Talk:Martin Kramer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Add his support of starving the Muslims to death:

Copyvio tag[edit]

What the hell? That stuff I added to the main article is fine, especially under fair use legislation! I am also still editing the damn article!

I want to add:

Published works[edit]

  • Islam Assembled (1985)
  • Shi'Ism, Resistance, and Revolution (1987)
  • Hezbollah's Vision of the West (1989)
  • Middle Eastern Lives: The Practice of Biography and Self-Narrative (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East) (1991)
  • Arab Awakening & Islamic Revival: The Politics of Ideas in the Middle East (1996)
  • The Islamism Debate (with Daniel Brumberg and Merkaz Dayan Le-Heker Ha-Mizrah Ha-Tikhon Ve-Afrikah, 1997)
  • Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America (2001)

Now I've got to get around a bloody copyvio tag. If I remove it then I'm going to spat at by all sorts of editors. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the listing from WP:CP; thanks for the rewrite. I hope you understand why it looked like a possible problem to me. I sometimes spot check new articles without looking at who wrote them first. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's cool :-) I appreciate your diligence, and sorry for being so annoyed. I'd had a stressful wikiday, which is really no excuse for borderline abuse of a good wikipedian editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is Kramer is Journalist?[edit]

It is currently claimed that Kramer is a journalist in the article lead. I do see that Kramer is a columnist for Front Page Magazine. He also self publishes what could be called opinion articles on his own website. I do not see any evidence that he is in fact a journalist though. A journalist implies something different than an opinion columnist. I should note that being an editor of a quarterly journal publication is also not a journalistic endeavor but rather the work of an journal editor. -- 13:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Kramer call himself a neoconservative?[edit]

I have added a paragraph on Kramer's links to the neoconservative movement. It is important to note whether or not he explicitly calls himself a neoconservative or how he differentiates himself. -- 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Martin Kramer responds Neoconservative "codeword", Front Page Magazine association[edit]

I don't clean toilets and I don't change the contents of Wikipedia entries, even my own. I note that someone has liberally sprinkled the code-word "neoconservative" through this revised entry, has associated me with FrontPageMagazine twice for its reprinting items from my own website, and is otherwise out to "out" me. Well, that's why I have my own website. Visit it. --Martin Kramer. (Oh, and by the way, I have great respect for journalists, but I'm not a member of that guild by any stretch of the imagination.)

I have removed both the neoconservative association and the journalist mention from the lead paragraph. With regards to FPM, I will do some research to find a more balanced set of your writings to reference from the article. -- 18:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So, though you don't clean toilets yourself, you fancy scatological allusions and cleaning debattes - fine. Anyway: you're mentioned as a columnist at There's no indication that your articles were merely reprinted. It should be customary to see something like "reprinted with permission from...". However, if frontpagemag should correct this, I'd see to it that it gets reflected in the article. --tickle me 23:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Everything at FrontPageMagazine can be found on my website, posted on an earlier date. The obvious reason these pieces don't say "reprinted with permission" is because FPM never asks for permission. I have no objection to their republishing, but I do not write for them, they do not ask my permission, and they do not pay either. This is a fact; check it however you like, it's your encyclopedia. I do write invited pieces for journals and magazines. These include, in the past month, for example, the Jerusalem Report and So the Wikipedia entry offers a selective listing of places my work has appeared, the sole purpose of which is to bolster a polemical argument that squeezes me into a box. It is misleading. In any case, Tickle me, I appreciate your effort to keep this entry in line with the facts. I do not object to a certain measure of interpretative license, even if I don't fancy the results. But an encyclopedia should at least get the facts straight. If you would like to check one, drop me an email from my homepage.--Martin Kramer
I did a Google search on Martin Kramer and I included all the journals that are included on the first two pages of results. Try it yourself. (Also, I would suggest that you add to the Front Page Magazine article their habit of unauthorized republication of other work -- that is notable, especially in light of how you negatively view your association with them because of this behavior.) -- 00:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I checked it too. All articles listed here can be found at:
posted on earlier dates indeed. Technically, the allegations regarding their funny republishing customs are not proven. However, they are likely to be true. So, as long as nobody objects, I'll delete the FPM references - in dubio pro reo.
Related: You're still mentioned at Why don't you clarify the FPM republishing issue in some remote corner of your website? This would qualify as authentic, emails sent to wikipedia editors hardly would: they're easy to forge, besides, we're anonymous and untrustworthy by definition. Let's face it, the participant signing as Martin Kramer above could be, say, Donald Duck. "I would suggest that you add to the Front Page Magazine article their habit of unauthorized republication...": This would need some evidence. --tickle me 02:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be best to include in the article that Kramer's articles are being reproduced without permission on FPM. This clarifies the relationship in an open fashion such that it will not be brought up again. -- 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather not. We can't mention all online sites republishing the articles without notice and consent. On the other hand, citing only some is selective and biased. Thus, citing FPM is wrong, IMO. --tickle me
I must agree here. Works by notable scholars, like Mr. Kramer, circulate all over the Internet, and there is no reason to mention all the webpages where his work was reproduced. Pecher Talk 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Kramer responds to Iraq War quotations[edit]

