Talk:Jane Alpert

About

Thank you for the information. Although Jane was not a direct member of the Weatherman Organization it is interesting to lean about how her actions effected the group. The Weathermen should have responded to her criticism, this might have boosted the publics confidence in them. Lalalajane (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article refers to the WUO by abbreviation, but might be clearer to a wider readership if that abbreviation is spelled out in the first such reference [something like "Weather Underground Organization (WUO)"], and then subsequent references could be by abbreviation.--Historytrain (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest that the in-text references to "Sam" be shifted to either full-name ("Sam Melville") or surname ("Melville"). This approach works more closely with scholarly conventions or reference.--Historytrain (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the in-text reference to the subject,referring to the subject with Alpert or Jane Alpert would be helpful. But I do apreciate the information that was found on this person and her contributions to the Weathermen/Weather Underground Organization. Tjcjaj (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Comment: References make more sense when they are posted in a consistent format, thats why I reverted to the older version. The opening is more on target now also.Lalalajane (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that consistency in reference format is desirable (although not absolutely necessary). So why not bring the old references up to WP:CITE standards, including the ability to link directly to an online source, rather than reverting newer standard-format ones, as someone is doing right now with Alpert(1981) refs? --CliffC (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As an example of what I mean, this edit from last night substitutes an inert reference for a clickable, searchable online reference to Alpert's 1981 book. Such changes harm the article. --CliffC (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cited material restored

I have restored cited and verifiable material recently removed from the article, and the entire lead section. The cited material comes from reliable sources; please do not remove it without good reason and discussion on this talk page.

According to WP:LEAD,

“ The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. ”

– that's what I've tried to do.  Without the bombings Alpert (and for that matter Sam Melville) would not rate an article on Wikipedia.  The bombings and what ensued are facts, they are what make her notable, all else is secondary.

IMO this article still needs a lot of work; I hope people will add additional cited (and accessible online) material from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --CliffC (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the cited material should be restored, however I do believe it fits better somewhere else in the article and not the lead. As it stands right now, I feel the lead should be only about Jane Alpert and her contributions to Weathermen, SDS, and anything else she has accomplished throughout her life. Her involvements with Sam Melville seems more appropriate in the body of the article. I do believe that Jane Alpert warrants an article by herself, she has done/acheived notable things without the assistance of Melville or anyone else that the lead of the article should acknowledge that. It is my suggestion that the article be reverted to a previous change by Jjs8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjcjaj (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It seems that Jane Alpert deserves her own article with out numerous mentions of Sam Melville. Although he was part of her life, she did write "Mother Right" and was vocally critical of many leftist activist groups she had once been friendly with. I think the original lead (with some extra content if demanded) should be reinstated. But it does not and should not focus on Melville, since the entry is not about him. Lalalajane (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My response below addresses these comments as well. I don't see the focus as being on Melville, but on Alpert's notable acts. --CliffC (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Alpert

(Copied from CliffC's talk page, let's keep the discussion here.)
I really appreciate all the informationt hat you were able to add to the Jane Alpert entry. What you had to add clearly helped fill her page with valid and cited information. I believe that Jane Alpert should deserve her own page and therefore on the entry section I think it would be best if it was left for her, and not include Sam Melville. Let me know what you think! Thanks! jjs8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjs8 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the cited material you had adds to the article and should be restored, however I do believe it fits better somewhere else in the article and not the lead. As it stands right now, I feel the lead should be only about Jane Alpert and her contributions to Weathermen, SDS, and anything else she has accomplished throughout her life. Her involvements with Sam Melville seems more appropriate in the body of the article. I do believe that Jane Alpert warrants an article by herself, she has done/acheived notable things without the assistance of Melville or anyone else that the lead of the article should acknowledge that. It is my suggestion that the article be reverted to a previous change by Jjs8 and have the lead be only about Jane Alpert.76.104.201.83 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page edits using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), indent comments using ":" and add new sections at the bottom.

