Revision as of 02:23, 15 February 2007 editGabrielF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,064 edits responding← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:35, 15 February 2007 edit undo82.29.229.116 (talk) →AIPACNext edit → | ||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
:::The problem is that your research is VERY flawed. For example, you claim that Friedman's review was in the ]. It was, in fact, in the ], a completely separate publication. Further, Friedman was responding to a letter from Blitzer in which Blitzer pointed out obvious factual errors in Friedman's original review. Clearly there was a debate between Blitzer and Friedman in which Blitzer claimed that Friedman got several basic facts wrong. Given this dispute, it is not reasonable to quote only one side because it helps the argument that you are trying to make. Second, I was the one who found the American Spectator piece in the first place. My point then was that except for a tangential mention there I couldn't find evidence that he actually worked for AIPAC. ] 01:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | :::The problem is that your research is VERY flawed. For example, you claim that Friedman's review was in the ]. It was, in fact, in the ], a completely separate publication. Further, Friedman was responding to a letter from Blitzer in which Blitzer pointed out obvious factual errors in Friedman's original review. Clearly there was a debate between Blitzer and Friedman in which Blitzer claimed that Friedman got several basic facts wrong. Given this dispute, it is not reasonable to quote only one side because it helps the argument that you are trying to make. Second, I was the one who found the American Spectator piece in the first place. My point then was that except for a tangential mention there I couldn't find evidence that he actually worked for AIPAC. ] 01:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
::No, the only problem here is your attitude. You need to calm down and argue your case for exclusing criticism of Blitzer and details of his bibliography/relationship with AIPAC from a rational standpoint. You also need to argue for these exclusions on a policy basis. Characterizing the statements of 2 critics, people as liable for court proceedings as wikipedia, "tangential", is no good. He worked for AIPAC. Evidence reflected in his published work for AIPAC also exists. Attempting to disallow inclusion of criticism because you havent found "the other side" is no good either. That he made a rebuttal was originally mentioned by me. I spent time looking for his rebuttal, please include it if you have more luck finding it. | |||
::I did find published evidence of Blitzer working for AIPAC. You must move on to trying to discredit that evidence. Yes getting the name of the paper wrong was a silly mistake but doesnt reflect on the cited sources, or details of Blitzers work for AIPAC. ] 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
==GabrielF's removal of criticism== | ==GabrielF's removal of criticism== |
Revision as of 02:35, 15 February 2007
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
Thanks Jackie
THanks Jackie from Cnn now we can't even edit the damn page on Wolf now...Thank you for letting them block us lol but we still love you pretty woman.
THIS WAS JUST ON CNN BABY! IT WAS BUFFALO NOT SYRACUSE!
- No information for that. --ThomasK 05:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, his first name is just "Wolf". It was his maternal great grandfather's name.
--YTMND Significant?--
- I don't know how significant Blitzer's popularity on ytmndg.com in ref to Hurricane Katrina is. The comments might be newsworthy, but their prominence on YTMND seem seconday. 24.60.184.196 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This article was just shown on his TV show with instructions on editing.