To bring one quotation from the corpus of my writings is, by definition, quotation out of context. Nor is it obvious to me why a blockquote is admissible in an encyclopedia entry. But as the quote suggests, I believed Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction. You might also have brought this quote, from December 2002, in which I questioned the shifting rationale for the war:

Frankly, my eyes glaze over when I hear Condoleezza Rice, James Woolsey, and Tom Friedman wax eloquent on the coming "march of democracy" in the Arab world. (Woolsey to James Fallows in the current issue of The Atlantic: "This could be a golden opportunity to begin to change the face of the Arab world. Just as what we did in Germany changed the face of Central and Eastern Europe, here we have got a golden chance.") As a survivor of the Middle East peace process, which, we were told, would transform Israel, "Palestine," and Jordan into a Benelux, I smell snake oil. Of all the rationales for war, this one is the least substantial and the most ideological, and those who make it cast doubt on whether they fully understand the regional context in which an Iraq war might be fought.... The Iraq debate should be decided by the consideration of threats, threats, threats. It would be unfortunate were it to be sidetracked by promises, promises, promises.

Here. Either bring a full and representative range of quotes, or don't quote at all.

Opted for the latter. --tickle me 23:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Kramer above says that he believed Saddam has WMD, but it doesn't say that in the article I took the quote that he objects to. A different case is made for war based on Saddam's defiance and the general need to show the "Arabs" that terror won't be tolerated in the US or in Israel -- the need to teach the "Arabs" (there is a real focus on the general concept of "arabs" in his article - which was common back in the aftermath of 9/11) a lesson. I think quoting that article is fair game since Kramer is notable in being one of the first to advocate for attacking Saddam Hussein publically. It may be that Kramer is not the neutral guide to his own work (someone said something similar with regards to Fukuyama's recent reconceptualization in the NYMag of his early work on the end of history.) -- 00:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fisk link[edit]

The link to Robert Fisk's article – "How to Shutup Your Critics" by Robert Fisk, The Independent, October 21, 2002 – seems to have gone dead as it leads to The Independent's home page. I've blanked it, therefore. Pecher Talk 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with live link, though Kramer is only mentioned in passing - does it really add much to the article? Palmiro | Talk 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You can always give a shot at A hit, this time. -- 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin Kramer to John Esposito's quote[edit]

I am amused to see, reproduced here, John Esposito's accusations concerning the interests he thinks I have at heart. Professor Esposito has received $20 million from a Saudi prince for the activities of his Georgetown center--a fact not even mentioned in his Wikipedia entry. His claims about me are not a fact. I rather wonder whether it is the role of an encyclopedia entry to retail unsubstantiated claims or convey only one side of arguments--unless, of course, the authors themselves are partisans. --Martin Kramer

I must agree that Esposito's opinion does not add anything to the article. On a more general note, I need to say that Wikipedia should not be a collection of people's opinions about each other, especially in biographical entries. Pecher Talk 11:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an article created by self-selected individuals. I think that partisanship (Kramer's included) is resolved by collaborative editing -- give and take. I do enjoy Kramer's comments on this page. -- 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to note that Pecher warned me [1] when I removed an article by Kramer that was critical of John Esposito from John Esposito's article [2] but he was fine with removing any criticism of Kramer by Esposito here (see above.) I find that strange Pecher, can you explain why the two situations are different? Thx. -- 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Armon removed "Israeli-American" from lead with the comment "cite bogus in determining 'Israeli-American' -what's that supposed to mean anyway? that he's Jewish?".

