be the ADL: Another outlet for Weir’s message is the The Final Call, the Nation of Islam's (NOI) publication. In a December 2007 interview with anti-Semite Ashahed Muhammad (pictured), Weir discussed the struggle of Palestinians living under Israeli control.[7] BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources and the word “partner” has a specific meaning that is not “has been interviewed by or “republished by.” I would suggest sticking to facts, e.g, “Weir has been interviewed by X people, including XYZ,” with reliable sourcing. For appropriate balance, I would think this list would need to mention some of the interviewers and outlets with the largest reach, not just cherry-picking select examples. SM-Mara (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In-line link does not match citation

• What I think should be changed:

−

According to ''[[The Tablet]]'', she has "complained about there being too many Jews on the [[Supreme Court]]".

+

According to ''[[Tablet (magazine)]]'', she has "complained about there being too many Jews on the [[Supreme Court]]".

• Why it should be changed:

The quotation that is cited is from Tablet (magazine) not the page that is currently linked (The Tablet).

Sigmund7 (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)