Talk:Alison Weir (activist)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

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 All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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!

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Section sizes Section size for Alison Weir (activist) (10 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,118 2,118 Activism and views 5,507 5,507 Reception and controversy 4,787 4,787 If Americans Knew 1,678 1,678 Council for the National Interest 848 848 Honors and awards 290 290 Book 628 628 References 33 33 External links 64 64 Further reading 619 619 Total 16,572 16,572

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed:

• 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)[reply]

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

By If Americans Knew Staff, December 12, 2024:

https://israelpalestinenews.org/wikipedias-entry-on-alison-weir-is-rife-with-inaccuracies-misinformation/ M.mk (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a thoroughgoing, point by point critique of this article on Alison, written by her staff. In my view, this Wikipedia article about her in its current form reads more like a hit piece than an encyclopedia entry. It should be completely revised taking into account these listed criticisms.

Initially I reposted the entire summary here, but as some have complained of its length, I will limit my citation to the part I am currently trying to revise:

QUOTING THEIR CRITIQUE:

=== Annotation of the Wikipedia Entry on Alison Weir ===

The Wikipedia entry is reproduced below in its entirety, with annotations highlighted in yellow:

Note: Wikipedia entries can and often do change from day to day. The specific Wikipedia entry annotated here is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240920194437/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Weir_(activist) [accessed on September 09, 2024]

==== Alison Weir (activist) ====

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the British author, see Alison Weir.

Alison Weir is an American activist and writer known for her interest in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. She is the founder and executive director of the nonprofit organization If Americans Knew (IAK), president of the Council for the National Interest (CNI), and author of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel.

She is known for her critical views toward Israel and its supporters and for critiquing media coverage of Israel.

Notes from IAK:

• The mention of Alison’s media criticism should have a citation. For example: Examining Big Media’s ‘Israeli-Centric Perspectives’ — FAIR, Analysis of Media Coverage of Israel/Palestine
• The citation for the first part of the sentence links to an inaccurate article by Israeli journalist Yair Rosenberg in Tablet Magazine, which is full of misinformation and should be considered an unreliable source. (A Mondoweiss article reports Rosenberg “has been a Netanyahu ideological ally.”) Wikipedia should remove that citation.
• This sentence does not maintain a neutral point of view. There are many other statements and sources about what Alison is known for that Wikipedia could include, drawing from the multitude of sources and work listed in the overview section above.
  • ‣Click to expand for examples.

Due to allegations of antisemitism, she has been shunned by parts of the anti-Zionist movement.

Notes from IAK:

• ‣There are major problems with this sentence."

END OF QUOTE

Indeed, not the least problem of which is that if it is to be included in any way in this piece, it belongs in the "Reception and Controversy" section. I will directly be submitting an edit request to incorporate what I think are fair criticisms of this very problematic lede as it currently stands.Kenfree (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section was difficult to read, trying to figure out who wrote what. In any case, here is the Table of Contents from the article published at IAK entitled, "Wikipedia’s entry on Alison Weir is rife with falsehoods and bias":

• Background: Manipulation of Wikipedia
• Correcting the Wikipedia entry on Alison Weir
• Overview of problems with the Wikipedia entry on Alison Weir
• Annotation of the Wikipedia Entry on Alison Weir

where the last section contains the entire Wikipedia article at the time, with notes added with her corrections. (I will add a confirmed revision link when I figure out which version she was looking at; probably rev. 1246031894 of 14:27, 16 September 2024.) IAK gives an IA link for a version saved 9/20/24. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

She is known for her critical views toward Israel and its supporters[1] and for critiquing media coverage of Israel. Due to allegations of antisemitism, she has been shunned by parts of the anti-Zionist movement.[2]

To:

She is known as a media critic and Middle East expert who provides reliable and versatile sources of news on Palestine/Israel^[1] and chronicles bias in U.S. media coverage of Middle East events.^[2][3]Kenfree (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I'd like to see some explanation for why this change is needing. Also is it possible to find more recent sources per WP:RSAGE. Source 4 is published by her organisation and thus fails WP:INDY Ultraodan (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the comment immediately above the edit request, this injection of controversy into the lede defeats the purpose of reserving questions of controversy to the section appropriately titled "Reception and Controversy." This is how WIkipedia fairly addresses controversy about a personality. It does not open its description of the person in question by surrounding him or her with this controversy. Alison Weir is primarily known for her activism, not for being controversial. She is a media critic and a notable provider of information on the Middle East conflict, and that is what the lede should say, nothing about how some have taken umbrage at her work. Again, there is a section where this is appropriate to discuss, and it appears later in the article, where it belongs.