If I was intent on denoting Kramer as Jewish I would just add it explicitly to the article or put him in an appropriate category, there is no need to be coy -- but I didn't since that isn't my concern. With adding "Israeli-American" to the lead I was denoting the fact that Kramer has both Israeli and American citizenship -- as denoted in the referenced article from the Forward. Kramer currently resides in Israel as well -- at least that is where his edits to this page originate. Armon replacement of "Israeli-American" with "American" is simply incorrect. -- 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Forward does not really count as a reliable source per WP:RS. I see no reason why Kramer cannot have Israeli citizenship, but, like everything else, it must be sourced to reliable sources. Also, it's impolite to change section titles written by other people. Pecher Talk 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have found two references now, Forward [3] and John Esposito [4] (professor of Middle Eastern studies), who say that he has dual American-Israeli citizenship. If you do a google search on Kramer and "Israeli-American" via Google you'll find articles all over the place that describe him as "Israeli-American." Here are a couple [5], [6], [7] (by Joel Beinin, another professor of Middle Eastern studies), [8]. BTW the Forward is a very reputable and conscientious publication. I think the best one can do in this situation is use a secondary source since Kramer does not publicly confirm or disavow this issue -- secondary sourcing is allowed, especially if multiple reputable sources are available. I apologize for changing the article titles. -- 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh OK, so even though he was born in the US to American parents, the unconfirmed claim that Kramer has dual citizenship, and the fact that he "He divides his time between Washington and Israel" [9] means we need to hyphenate his nationality to present him as a Rootless cosmopolitan with dual loyalties à la the Dreyfus Affair. Nice. Armon 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
ack -> POV. --tickle me 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you meant here, Tickle. Armon 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I seconded you ...being too cryptic. (ack = acknowledge/support/agree among geeksters)
Thanks for your opinion Armon. If you read the articles I referenced, such as the Forward one (which is a mainstream and reputable Jewish-oriented publication), he is denoted explicitly as "Israeli-American." If you can find a reputable source that claims clearly that Kramer does not have Israeli citizenship then I will drop the matter. As it is right now there are numerous reputable sources that he does have dual citizenship and it would be inaccurate to claim otherwise and censorship to avoid mentioning the matter. I think your insinuations make it clear that it is time to get a third opinion on the matter. -- 02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: I have made a RfC here [10]. -- 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Instead of working on the assumption that the secondary sources' phrase "Israeli-American" means he has dual citizenship, why don't you find a good source that explicitly states that he does? In which case, no one will object to it being noted. What we do know is that he is an American who may or may not have dual citizenship, and even if he does, the term "Israeli-American" is still problematic, because it's unclear, it's what one would normally term an Israeli immigrant to the US, and it's also a phrase used by his critics to simply poison the well rather than addressing whether his ideas are good or not. Armon 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I came here through the RfC. I agree that an authoritative source for "Israeli-American" needs to be found. Regardless, it seems to me that the issue may be being discussed in the wrong terms. "Israeli-American" doesn't indicate dual citizenship in the US and Israel anymore than "African-American" indicates dual citizenship in the US and, uh, Africa; it indicates race and/or ancestry. In any case, his dual citizenship would be a strange choice for top billing of adjectival clauses. I guess the bottom line of my self-contradicting contrariness is, if a reputable source indicates that his parents identify themselves as Israeli, or