I'm sorry, but as to taking Melville out of the lead I must disagree. As I said over at Talk:Jane Alpert, Alpert's bombings and life on the run are what she is mainly notable for; I see few press reports of her good works in prison or after her release. Had she never met Melville this would be a very different article, if there were an article at all. But there was a Melville, and he was her co-conspirator, that's the reality. I won't repeat myself by explaining why a lead section is built the way it is, but please review WP:LEAD. It might help to study some Wikipedia articles outside the domain of Weathermen/SDS/other militant groups, many of which seem to rely heavily on autobiographies and personal recollections, to get an idea how good articles are constructed. --CliffC (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sorry that I have to disagree with you that Alpert is who she is because of Melville. It is speculation that "had she never met Melville this article would be a very different article." No one is absolute on this! Today, she is Jane Alpert, a person who has done things without the help of anyone. As suggested in another comment, there should be a happy medium to solve this problem. I believe the lead of the article should be dedicated to Jane Alpert only and adding a section with her association to Melville should sufice everyone's needs. Regardless of who she was involved with in her past, she should be entitled to have her own identity, especially in a biography about her life. I hope that this compromise agrees with everyone, I believe it makes the most sense.Tjcjaj (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying "she is who she is" because of Melville, I'm saying she did what she did because of Melville. No one is suggesting that she is unable to act independently. And of course her life, and this article, would be different without Melville – no Melville means fewer bombs, or perhaps more bombs, or perhaps no bombs at all and no arrests and a life as a motivational speaker and bestselling author. But there was a Melville, and the bombings committed with him are the main reason she is Wikipedia notable, we all need to respect that reality. "Sufficing everyone's needs" is not what an encyclopedia is for. --CliffC (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that including the lengthy section regarding her association with Melville explains to readers that he was an important part of the bombings and her life, but he is not the focus of the article and should remain that way. Yes there WAS a Melville and this article does address that fact. Lalalajane (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Alpert has had a major impact regarding her connection with the Weathermen and her contributions to the Mother Right. There is an entire section on Sam Melville, however I do not believe his name should be in the intro section. --jjs8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From Alpert's autobiography it sounds like Melville might have never got off the couch if he hadn't met Alpert. Rybu (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While a biography of Alpert without mention of Melville would needlessly slight his role, a biography of Alpert dominated by references to him would decidedly diminish hers. Although most sixties/seventies bombers had co-conspirators, they do not always require mention within the lead of a biography devoted to another. After all, if Melville was Alpert's co-conspirator, she was his. Just as Alpert is absent from the lead on Melville's biography, I see no need for Melville to appear in hers. The focus here should remain on the individual at the center of the life-story featured, in this case an activist/author of note. --Historytrain (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Historytrain makes some good points (although Alpert's autobiography itself seems dominated by references to him). I'll go ahead and rewrite the lead without reference to Melville. This will also restore some online citations that link directly to reliable sources; some of these can also be used to support material that's further down in the article. --CliffC 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: CliffC did a great job rewriting the lead without referencing to Melville. The lead gives a lot of great information and the citations are great. Jjs8 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)jjs8

Thank you, I'm glad we found the key and the article is back on the road. I misread some past comments and had thought the underlying objection was to mentioning the bombings in the lead. Now that I've read some of her work I can see why any emphasis on Melville as an influence would not be well received. --CliffC 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey folks, the last couple of edits are stepping very close to edit warring. I suggest bringing issues with the article to this talk page, discussing those changes, and trying to reach consensus on them. As it is, a couple people have removed cited material, which is unacceptable without consensus. Murderbike (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not removed any cited material but have put the cited material in a different section where I think it fits better. Thank you! jjs8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjs8 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

More recent

What about what she's been doing for the past 30 years? Badagnani (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is her? http://www.stratwrite.com/whoarewe.html Ron Newman (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No. There are many Jane Alperts; that is not the article subject. --CliffC (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Traitor to Mark Rudd and wife?

Mark Rudd on his blog says Alpert and Robin Morgan sold him and his wife out to the police.--Radh (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? This isn't a gossip website. Rybu (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so pure, our heroes?--Radh (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand whatever it is you're trying to say. Is there a point? Rybu (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know about your life, in my life it would be quiet something to sell out my friends. If this is not relevant for Wikipedia, maybe the whole Jane Alpert is not so relevant?--Radh (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the nature of Wikipedia. This isn't facebook or a gossip forum. See [[1]]. Rybu (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jane Alpert. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://users.iglide.net/rjsanders/seco/alpert.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing decades

According to this article, Jane Alpert's life ended in 1981. Seriously, has anything happened since? J S Ayer (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)