Talk:Wolf Blitzer

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. [1]

--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 [2] 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 ^T/_C 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And here's [3] 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 Wikipedia which they can't fix. -Splash^talk 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 Wikipedia, and we should not be instituting one. -Splash^talk 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^talk 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 ^Ptalk29 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^talk 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 ^Ptalk29 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia: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)

Is this still on TV? -Splash^talk 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's been enough time, we can uprotect now. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 ..." [1]

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)

The Slate article which is a source for this claim, accused Blitzer of making a racist comment, while acknowledging he is not racist. This is what the article currently says. Specifically, the Slate article said "Blitzer .. stumbled and fell into a "Campanis moment." It links to the author's coined term "Campanis moment", which is: "A "Campanis moment" comes when a non-bigot says something regrettably racist while speaking extemporaneously." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 April 2007 (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.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.226.213 (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)

This talk page isn't made for such discussions, but I will say Duke was a hypocrite. He resented being introduced as a former member if the KKK, yet went on to condemn Blitzer for being a "former AIPAC lobbyist". 67.70.20.194 20:31, 13 March 2007 (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)

I see, so should there also be a full section on his family? I'm sure his family life has shaped his thinking on parenting and marriage. IP 24.188.142.75, you're logic doesn't add up. If you want to single out a lobbying organization that you disagree with, then this isn't the place to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monitorer (talk • contribs) 00:15:44, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Wolf

Is it short for Wolfgang? Felicity4711 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My bet is his grandfather's name (perhaps Wolf's as well) is probably "Zev," Hebrew for "wolf." Pretty unlikely that his grandfather was actually "Wolf," since it has such a stage name feel. Can anyone confirm? 207.237.129.183 13:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew a Wolfram who went by Wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.220.186 (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AIPAC

To set the record straight: Wolf Blitzer did work for AIPAC for a brief period of time as the Editor of AIPAC's monthly publication, the "Near East Report."[5][6] And if you want to subscribe to "The Nation," see this source.[7] Finally, these two sources (subscription only) from a Google news search also corroborate the above information.[8] The "Near East Report" is AIPAC's in house publication, and you can read it for yourself on their website.[9] If those sources don't satisfy you, then I will be your fifth source. I have first hand knowledge that Wolf Blitzer work as a publication editor at AIPAC. This is not a big deal; many successful people in various fields have worked for AIPAC, just like many people have worked for other lobbying organizations. It's a good job for any starting journalist. Monitorer 00:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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 [10], 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 [11]. 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 define Near East Report by quoting somebody as calling it 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)

Your use of that particular location out of literally millions of worldwide locations tells a different story. Your bigotry. Your problem. 82.29.229.116 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of your racist remark noted[12] 82.29.229.116 03:01, 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)

To restate the questions: 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?

Here is a photo of the front cover of the book. [13] - if you see Blitzer's name there I will happily apologize to you. GabrielF 03:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also checked the catalog information on the 1976 edition of the book in Worldcat and three university libraries and I have not seen Blitzer's name in any of these. GabrielF 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You should apologize for promoting conspiracy theories and racism. Check the source listing: "Myths and Facts 1976 A Concise Record of The Arab-Israeli Conflict (Paperback) by Wolf (Ed.) Blitzer (Author)". duh. On to your most recent frenzy of editing- you confuse criticism of Blitzer with the details of his career. The details on Bitzers tenure as editor of NER weekly 1977,78 and compendium 1976 do not originate with David Duke. Trying to poison the well by placing accurate detail on Blitzers AIPAC work next to the theories of Duke wont work. You wrote:

"It has been reported [reported AND recorded as fact in the American Jewish Yearbook 1977,78 directory listings] that Blitzer worked as a publications editor for Near East Research, Inc., a publisher [of the Near East Report weekly and compendium] affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [with NER in fact described by AIPAC as an "AIPAC periodocal"], in the 1970s [from the early 1970s prior to joining JPost (see Friedman) to the late 1970s]. Although Blitzer's exact involvement with AIPAC is unclear.. [unclear to who? 2 journalist on record, publishers of Near East Report 1976 and editors of American Jewish Yearbook 1977,78 on record- use of power word "unclear" to cast doubt on the facts. All that is "unclear" is when Blitzers work for AIPAC ended.].

If you looked for Blitzers name in connection with the weekly publication and the 1976 edition of the book but found nothing then you need to ask someone with more research experience / less tunnelvision to go over your work again. Here is Blitzer being congratuated in the preface for Myths & Facts - A guide to the Arab-Israeli conflict 2006, for his prior service as editor of Myths and Facts; "I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the distinguished group of past editors: Sheila Segal, Wolf Blitzer, Alan Tigay,.."[14] Further confirmation that Wolf Blitzer and Wolf "I" Blitzer are one and the same. And just for the hell of it heres some more physical evidence to rebut your conspiracy theory nonsense. I will re-edit the article and cite the details of Blitzer's work for NER/AIPAC, I don't believe you can be trusted to do this with an evenhand and attention to the facts. 82.29.229.116 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Who's Who list Blitzers middle name? Does Who's Who contradict Buffalo edu who detail how Wolf "I" Blitzer graduated in 1970? Does Who's Who contradict the publisher who printed "Editor: Wolf "I" Blitzer" on to Myths and Facts 1976? Does Who's Who even list the book, as does Amazon.com, as involving Blitzer? If Blitzer changed his name or dropped the "I" since 1970 when does Who's Who record that as taking place? When does Blitzers press office record that as taking place and why dont they list an association with AIPAC and Near East Research Inc's Myths and Facts 1976? According to you its because it never happened which can probably be considered a conspiracy theory- all the physical evidence says otherwise!