As to the second question, I removed former citation 4 from the edit request, and have replaced it with a third-party source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree (talk • contribs)

Kenfree (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few more concerns around your sources. Salem-news.com is not considered a reliable source as per this discussion and a claim like that should be easy to find another source for. Your new source 4 is also questionable as per WP:RSPWORDPRESS since I can't find any reason for that author to be reliable. FAIR is also questionable in terms of reliability as per its entry at WP:RSPSS. I would like for you to find alternatives to these sources which are reliable (or justify these sources being reliable). Ultraodan (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, I have eliminated two of the sources you have questioned, though in my opinion FAIR is an objective source. I refuse to eliminate the Charleston College source. Here is an accredited American college with a department of Asian Studies which assesses this subject's credentials as stated. What higher authority are you asserting in questioning their determination? Colleges and universities must be assumed to be objective sources. The burden of proof does not lie with those who cite them, but with those who challenge them. Please do not further delay action on this edit request. Thank you. Kenfree (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise Charleston was a college from that site. Even though that page could fall under a self-published blog, I think it's borderline enough to support a claim that has an additional sources and is (as far as I can tell) uncontroversial.  Working Ultraodan (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ultraodan (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The next thing that needs to be done is to move some of the contentious and controversial claims about Weir from the Activism and Views section to the Reception and Controversy Section. Once that is done I'll attempt a thoroughgoing review of these allegations to see whether they hold up or need to be expunged or edited, but for now let's get the controversy into the controversy section, and keep the Activism and Views section dedicated to its stated subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree (talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Alison Weir (activist). (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Transfer the following block of text from the Activism and Views section to the Reception and Controversy section:

She has alleged that Nazi and Zionist leaders collaborated during World War II.[6] According to Tablet, she has "complained about there being too many Jews on the Supreme Court".[7] She has described the Jewish "race" as "an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself".[8]

Writing in CounterPunch, Weir said that Israel harvests Palestinian organs[8][6][9] which has been described as an updating of the medieval blood libel that Jews harvest the blood of gentile children.

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.[7][10] 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."[8] 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."[7] She has also worked with the Nation of Islam.[10] Kenfree (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fits better in Activism and Views given these are her views. In my mind Reception and Controversy is better suited for other's reactions to her views. Ultraodan (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraodan (talk),

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in your response to my edit request. You seem to be totally unaware of the purpose behind the edit request, which is one of several I plan to make, and why you are the only editor who responds to these requests is a question I have, but far from the primary one.

This thread began when editor M.mk (talk) notified us that Weir's organization had published a detailed complaint about her Wikipedia page. After reading it, I commented that the complaints seemed valid, and indicated a need to revise this Wikipedia entry throroughly to provide a more neutral presentation, which I intended to do through a series of edits. You state in your reply to my most recent edit request that "these are her views." You state this unequivocally, despite the fact that the 10-page critique her organization has provided demonstrates the opposite, that these are NOT her views. My first direct question to you is this: have you taken the time to read that critique? If not, you have no business opining on what Alison Weir's views are. She has stated them in her critique....we have them there from the horse's mouth. The text I was requesting to be transferred to the Reception and Controversy section does not consist of her views, but rather in a number of spurious claims about her views, along with a number of smears by association, that have no place in any objective examination of her views. The sources provided for these claims are largely drawn from periodicals and platforms which are ideologically opposed to Alison Weir.