that he identifies himself as Israeli-American, it should go in. If he has dual citizenship, that should also be indicated, but elsewhere (the importance of which I have no opinion on). I'd also note that the guy seems surprisingly internetted up. Why don't you just ask him? --Sneftel 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Asking him occurred to me too -but wouldn't that then be original research? Armon 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If he posts the response on his website, then it will be verifiable and will not be original research. Pecher Talk 08:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Or post his response on WikiSource. --Sneftel 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
John Esposito, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Georgetown University, said explicitly that "Kramer who has Israeli citizenship and spent his career at Tel Aviv University [in Israel] running the Moshe Dayan Centre." [11]. If Kramer can provide some info on his citizenship it may be best to add it back to the article as "American-Israeli" as User:Sneftel suggested at the other order is incorrect. -- 14:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean here, where Esposito destroys his credibility by trotting out an anti-Semitic dual loyalty conspiracy theory: "The problem is that people do not address the question of who are the people behind this? What about Kramer who has Israeli citizenship and spent his career at Tel Aviv University running the Moshe Dayan Centre? That is fine with me. But if you look at the track record of the likes of Kramer and Pipes, do they ever criticise the Sharon government? I would say that they are not arguing for what is in the best interests of America. They are, rather, arguing for what is in the best interests of Israel." This, from a "balanced" guy (if Kramer's post here is true) who happens to be on the payrole of a Saudi prince. Gimme a break.
Also, read what Sneftel actually wrote, "American-Israeli" isn't going to be any better, even if you do find a credible source. Armon 13:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The above claim that Esposito can't be correct because there is a similarity to an anti-Semitic argument is a logical fallacy. "Brandishing the big stick of anti-semitism against all and sundry helps no one: it lumps together serious critique with crackpot ravings, does a signal disservice to those who really suffered from it in the past and stifles a badly needed debate within the US." for more check out this great editorial by Mark Mazower [12]. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Esposito's "anti-semitism" is debatable even if he does use the same narrative as anti-semites, the fact he was "poisoning the well" however, is not, and that is a logical fallacy. Find a credible source instead of an ad hominem. Armon 06:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I would read the definition of "poisoning the well" -- it has to do with prior presentation of specific information in order to bias later presenation of the meat of the argument. Kramer is not making a prior presentation but rather making a more mundane accusation that Kramer is Israeli-American for all intensive purposes and this perspective explains many of the harsh critics Kramer makes of arabist or non-"Israel first"-ing professors. In a way, I feel that excluding this information is being done intentionally in order to make Kramer appear as more of a neutral commentator than he is (which would undeniably help improve general audience receptivity to Kramer's message.) Although I think that you are right that in order to avoid "poisoning the well" with a mention of "Israeli-American" or vice versa we shouldn't place it in the lead but rather somewhere in the middle, thus we will not be biasing the presentation of the meat of the article. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
So exactly what are we meant to infer, if he does in fact have Israeli citizenship? My problem was with a dubious source, but now you've just admitted advocating ad hominem instead of presenting Kramer's actual positions. In fact, some POV pusher has just pasted the example of the ad hom attack by Esposito I posted above to the Talk:Islamism page in order to make a similarily specious point. Armon 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See also removed by Pecher[edit]