Corrections
Apparently, the change to Buffello is correct (please confirm this someone). The other thing mentioned on CNN was who he was named after. I removed "whose first name was his maternal grandfather's name (not a nickname)", until we can confirm/check this -- sannse (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- How's this for confirmation? DHowell 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I found that too, and added this back to the article, along with the source. Demi /C 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- And here's confirmation for Buffalo. DHowell 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Prophylaxis is bad
I don't think we should leap to protecting articles just because they get a media mention. Once they're being hit by regular vandalism, sure. But the CNN article said they'd show how to fix it. Only now, they'll show a scared Misplaced Pages which they can't fix. -Splash 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- If someone wants to fix something and if they can read, then all they have to do is come to this page and suggest the change. --JWSchmidt 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- There is no content review by admins on Misplaced Pages, and we should not be instituting one. -Splash 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This still can attract unwanted attention, for CNN just had to confirm "a site that anyone can edit". Lord Falcon 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
And I don't appreciate the misleading summary in the protection log of "Corrections". Tell the truth: it's protected because we're scared of vandalism, right? -Splash 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Splash is right Scott Fisher 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
CNN
Just saw this page advertised on CNN! Cool! Scott Fisher 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Haha they just showed this article on CNN, and now that one good looking woman is going to change it!--Skyler Streng 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I won't consider that cool, this site only gets recognition if it unintentionally puts false information.--Lord Falcon 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected
Thisa article should not be protected. It was just on CNN as an example of (unlike the monkeypox episode) how to -productively- edit. There has been little vandalism so far, and it would be a crime to discourage people who've seen the story from coming here and participating in constructive editing.--Pharos 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually saw the CNN report as it occured, I got onto the article and it was being vandalized frequently until User:Danny protected it. We then cleaned it up and since then it's been protected and only admins can edit it, this is why it's had little vandalism. -- PRueda29 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- There has been no vandalism since I unprotected it ten minutes ago.--Pharos 23:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I count a total of about 7 edits while were getting up to speed. That's nothing to get all protectionist about. -Splash 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Danny. Jus for a short while, while this page is so prominant and vunerable to vandalism, let's keep it locked. Danny is, after all, one of the people who has to field all the journalist calls about this flap -- sannse (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- And most of those so-called "vandalism" edits were stuff like "OMG, I just saw this on CNN". We really shouldn't overreact. Now is the time to show CNN viewers that we are an open system; yes it's not vulnerable to vandalism now, but it's also not really a wiki.--Pharos 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we should keep it protected forever, I'm just retelling what I encountered. We should keep it protected though for a few hours or maybe until tomrrow morning to make sure no vandals come back, or CNN doesn't decide to rerun the story with the same example. -- PRueda29 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't think a short period of protection is an over-reaction. It will allow all those who saw the piece to see the article in an un-vandalised form. This isn't forever, but why not give it a few hours of not making us look worse than we are? -- sannse (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- If an article is vandalised several times within just a few minutes, it is acceptable to temporarily protect it under the existing Misplaced Pages protection policy. Hall Monitor 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not. That's not persistence. The correct solution is to block first and if blocks fail, protect if you must. -Splash 23:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- You cannot measure persistence when attacks are being made by multiple IP addresses. Hall Monitor 23:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I can pretty much guarantee that many of the people who saw it will be going to check out the page. At this point, I want them to see a correct version, showing our ability to respond in real time to errors, than a vandalized page, making us look like idiots. I can also assure you that when I go into the Wikimedia office tomorrow, the journalists will be asking about this immediately. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not provide a bulletin board service that anyone can edit. As for Hall Monitor's question, when it is such a prominent page, and displayed on national television, the answer is yes. Danny 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- For additional information on when and when not to protect articles, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Uses. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- To quote that section, "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." I think that this page should remain unprotected--we've handled more than this before, and we'll handle what vandalism this may bring, even if we have to raise WikiDEFCON. NatusRoma 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- For additional information on when and when not to protect articles, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Uses. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this still on TV? -Splash 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's been enough time, we can uprotect now. -- PRueda29 04:12, 7 December2005 (UTC)
- Protecting the page could discourage potential Wikipedians who saw the CNN piece. They hear that anyone can edit the articles on Misplaced Pages, then come here and find that they were misinformed. Such pages should be added to watch lists and reverted as needed. That is how best to demonstrate how the Misplaced Pages community works. -- Nelson Ricardo 11:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Quotes
Are all of the quotes listed currently featured in this article necessary? If so, can someone please explain why? Hall Monitor 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe we just need to link to Wikiquote --JWSchmidt 19:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hard News?
I'm not sure if I would characterize Blitzer's style as "hard news"...He pretty much just goes by the talking points. --- (True. Also, I think it worth mentioning that Blitzer started out reporting for Pat Robertson's 700 Club, according to this link. http://www.yuricareport.com/Media/OnPatRobertsonWolfeBlitzerAndDavidCorn.html )
sure he's gonn resign. ok. andrea koppel says maybe not. Kɔffeedrinksyou 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hard news - hardly - he is/was somehow connected to AIPAC/700 Club/etc. Blitzer is a "stage" name - not sure what his real name is - it should be mentioned in the biography section. His recent David Duke fiasco was fun to watch - after calling Duke an sob for 5 minutes before he interviewed him ( great reporting - fair and balanced I supppos ) the Wolf got run off his own stage. Hilarious to watch - rare to happen to the guy who controls the off switchm but Duke was way too smart for him - met attack with attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)
Controversy? What Controversy?