I shall here refer you to WIkipedia:verifiability:

   QUOTE

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

   END OF QUOTE 

Everything in the text I have requested to be removed is a violation of this Wikipedia policy. Now it is possible that you are a greater expert on the views of Alison Weir than Alison Weir herself, but if so you should state for the record your authority in this regard. Otherwise, we all need to recognize that the innuendo in the text in question does an extreme disservice to the subject of this Wikipedia entry, and that spurious claims about her views are no substitute for her actual views which she has bent over backwards to clarify for the record. Kenfree (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this for an editor who understands this better than me to take care of. I'll just note that I'm not a fan of using the article from her organisation as a source without additional sources. Also for your benefit, I can't be expected to understand a purpose that you haven't explained in that edit request, generally I only look at the one edit request when taking care of it. As for why I respond, there aren't too many editors who pay attention to the list of extended protected edit requests and I responded here once so now it's on my watchlist. I wish you the best of luck in getting these changes made but I'm obviously not the editor to do it. Ultraodan (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thank you for your service to Wikipedia, but I feel a page like this needs a dedicated editor fully familiar with the ongoing debate about bias in the entry. All the best to you! Kenfree (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline to make the edit you requested for a few reasons. The chief reason is the different uses that Wikipedia accords to the treatment of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. All content in Wikipedia articles must be supported by citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Interviews quoting Weir are neither independent nor secondary, although they may be included for certain types of information per WP:ABOUTSELF. Secondly, while you are certainly correct that Weir is the best expert on what Weir believes, absent a mind meld, we don't know what she believes, only what she has written or said. What she believes might or might not be different. So for starters, and at the risk of stating the obvious, we consider only *published* statements, as we can't get into her head.

The crucial point to keep in mind, is who is it that we should rely on, to read published accounts of Weir's writings and recorded words, and interpret what her views are? Is it:

1. Weir
2. editors at Wikipedia
3. other commentators and analysts

and the answer is, definitely not 1 or 2. The best sources to rely on are that subset of #3 that are considered reliable and independent in order to determine how to write an encyclopedic article about her published writings or sayings. In particular, the views of Wikipedia editors on what she has said or written are completely out of bounds as original research and should be immediately removed from the article, and could be followed by possible warnings to or sanctions against the editor in question. (Weir's views about her birthday, where she attended school, her family, etc., can generally be included.)

Finally—and maybe this should have been stated first—moving the content from a section about "Views" to one about "Reception and controversy" might appear at first glance to be an attempt to whitewash offensive or objectionable positions by delegitimizing them as her actual position, and ascribing them instead to an interpretation by unreliable critics who might have an axe to grind and thereby portray them incorrectly. But there could be other reasons to move the material. Afaict, you haven't given your reasons why moving the material would benefit the article. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread begins with another editor's notification that Weir's organization, If Americans Knew, has published a detailed complaint about bias in this article. See here:

::If Americans Knew charges bias in this entry on Weir
::[edit]
::By If Americans Knew Staff, December 12, 2024:
::https://israelpalestinenews.org/wikipedias-entry-on-alison-weir-is-rife-with-inaccuracies-misinformation/ M.mk (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you, Mathglot (talk), have taken the time to read this critique, then you would understand the reasons for this request to move this block of text. If these were Alison Weir's views, it would be easy enough to source them with evidence that they are. But instead, virtually every one of these contentious claims uses a secondary source, from a platform usually antagonistic to Weir, to claim that these are her views without any direct evidence. All of this violates the Wikipedia code of evidence when it comes to biographies of living persons.

If you have read this critique, please tell me what about it you disagree with and we can go from there. If you haven't, what on earth are you doing opining on what the purpose of this move request might be? It's there in the critique, and I have repeated it several times. Once more with feeling: these are not Alison Weir's views, but claims about Alison Weir's views from dubious sources, along with several smears by association. Wikipedia can do better. I am trying and would appreciate your help, but in any case I look forward to your soonest reply. Kenfree (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say,

If these were Alison Weir's views, it would be easy enough to source them with evidence that they are

what I see when looking at section § Activism and views are 17 citations from nine unique sources, for a section of 472 words and 2501 bytes (excluding references), which is approximately one citation every 27 words of section text. Five of the 17 are from Weir's writings, so not independent (but for the type of thing they are sourcing, it's probably okay per WP:ABOUTSELF) and that leaves 12 citations for most of the content, including the critical content. Strictly from the perspective of citation density, that seems pretty good.