Pecher wrote: "the section is original research and highly offensive." The content of the removed "See also" section was the one following link:

I noticed the page and added it to Martin Kramer's page. Can you explain why it is "highly offensive"? If the other article contains offensive material or "original research", would it be better to work on that article rather than remove it from this article? Is the association highly offensive? I did not write the other article, mearly noticed its existence and the claim that he was a protégé of Kramer and Pipes and had worked with them extensively. -- 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a cleanup tag to the article and clearly stated that it does not contain adequate references for the claims that it is making. I will make an effort to look for support for this -- you could be right that the claims are fictious, that originally did not occur to me. -- 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If the main issue was his status as a registered lobbyist, I found a valid reference for that via Open Secrets. thus the article needs clean-up but it doesn't appear to be a deliberate attempt at slander, although it can be viewed as semi-POV in its current state. -- 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Jonathan Calt Harris being a "well-known protégé of Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes" is an unsourced allegation unless backed authoritatively. Please provide facts first, edit later. --tickle me 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Martin Kramer link spamming Wikipedia?[edit]

Martin Kramer has supposidely (there is no primary source confirmation) contributed on this talk page via the IPs: User: and Both of these from -- an Israel-based ISP.

While doing some contextual research on Martin Kramer in Wikipedia I started to notice a very significant number of external links that point to articles on Martin Kramer's site. The large number of these linked Martin Kramer essays are critical of the subjects of the articles on which they are linked. These additions have all been done by anonymous IPs that only engage in adding these links (they do not contribute generally to the discussion or to the article contents - except in two small cases listed below), originating from primarily two IP blocks. These two blocks are (the same block Martin Kramer supposedily edited this page from) and (where Martin Kramer is a fellow in the US).

Here is a partial listing of the edits

I will complete this list if requested -- although I think the point is clearly made by this selection. Other articles that have the same external link additions by the IPs listed above are Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al Jazeera, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Al-Waleed bin Talal, Anti-Semitism, Musa al-Sadr, Al-Andalus, Hamas, Elie Kedourie, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Alawite, Edward Said, Jean Genet, George Antonius, Political aspects of Islam, Temple Mount, Orientalism, Arab, Muslim Brotherhood, Sami Al-Arian, Orientalism (book), Islamism, AMIA Bombing, World Trade Center bombing, Hezbollah, Temple in Jerusalem, Incidents_during_the_Hajj, Wahhabism, Iranian_pilgrim_riot, Abraham_Geiger, Ignaz_Goldziher, Maxime_Rodinson, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Mohammedan, Ármin Vámbéry, Friedrich Wolf, Islam and Judaism, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Alawite, Arab world, Islam and anti-Semitism, Suicide attack, and Tanya Reinhart.

IPs involved:

I haven't done a complete survey but so far the only non-Martin Kramer promoting edits by these anonymous IPs I could find are this sentence removal relating to Mecca [13], and this English to French correction on Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson [14].

I think this qualifies as self-promoting link spamming (a type of vandalism) potentially committed by Martin Kramer himself. Where should I take this up? I do not think that Martin Kramer deserves the prominence that he (?) has created for himself in Wikipedia. -- 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The links are germane and their origin is not of much relevance. Pecher Talk 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think taken together it is a very significant POV contribution. I am going to seek a neutral opinion. (I have made a posting related to this matter here [15] on the Requests for Investigations page.) -- 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they are spam. Feel free to revert all additions and warn the IPs (see WP:TT for some templates you can use such as {{spam}}). If they continue report to WP:AIV for blocking. Thanks for helping. Petros471 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The links certainly appeared to be spam on first glance (adding a large number of links to many articles, hosted by geocities is usually a big give away). However as several other editors have said they are fine, I have no problem with that, and withdraw my statement calling them spam; though I do agree that it would have been better if they were added by a registered account, taking into account the external link guidelines saying adding links to your own websites is discouraged. Petros471 10:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is he spam because hes prominent works really hard writing a lot of stuff you dont like? I think you are doing vandalism and spam is just an excuse.

It is acceptable to add back in selected links if you feel they are relevant contributions. I was just reverting the mass link spamming as a whole since it was determined to fall into the category of vandalism. -- 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you were pushing your own POV by deleting links to content you don't agree with, while advancing a conspiracy theory you have no evidence for. Are we supposed to jump to the absurd conclusion that the fact that your IP places you in Ottawa means that you must be Stephen Harper? Armon 13:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher Reverting Link Spam - Why?[edit]

User:Pecher -- I notice you are now reverting the removal of Martin Kramer links. I am not going to engage in an edit war and I apologize for apparently starting one. Please explain your behavior. It may be best to take this to mediation if you feel I am out of line. Thx. -- 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See below and your talk page. These are relevant articles from a reputable source. There are no grounds for removing them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As per my talk page, I feel that the discussion with you is deteriorating and it is time to take this to mediation. -- 00:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is not deteriorating, and I'm not about to enter mediation with an anon IP who's mass deleting perfectly relevant links. Please sign up for an account, or use your own if you have one already, and read our policies before editing any further. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is POV to classify my actions as "mass deleting perfectly relevant links". Please do not be so quick with the inflamatory accusations when it is clear there is more to the matter. -- 00:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
She's just calling a spade a spade and has been quite indulgent in not blocking you already. I strongly suggest you avoid wasting people's time with "mediation" threats or worse, a WP:RfAr -you don't have a case and you'll just get blocked for longer or banned. Armon 12:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Kramer here again[edit]

There is no need to investigate. My research assistants have instructions to add relevant links--and only relevant links--when appropriate. Most of this material is not self-published--it is material published in academic journals, which I myself have made available on my site. I see that spam is adding "inappropriate external links for advertisement and/or self-promotion." It says nothing about appropriate links.