A section of this article, titled "controversy" states that:
On the September 1, 2005 edition of The Situation Room, while Wolf Blitzer was stating his observations of New Orleans citizens wading the streets, he stated: "... so many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black ..."
Now, while there is in fact a reference to the transcript of the broadcast during which Wold Blitzer said "so poor and…so black" the fact remains that there is no controversy. The reference that we are looking at may just have been a slip, and no one has attacked Wolf Blitzer for it. Had they have attacked him for it, whoever added this would have linked us to an article attacking Wolf Blitzer. Unless that can be produced, what we are looking at here is a perfect example of original research.--Pac 06:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're right. There is a few blogs that mention this sentence, but most of them don't attack Blitzer for what's obviously a slip. Maybe it's a famous quote, but it's not a controversy. Floyd(Norway) 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed said article.--Pac 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have re-added it in as a sentance of the article, and not its own section. It is still a controversy, is relevent, and is sourced. --Mrmiscellanious 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Unanswered questions
Two relevant pieces of information are missing from the article. I googled but did not uncover conclusive proof.
1. Does Blitzer practice Judaism?
2. Does Blitzer hold Israeli citizenship?
Given that he has Jewish heritage, served in the IDF and resided in Israel for a time it seems that both may be true but I'd love to see a reference. Robert Brockway 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Blitzer denied in 1989 that he held israeli citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.226.213 (talk • contribs)
He has "dual loyalty" which means he lives in the US but is loyal to Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)
Straightforward my @ss
"..., and is known for his straightforward reporting style"
That's coming right out. He was (is?) a lobbyist for AIPAC! And anyone who's seen The Situation Room knows there's nothing straightforward about anything he does. So I'm taking this out ostensibly because it's NPOV, but recognizing that putting this here is inserting my POV (but it's in the talk page so whatever). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.113.238 (talk • contribs)
Cleanup
Please discuss and suggest factors which will make this article to be improved on the whole. For an example of a good article on a media personality, see larry king or mike wallace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrummerThanThou (talk)
david duke
daivd duke in a recent interview with Blitzer accused him of being an agent of Zionism. can anyone add to this? Keltik31 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I added it, it would be interesting to know if Duke's charges about Blitzer being a former AIPAC lobbyist are accurate- nothing in article about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.226.213 (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
- My mistake I re-read the article, its in there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.226.213 (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
wolf blitzer didnt deny it. cnn is under zionist control. excellent edit. now, lets all email wolf Keltik31 14:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Why email Blitzer - he would think it was a compliment to be a toady for Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)
i meant we should email him to tell him how he got is head handed to him by david duke. Keltik31 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There should a full section about Blitzer's work at AIPAC
Since it helped shape his thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.142.75 (talk • contribs)
Wolf
Is it short for Wolfgang? Felicity4711 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
AIPAC
I am trying to track down whether Blitzer ever actually worked for AIPAC. AIPAC is NOT mentioned in his entry in Who's Who. It is not mentioned in his bio at CNN or on the dust jacket of his book Territory of Lies. Further, searching for his connection to AIPAC reveals a lot of racist garbage, but very few reliable sources. One piece from the American Spectator tangentially mentions that he worked on AIPAC's newsletter, Near East Report in the 70s , which is consistent with what the article says. If this is true, than he most likely worked for AIPAC for less than a year in 1973, since we know for a fact that he left Reuters and began work at the Jerusalem Post in 1973. GabrielF 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is a problem also found in the near uniformity of public press releases issued by Mr.Blitzers office;
- "He began his career in 1972 with the Reuters News Agency in Tel Aviv. Shortly thereafter, he became a Washington, D.C., correspondent for The Jerusalem Post." CNN.com
- "After UB, Blitzer pursued a master of arts degree in international relations from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He "fell into" the role of reporter when he seized an opportunity and went on to an 18-year career as a print journalist for the Reuters News Agency in Tel Aviv and as the Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post."Buffalo.edu
- "My first job was working for Reuters News Agency in 1972. I was a very junior reporter in the Tel Aviv bureau." JournalismJobs.com
- "..Wolf Blitzer, then at the end of a long, distinguished career as a correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. (Before joining the Post, he too had worked at Near East Report, in the 1970s." *Spectator
- NYTimes book reviewer Friedman mentions prior work at AIPAC by Blitzer in his review of "Territory of Lies". (cited 3 times in article currently)
- The possible clincher -> "Participating in the panel, moderated by W. David Penniman, dean of the UB School of Informatics, were Wolf I. Blitzer, B.A. ’70, CNN anchor and Emmy and Golden CableACE Award winner" Buffalo.edu (is Blitzers middle birth name "I"?)