I made a point of detailing the exact wording in the American Jewish Yearbook which makes it crystal clear that the detail they used was based on what the actual organization, Near East Research Inc., reported to them:

"Looking to the section detailing the accuracy of the American Jewish Yearbook we find that his [Blitzers] information: "..is based upon answers furnished by the publications themselves.."

Now is that out of context? Not one bit. If you want to claim that the American Jewish Yearbook is less accurate than Who's Who, only because you think that Who's Who is going to be more accurate then you are onto a loser.82.29.229.116 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

"regrettably racist"?

I've read the Slate article a second time and I can find no mention of the phrase "regrettably racist". The word racist only appears twice:

• "While airing file footage of victims trudging through hip-deep water looking for help, Blitzer, no racist, said..."
• "Said Limbaugh, "The whole purpose of this story for Mr. Shafer and these stories on these lower level websites that hopefully they think will percolate to the mainstream press is to eventually indict the American way of life, to indict the American culture, to indict the American society as inherently unfair and racist.""

Even if this were true, I do not feel that one Jack Shafer column in Slate, one that isn't even entirely about Blizter, deserves an entire paragraph. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this. As I have already written on this Talk page (see above): The Slate article which is a source for this claim, accused Blitzer of making a racist comment, while acknowledging he is not racist. This is what the article currently says. Specifically, the Slate article said "Blitzer .. stumbled and fell into a "Campanis moment." It links to the author's coined term "Campanis moment", which is: "A "Campanis moment" comes when a non-bigot says something regrettably racist while speaking extemporaneously." Isarig 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the Slate article doesn't directly say that Blitzer said something "regrettably racist", the article called it a "campanis moment", which is a term that means that. You may think this is splitting hairs, but when we use exact quotes, we don't replace words with synonyms. You have also left out some other components of the "capanis moment" in your recap, namely the "non-bigot" and the "speaking extemporaneously" components. Regardless, the article did not use the phrase "regrettably racist" and we should not attribute it as saying that.

Secondly, once again you have not addressed the matter of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. I still don't see why we should devote a paragraph to an offhand comment by a Slate columnist. Were you to produce other commentators complaining about the comment or a news article about the comment, I would support inclusion. But it doesn't meet the bar for inclusion as it currently stands. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion about the notability, but I disagree, and the sourced criticism meets every criteria for inclusion. I will happily teak the wording to address the nitpicking, hair-splitting argument regarding "campanis moment", but if you remove well sourced information again, we will meet at WP/ANI to discuss your vandalism. Isarig 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your harping on the fact that the information is "well-sourced" is a straw man. No one is disputing the fact that the information is properly sourced. The question is not the validity of the source, but whether or not this is significant enough to be included. If you would prefer to use WP:AN/I instead of this page to discuss this matter, you are welcome to do so. I'm sure the users there would love to discuss your use of juvenile threats to attempt to get your way in an editorial dispute. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are repeatedly removed well sourced and relevant material under one false pretext after the other . Cease it. Isarig 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a piece of work. You make threats, you call me a "vandal", and you claim that my statements on this talk page (which are perfectly in line with WP policy) are a "pretext" for Lord knows what. Are you like this on every article you edit?