But perhaps the sources are not reliable, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is what you are saying. In that case, you should attack the sources one by one, explaining which one(s) you think are unreliable and why, and that can be discussed here among any willing editors. You are welcome to get more opinions about source reliability by asking at the Reliable sources noticeboard, and report back what you found out, or to request them to provide feedback here. (If you do that, please provide a link to it here.)

You wrote:

But instead, virtually every one of these contentious claims uses a secondary source, from a platform usually antagonistic to Weir, to claim that these are her views without any direct evidence

There are three things to be said here:

1. it's good that the claims in the section cite a secondary source; that's what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do, from top to bottom of the article;
2. if they are citing "a platform usually antagonistic to Weir", that could be problematic—it depends what proportion of them can be characterized that way. You might be surprised to learn that biased sources can be used at Wikipedia. What counts, is not the bias of an individual source, because the overall governing policy is neutral point of view, and as long as a collection of sources are used, they may all be biased, as long as they fairly represent the views in reliable sources taken as a whole. Where an article can get into trouble, is when an editor cherry-picks the sources to tilt in one direction only, unfairly leaving out sources that say the contrary, and making the article content non-neutral with respect to actual, real-world views. If you believe that there was cherry-picking of sources to present her views unfairly, please indicate what you think a fair set of sources would be that represent all secondary sources fairly. Which of the existing ones would you remove, what new ones would you add, to present a fairer overall picture?
3. When you say that a source presents her views without any direct evidence, I am not sure what you mean. Wikipedia policy requires us to provide citations when needed as evidence for the verifiability of all content at Wikipedia, and the best evidence comes from reliable, independent, secondary sources. However, there is no such requirement for the sources themselves. That is, we have to provide sources as evidence, but our sources do not have to provide other sources as evidence for their content (although many do).

Finally, when you say,

these are not Alison Weir's views, but claims about the views of Alison Weir from dubious sources

how do you know 1) that they are not her views, and 2) that the sources are dubious? In particular, if the sources are dubious, that is a concrete avenue where we can make some progress by debunking them one by one. Please add them below, indicating what you find objectionable about each one, and we can go from there. I did not read the critique by IAK, because that is Weir's mouthpiece, and per WP:MANDY. But I would be happy to read any independent sources you provide that agree with the IAK critique and say pretty much the same thing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for the editorial attention you are paying to this request... whilst I am disappointed again in not having this contentious text moved to the Controversy section where I would THEN put each claim under the editorial microscope, I suppose it can be done here. It will take some time, but if that's how it has to be, so be it. However,Mathglot, if I am able to demonstrate that any of these contentious claims about her views is false or poorly sourced, than the disposition of that claim will no longer be to move it to the Reception and Controversy section, but to delete it entirely per Wikipedia policy on biographical articles on living persons.

I have followed your link to WP:Mandy and see where you are coming from, but it seems to me to set up a Catch 22 situation where Wikipedia editors do not care what views a person directly expresses (you rightly call her organization her 'mouthpiece'), but what secondary sources claim they are. This argument that "of course they'd deny it" smacks of the "when are you going to stop beating your wife? " canard. Words are being put into her mouth in this text, in a number of cases without any direct sourcing that she actually said them, as I shall soon be demonstrating.