- Then we see that Mr.Wolf I. Blitzer was Editor for Myths and Facts 1976 : A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.: Near East Report: Revised and updated"biblio.com
Is this the CCN Blitzer or an entirely other Wolf Blitzer? Did Buffalo.edu make a mistake? No, I dont think so. It is most likely that Blitzers full name including the now disappeared "I" were on his university record when he graduated Buffalo and it was this record that was used in detailing the article. A quick search on Amazon clears up the confusion . Mr.Wolf I. Blitzer and Mr.Wolf Blitzer are one and the same.
So not only did Blitzer work for an arm of AIPAC he is known to have continued the relationship well into the 1970s long after joining JPost! Is it possible that his middle name is rarely remarked on/no longer mentioned in public because it ties him to work for AIPAC that might damage his persona as impartial journalist? Did Blitzers work with AIPAC continue beyond 1976 even perhaps to this day? Not for wikipedos to comment on.
The fact remains that even if this part of Mr.Blitzers career is no longer a source of pride for him (excised from official bios, press releases, public statements etc.) it is still part of his career and should appear in this article. The only remaining question is- what does the "I" stand for? I would lay money on it being ISRAEL *only kidding* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.116 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Further detail on Mr. Wolf "I" Blitzer's connections to AIPAC. In the pages of directory listings published by the American Jewish Yearbook 1977 & 1978 Mr. Blitzer is credited as the "..name of the editor, managing editor, or publisher; unless otherwise stated.." of the Near East Report.
Looking to the section detailing the accuracy of the American Jewish Yearbook we find that his information: "..is based upon answers furnished by the publications themselves..". So for the print runs of the American Jewish Yearbook 1977 & 1978 an editor for that publication contacted Near East Research, Inc. and were furnished with Mr. Wolf "I" Blitzer's name as the party to be included in the directory listing as representative of the weekly publication.
So we have Mr.Blitzer at the "scene of the crime" so to speak in 1977-1978 at least 2 years beyond the publication of Myths and Facts 1976 but what is Near East Research, Inc? Google says: Near East Report Washington bi-weekly (number of editions doubled since Wolf I's tenure) on American Middle East Policy - Near East Research, Inc. - 440 First St., N.W., Suite 607 Washington, DC 20001 202-639-5200 fax 202-347-4916 - www.aipac.org - Editor: Dr. Raphael Danziger - Articles relating to events in the Middle East. Who else shares the exact same address? American Israel Public Affairs Committee. So it *might* be safe to conclude, before the question is even raised, that the 2 organizations have a close if not symbiotic relationship and the Wolfster working for one is as good as him working for the other.
- Original Research. Find a reliable source that says he worked for AIPAC. Also, read WP:BLP. GabrielF 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- 2 exist; NYTimes book reviewer Friedman and the Spectator. You have already removed Friedman from the article without explanation so far. You may be emotionally involved with this matter if you think that no "reliable sources" exist which state that Mr.Blitzer worked for AIPAC. Can you please reinspect the 2 articles which point to his general involvement, then satisfy yourself as to the details of Mr.Blitzers activity with the Near East Research Inc. Thanks.