When you make your report on WP:AN/I, please post a link to it here. Thank you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The "so black" comment and its criticism is at least as notable as the other criticisms on this page. Googling for 'Blitzer + "You think we want terrorists to win"' provides about 400 results, many of them simply wikipedia entries or wikipedia mirrors, or various blogs. Googling for 'Blitzer +"so poor, so black"' provides twice as many hits. Your conduct here seems to be a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - you first removed this pargrph under the claim that it was not a "controversy". When it was returned to the article, pointing out that the paragraph is "criticism and controversy", you removed it agian, under the false pretense that the cited reference did not make that criticism. When it was pointed out to you that it did, you nitpicked over the exact wording, and when that was addressed, you moved on to a dubious claim of non-notability. Please stop this. Blitzer is a public figure, and is not above criticism. His comment regarding Katrina, whether racist or not, extemporaneously or not, drew criticism., from a WP:RS, and thus meets the criteria for inclusion. Isarig 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel, furthermore, this is an example of recentism, and will not stand the test of time. Arzel 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, please be aware that WP:RECENTISM is a user-written opinion essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. I would further posit that WP:RECENTISM directly contradicts WP:N, which clearly states that notability is generally permanent. Italiavivi 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you responded to me here, but you are missing an important aspect. You somehow fall to realize that this is not notable, and nor will it ever be. This is an efort to include criticism when none need be included. If it becomes notable then it would deserve inclusion, but it hasn't. It is almost two years old, and is not something that has stayed with him, other than a few that refuse to let it rest. Perhaps you should read more closely WP:BLP. Arzel 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If it will not stand the test of time, it will be removed in due course. Right now, it is a prominent criticism, equalt or more prominent to others on the page. Isarig 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it a "prominent criticism"? You haven't presented any evidence beyond two minor mentions by editorial columnists. This is a minor issue and could have been handled with a day or two of discussion, but you have prolonged it by refusing to discuss the disputed content with editors, substituting vitrol, namecalling, and threats for civil debate. Until you decide to start acting reasonably, this matter will drag on. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your tone is getting increasingly uncivil, and you are making demonstrably false allegations about me which amount to personal attacks. I strongly caution you to cease this. I have explained my reasoning, in detail, on this talk page and in edit summaries. You may disagree, but that is not enough for you to censor information. Isarig 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please. In the same breath that you accuse me of personal attacks, you attack me by calling me a censor. No, you have not explained anything in detail, you just say "notable" over and over again while calling people "vandals" and "censors". Anytime you want to stop the juvenile namecalling and discuss the article let us know. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The word censor in the sentence " not enough for you to censor information" is a verb, not an adjective. I am not decribing you, but your actions, which is perfectly permissable. You, on the other hand, have described me as "a piece of work" - a slur which should have earned you a block from editing until you can calm down. I have explained, in detail, how this alggedly "non-notable" criticism gets twice as many hits on Google as the other criticism on the page, which you have not defined as non-notable. Feel free to address the arguments, rather than the editor. Isarig 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling people censors is not permittable how ever you try to justify it. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How about calling them 'a ppiece of work", that ok? Isarig 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod someone until they lose their temper and then complain about a relatively minor breach of civility. That is an action that a troll would typically take. Note that I am not calling you a troll, I am describing you actions, which according to you, is "perfectly permissable." We can go back and forth like this for days, but I'm sure even you can see that this will get us nowhere. When you decide to stop calling people "vandals" and "censors" and take their statements and actions in good faith instead of immediately becoming hostile and accusing them of having hidden agendas, then you will become a civil and productive member of the WIkipedia community. Until then, you will continue to waste your time and the time of others in pointless edit wars. Which will you choose? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there an argumet relevant to the discussion hiding in there? all i can see are comments about the editor. Please review WP:CIVIL. Isarig 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you are unwilling to take your own advice. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have alreday presented my argument for notability, and repeated it today. Isarig 00:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. If that is true, then let's start fresh. Present your argument without reference to "censorship", "vandalism", supposed hidden agendas of other editors, and any other violations of WP:CIVIL. Then I will respond in kind, and perhaps we can actually discuss the issue. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 00:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's right above: The "so black" comment and its criticism is at least as notable as the other criticisms on this page. Googling for 'Blitzer + "You think we want terrorists to win"' provides about 400 results, many of them simply wikipedia entries or wikipedia mirrors, or various blogs. Googling for 'Blitzer +"so poor, so black"' provides twice as many hits. At least two of the criticisms related to the "so black" comment come from notable reliable sources such as Slate. I don't see you complaining about the notability of the first criticism, so I assume that you agree that 400 or so hits on Google, mostly from blogs, is notable enough, so twice as many hits should be notable as well. Isarig 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

LOSE INDENT - Lets look at this from a larger scale. WB has close to 40 years worth of journalism experience, and you are telling us that this one minor incident (which he certainly didn't intend to be malicious or racist) to be a defining incident in his career. Remember that for WP:BLP incidents of controversy must be held to a higher standard and not be undue weight. Arzel 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this incident any less notable or more recent that the criticism that precedes it in the article? Is that other one a defining incident in his career? Isarig 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just adding to my comments when you posted, and to be honest, the other criticism should also probably go as well, it is also not notable, nor will it stand the test of time. Arzel 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that something has to be a "defining incident" to be included. While we should keep in mind a historical perspective and not write as if Wikipedia were the daily newspaper, we can't know what will and what won't stand the test of time, and what doesn't stand that test can always be removed when that time comes. I don't necessarily object to the inclusion of these items, but proper sourcing demonstrating that there was a controversy is necessary. As it stands, it doesn't merit such a large paragraph and it certainly doesn't belong in CNN controversies, as all the sources demonstrate is that two columnists complained. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that "defining incident" is open to interpretation, but I would say that a minor incident with little or no additional commentary over a period of years (as the Lynne Chenney incident) certainly probably doesn't deserve inclusion. Arzel 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

German page

The title of the German page is "Wolf Blitzer" de:Wolf Blitzer - "Blitzer" is only a disambiguation page there. (And I lost my password so I couldn't edit this.) 84.115.129.76 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)