Again, thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning... Kenfree (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not delved as deeply as you apparently have into the topic of her background and writings, but regarding one point of yours about the pertinence of the material already there, I fully agree that WP:BLPSOURCES governs, namely, any negative material needs careful sourcing, or the offending material should be immediately removed without waiting for discussion. If you believe there are such statements, please point them out here; if they are not sourced or improperly sourced, I will remove them, and if they are sourced by an ostensibly reliable source but you object to the source for some reason, please add a subsection to the section below explaining the problems with it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate this response and will be reviewing the sources for these contentious claims about Weir's views and presenting them individually here for editorial review. In the meantime, would you please correct the spelling of "Activism" in the title of that section? Thanks! Kenfree (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenfree (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should look at some of the references being used, and evaluate them. I've set off my first look at a reference as an H3 subsection, in order to avoid a possible WP:WALLOFTEXT if we start talking about multiple references here. So, please start a new subsection as needed, for other references. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference I looked at was College of Charleston. What made me look at this one in more detail, were a few things: one, it was recently added, in this edit by Ultraodan (who was responding to an edit request). Two, it is being used to source the lead. This appears to be a write-up about a then forthcoming guest speaker at Charleston, because of her visit to the university as part of a lecture series, which typically includes the date and time of the event, the venue, and a brief intro to Weir and her background. A guest speaker write-up pretty much always puts the speaker in the best light, and is in no way intended to be a balanced view of the person. In addition, the write-up appears to be part of an un peer-reviewed blog self-published on Wordpress, and written by an individual, "Lauren Salino", who has no internet presence that I can find; possibly an undergraduate assigned to write the blog, or a guest blogger?

To delve a bit deeper, let's evaluate one statement in her blog post:

Weir is generally considered the foremost analyst on media coverage of Israel-Palestine.

That set all my antennae buzzing on yellow alert. That statement puts Weir above all of these critics of Israel-Palestine media:

• Noam Chomsky – analyzes media framing, e.g. in works like Manufacturing Consent
• Edward Said – analyst of Western depictions of Palestine and broader Arab world, focused on media biases and Orientalist world-view
• Norman Finkelstein – critique of media reporting, particularly in the context of human rights and international law
• Gideon Levy – critiques Israeli policies and media coverage that he perceives are biased against Palestinians
• Amira Hass – known for critique of both Israeli and international media coverage
• Ali Abunimah – Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada
• Glenn Greenwald – journalist/commentator and critic of U.S. media coverage for bias or lack of balance
• Phyllis Bennis – analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies

I don't believe for a minute that Weir is in the same category as any of these media critics of Israel/Palestine affairs, let alone considered foremost of all of them. That is just nonsense, maybe acceptable to warmly welcome a speaker to campus, but in no way usable in an encyclopedic article. Plus, it's a self-published source.

I think it would be okay to use the Charleston blog for basic details, like where she has lectured previously, or where she has published, but for any evaluation of her expertise or standing as an analyst, I think that the Charleston College blog post is not reliable for that, and should be removed from the lead. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this citation were being used to support a claim that she is "the foremost analyst of Middle East affairs" then all your words here would make a very strong case, but that is just not the case at all, so why you are pulling up a statement from her blog that is not at issue here requires some explanation that you fail to provide. The lede simply says that she is known as a media critic and Middle East expert, and the Charleston College introduction of her simply reflects that fact. If Charleston College did not believe this about her, why then would they invite her to lecture on the subject?

As a matter of fact, I myself once had the opportunity to hear a public presentation by Weir so I can personally attest that this is not an empty claim about her. Instead of digging through her personal blog, I suggest you visit the IAK website for proof of her activism and expertise. Kenfree (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to conjecture why a college might have invited her to speak. It is also not up to us as editors to provide opinions or attestations based on personal experience. It is up to us, to ensure verifiability for all statements in the article, using reliable sources. To answer your question about what I did not provide (although I thought the implication was clear), the reason I brought up that sentence in the blog that is not used in the article, is that I am attacking the credibility of the Charleston College blog as a source. Namely, if they will print poppycock like that claim about her, then they are clearly unreliable for statements about Weir (other than for very simple facts about the list of her published books and lecture tours). What I am saying specifically, is that since the Charleston College blog is not a reliable source, the reference should be removed as unreliable, the material in the lead which is sourced to it requires a different source that is reliable, or else the content should be removed. I apologize for not being clear before, and I hope that this is clearer now. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had misunderstood your reference to "her" blog as referring to Alison Weir's personal blog, but you apparently are referring instead to this announcement by the Department of Asian Studies' publication as "her blog." It is very unclear to me who the "her" is here. This is an announcement by the Asian Sudies Department of an accredited college, not a personal blog. If I am in error here please correct me.