- The problem is that your research is VERY flawed. For example, you claim that Friedman's review was in the New York Times. It was, in fact, in the New York Review of Books, a completely separate publication. Further, Friedman was responding to a letter from Blitzer in which Blitzer pointed out obvious factual errors in Friedman's original review. Clearly there was a debate between Blitzer and Friedman in which Blitzer claimed that Friedman got several basic facts wrong. Given this dispute, it is not reasonable to quote only one side because it helps the argument that you are trying to make. Second, I was the one who found the American Spectator piece in the first place. My point then was that except for a tangential mention there I couldn't find evidence that he actually worked for AIPAC. GabrielF 01:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, the only problem here is your attitude. You need to calm down and argue your case for exclusing criticism of Blitzer and details of his bibliography/relationship with AIPAC from a rational standpoint. You also need to argue for these exclusions on a policy basis. Characterizing the statements of 2 critics, people as liable for court proceedings as wikipedia, "tangential", is no good. He worked for AIPAC. Evidence reflected in his published work for AIPAC also exists. Attempting to disallow inclusion of criticism because you havent found "the other side" is no good either. That he made a rebuttal was originally mentioned by me. I spent time looking for his rebuttal, please include it if you have more luck finding it.
- I did find published evidence of Blitzer working for AIPAC. You must move on to trying to discredit that evidence. Yes getting the name of the paper wrong was a silly mistake but doesnt reflect on the cited sources, or details of Blitzers work for AIPAC. 82.29.229.116 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
GabrielF's removal of criticism
(moved here for clarity)
- change of article to include middle name = reverted as "highly POV" bwhaha, let the editwars begin!
- No, calling Near East Report a "propaganda sheet" and adding more criticism to the section on Territory of Lies without anything on Blitzer's side of the story is highly POV. GabrielF 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Friedmans words are clearly quoted and clearly cited via the article linked to. A source you have removed for some reason. Do you have something to contribute from "Blitzers side"? Please, by all means include it. Is lack of something from "Blitzers side" a reason to exclude citicism and delete a large chunk of the article? I dont think so. Unless you can actually defend your changes citing policy you will need to revert them.82.29.229.116 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify, yes, Near East Report is an AIPAC publication, as I said four days ago. Whether it was published by AIPAC in the 70s, I don't know, although it is likely. What we do know is that Blitzer started working for the JPost in 1973. He may very well have edited a version of "Myths & Facts" in 1976, by the way, en edition of that book was published every two years. Plenty of journalists do outside work. Keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia. You need a reliable source thats says who he worked for and the dates. Pulling this information together from different primary sources is original research. You cannot quote somebody as calling Near East Report a "propaganda sheet" any more than another editor can say "Belfast is inhabited by "drunken and violent" Irish people with the quote cited to Thomas Nast. You also can't cite three people attacking Blitzer's scholarship in Territory of Lies without any response from Blitzer or his supporters. GabrielF 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, I wont respond to your silly example referring to where I live. Your racism is disgusting and reflects only on you but thats your problem.
- Hey, I've got no problem with the Irish. My point is that an encyclopedia can't make drive-by classifications of things based on one person's opinion. GabrielF 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Secondly, please dont further insult the intelligence of editors by implying that Near East Report was *possibly* published by someone else in 1970s. Blitzer edited the book ergo he worked for AIPAC, likewise he was editor of the weekly publication Near East Report into 1978. Source? The directoy listing showing his name listed as the responsible party at the weekly. He worked for them in 1976,77,78 regardless of whether you seek to portray that as "outside work" or anything else. His name is on the front cover of the book as editor right? His name is listed in the weekly publication as editor right? Are those facts in dispute by you?
- The problem is that it isn't clear that he did work for them during those years. Have you never seen an entry in a directory that is based on outdated information? The directory you are quoting contradicts other sources, such as Who's Who, CNN, the bio on Blitzer's book, etc.GabrielF 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Secondly, please dont further insult the intelligence of editors by implying that Near East Report was *possibly* published by someone else in 1970s. Blitzer edited the book ergo he worked for AIPAC, likewise he was editor of the weekly publication Near East Report into 1978. Source? The directoy listing showing his name listed as the responsible party at the weekly. He worked for them in 1976,77,78 regardless of whether you seek to portray that as "outside work" or anything else. His name is on the front cover of the book as editor right? His name is listed in the weekly publication as editor right? Are those facts in dispute by you?
- Friedmans words are his own, you removed not only the quote whos inclusion you disagree with but all the other details. Fine, remove the quote, but removing everything else? Criticism of Blitzer does belong in the section detailing criticism. An automatic rebuttal isnt necessarily required if its a minority view and/or it cant be located. I looked for Blitzers rebuttal, did you? Please include inline or in its own "responses to criticism" section but please stop acting unilaterally and work towards a consensus. 82.29.229.116 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)