Unlike yourself, I don't consider this claim about Alison Weir "poppycock." You mention a number of other astute critics of Zionist Israel, but among them is Edward Said who died ages ago. It is assumed that the claim only refers to living alternatives. Most of these critics, whilst they may occasionally touch on the media's bias in Middle East matters, do not focus on it, whereas Alison Weir does. This defines her activism, unlike the other notables to which you seek to compare her.

The fact that she was invited to address specifically this subject by an Asian Studies Department of an accredited university demonstrates her credibility as an expert on the subject, or at least as an authoritative source. For you to challenge this suggests you have some higher authority in such matters than a center of higher learning. I look forward to hearing what that is... Kenfree (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to "Lauren Salino", who is listed as author of that piece. As you say, it is not a personal blog, but one hosted at the college, so she is either staff who is tasked with producing it, or perhaps a student who works or volunteers there (like I did, at my college paper, albeit briefly, and never with my own byline). I have no higher authority than a center of higher learning, nor any authority at all, other than as a Wikipedia editor with equal footing as any other. For me to challenge the source does not mean that I claim any expert domain knowledge; what it means is, that I know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines pretty well, and this blog post is pretty iffy, for the reasons previously stated.

Regarding your point about living writers, you are no doubt right, and I've redacted that item. I have one or two of Said's books, and tbh I don't keep track of who is still with us, so likely he should not be included in that list. (Chomsky, b. 1929, *is* still around.) All of the ones I listed are specifically involved with critiquing media bias in Middle East matters, which is why I listed them, and all are more well-known than Weir in that domain, calling into question the reliability of the blog post. But as I said, it is just a guest speaker intro, and no one expects to hear a balanced picture from that; what one expects, is to hear nice things about her said glowingly, which is pretty much what they did, and that's appropriate for a post like that, but not appropriate as a citation for Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to agree to disagree about this...would be nice to hear other opinions. Yes, Lauren Salino was obviously tasked with formulating the announcement, but this announcement is on College letterhead, as it were. She does not say "In my opinion." She is speaking for the Department of Asian Studies. This is how THEY view Alison Weir, and an institute of higher learning is in my book an august source of authority when it comes to matters under their aegis. BTW, I am pretty familiar with most of the individuals on your list, and I would disagree that any of them is focused, as is Alison Weir, on detecting and countering media bias on the Middle East conflict. As I conceded, they all certainly touch on it, but they have much larger agendas. Kenfree (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [1] is Hager's review published on Truthout of Weir's book, "Against our better judgment : the hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel". This is an interesting situation, as a book review on a website considered to be reliable is normally fine to use in an article, and that could be the case here as well. The wild card here, is that the book was published in 2014 by CreateSpace Publishing, which is Amazon's print-on-demand vanity publisher. That is, there is no editorial control, no peer review, and they will print anything that isn't blank pages or a test pattern. So, the book itself is a self-published source, and of course, a primary source. However, the book review is secondary, so in principle, the source is okay. The kicker is how we deal with book reviews of self-published sources, and I don't know the answer to that one. I'll need to ask at one of the boards to find out. Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question posted at RSN. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on why a self-published book should be considered more problematic than if it had been published by another party. It seems to me that the only question should be about authenticity of authorship. Would you enlighten me on this point? Kenfree (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS. CodeTalker (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have valuable feedback at RSN now from five parties and I was hoping for more, but was amazed to see thirteen (!) new conversations including four RFC's started at RSN just since I posted my question 48 hours ago (!!) which will probably suck up all the oxygen in the room, so we may have to be content with what we have so far. There appears to be a rough consensus that the review is usable, with some nuances to watch out for iiuc, from these helpful responses by:

• Simonm223, who pointed out that WP:EXPERTSPS likely applies, since Weir has other books out by commercial publishers, and GreenC agreed;
• NatGertler, who corrected my impression of CreateSpace as publisher and pointed out that IAK is listed as publisher on the back cover, and so it may be SPS for that reason as IAK is Weir's org; (I am still a bit confused about the role of CreateSpace, listed as pub. by Google and WorldCat, but this may not matter for our purposes here.)
• Ramos1990, who has noted this scenario [SPS book, reliable review] particuarly in relation to fringe authors and supports the use of the review, and of the book if no better sources are forthcoming;
• Hydrangeans reminded us that books with editorial control are preferred, agreed with the EXPERTSPS applicability, and that WP:BLPSPS "does not permit the use of even experts' self-published sources" (although I'm not 100% sure how to interpret that in this case) and helpfully points out that the endnotes and bibliography name other sources that could be mined for additional, independent confirmation.

Besides a tilt towards the review being reliable, and possibly the book also per EXPERTSPS (or is it?), the possibility of finding other, better sources was made more than once. Thanks to all who replied at RSN, and I hope I summarized your view correctly. Additional thoughts are, of course, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the listing of Createspace as a pub on those sites should not matter for these purposes. That's a technical matter based on whether the entity publishing through Createspace (a proper descriptor, rather than by) used one of Createspace's free ISBNs or choked up like $100 to buy an ISBN associated with them as publisher. Because ISBNs are associated with their purchaser (generally a publisher), databases glean that information for them. However, the choice of ISBNs to use did not make any difference in the manner of publishing, of which entity created the material, held legal responsibility for it, and had editorial control. These are the things that are relevant for this discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A citation from the The Tablet is used to support, inter alia, the assertion that "'She has described the Jewish 'race' as 'an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself.'"[8]

1. Alison Weir is a frequent critic of Israel, and may probably be regarded as anti-Zionist. The Tablet appears to be a pro-Zionist publication. So in the first place, employing an ideologically antagonistic source to support an allegation is problematic.
2. The text uses the term "original" implying that she is the author of the piece in question, but this is not the case.
3. The piece is not even original in the sense that it was not published somewhere else first; it plainly begins with this attribution: "'(reposted from DeLiberation)."'
4. The truth is that this piece was written by a Jewish author, and even he does not make this claim. Rather, he is citing a 19th century Jewish writer who did write this.

Therefore, the claim that Alison Weir "says" this or even that this is her view is not demonstrated in any way by this very dubious source. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, poorly sourced allegations about living persons should be removed without discussion. I rest my case for now. There are other claims in Wikipedia's article on Weir drawm from this same dubious source, which reads like a hit piece, but we will have to consider each individually. Please delete the entire sentence from the "Activism and views" section. Thanks.

Kenfree (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC) @Mathglot: [reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Alison Weir (activist). (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Delete:'She has described the Jewish 'race' as 'an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself.'" [It is in the Activism and views section.] See above discussion for rationale.

I only just became aware of this page about Wikipedia: Wikipedia’s entry on Alison Weir is rife with falsehoods and bias" at Alison Weir's website, Israel-Palestine News. The by-line is "If Americans Knew Staff". It includes four sections:

where the last section contains the entire Wikipedia article at the time, with notes added with her corrections. (I will add a confirmed revision link when I figure out which version she was looking at; probably rev. 1246031894 of 14:27, 16 September 2024.) IAK gives an IA link for a version saved 9/20/24. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Mathglot. Whether we agree or disagree with the rigorous critique of her Wikipedia page her organization published, we owe it to our commitment to objectivity to be apprised of it as we exercise our editorial responsibility on Alison Weir's webpage. Kenfree (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this and only afterward noticed that you had already written about it above. Once I realized, I tried to undo it here and move it up there, but somehow I got my wires crossed, and now it is in both places. Oh well, will have to leave it here now, as it's already been responded to. Sorry for any inconvenience. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, you have here provided a constructive indexing of the critique which will make it more accessible to other editors who would like to familiarize themselves with its contents. I am wondering if we would not do better, instead of examining all the existing citations one by one, to instead use this critique and take its arguments one by one to see whether each of them has merit and if so to revise the text in the entry accordingly, as we go. I'm willing to do the breakdown, if you find this approach expedient. Kenfree (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you can use this page any way you want, as long as it tends towards improvement of the article. That said, it's a good look to be collaborative and solicitous of other editors' efforts and wishes, so thanks for that. In the eventuality, I suspect I have less time available for working on this article than you (and probably less interest, as well) so if you would like to engage in a new approach to improving it, by all means do. I'll try to participate as and when I am able. Mathglot (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]