I see no reason why readers of Wikipedia should be deprived of an entry I have written on Bernard Lewis or Elie Kedourie for the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, or an article on Hezbollah published in Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, or an article on the AMIA bombing published in Commentary, or a review and analysis of Fouad Ajami or Gilles Kepel published in the National Interest, or an article about pilgrimage politics published in a university-press collected volume. The place of publication of these pieces is indicated clearly on the right sidebar of each piece. I would agree that self-published blog entries haven't the same standing--delete away.

If Wikipedia is serious about external links, it should allow readers of the particular entries to determine whether or not they are appropriate. To remove links on the basis of their origin, rather than their appropriateness, is just a purge.

Could you please confirm that you are in fact Martin Kramer by adding a reference to this discussion on your website? This is a real concern since on the internet, and especially Wikipedia, anonymous IPs can claim to be anyone. This is critical since you are talking about your own actions. -- 23:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Go here: Under the Iraq news on the right sidebar, scroll to the bottom. You will see your user number:
Yuck, go to Iraq4.htm, toggle off CSS & Ctrl+F for - thus it won't take hours. As for the edits, in most cases references to MK's articles are legitimate and germane, sometimes his articles are even used as sources in wikipedia entries. However, it's a, ah, awkward way to do things here. Opening an account for these assistants is certainly advisable. --tickle me 23:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Apologies if I've violated some protocol. I will have them do that. --M<
The links are perfectly valid because Kramer is a scholar in the area. He counts as a reputable source for Wikipedia and the links are being added only where they're directly relevant. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the writings of one single scholar are directly relevant to all ~55 articles his work was added to? I could understand a couple but every single one? You do realize that it was his own assistants (as he claims) determining this. I think this is a very slippery slope here and allowing this will encourage other scholars to also engage in this spamming activity. I am very concerned about this. -- 00:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, you made your first edits today as an anon, unless you also edit using other accounts or IP addresses. You seem to have targeted Martin Kramer, making edits to his page and mass deleting his articles wherever you can find them, because you don't like the POV. Then you wonder why your edits are rolled back and you're accused of vandalism. As I said, Martin Kramer is someone Wikipedia is pleased to use as a source. So long as the articles he adds are relevant, there is no harm done. On the contrary, readers may find the links useful. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you just say that I am suspect because I discovered that Martin Kramer was covertly adding his own links to ~55 articles while claiming above that he doesn't edit wikipedia articles. It is clear that you are at least as partisan as I am. ;-) -- 00:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, "covertly"? Probably, not so covertly, if people can see and use these links. Did you fail to read Kramer's comments that the links were added by his assistants? Or do you mean there is some sinister neocon (other, more ethnically charged words were used in the past) conspiracy here at work? Pecher Talk 09:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
My assistants (and I) haven't changed the contents of Wikipedia entries. They've altered nothing, deleted nothing, added no substantive content. And I conduct my business (and my battles) on my own site. Few scholars maintain sites (aside from blogs), and still fewer go to the trouble of putting up past scholarly materials, whether it is a description of an archive in Egypt or an account of a Muslim congress in the 1930s. The links to these pieces and others are a fraction of what could be added, if everything here were on the web. They are pointers offered as a service to readers, especially of the more obscure entries. Systematically deleting them is simply a disservice. I see that others call it vandalism.--Martin Kramer
Many of these are relevant, high-quality scholarly articles that are of interest to anybody reading about the organizations in question, and they are not commercial links. The only regrettable thing is that as they all (naturally) represent Dr. Kramer's perspective, and they're often not balanced by any other perspective, the only link of this quality on most of the pages in question is to an article representing a decidedly right-wing US point of view. The best way to deal with this would of course be to find articles written from a more centrist/left-wing/Arab perspective and add them as well. Palmiro | Talk 13:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
While the links seem to have been in general appropriate I suggest that in the future you ask your assistance to put a note on the talk page making it clear where they are coming from and that they think the link is relevant. Then let an uninvolved user decide to add it or not, or if no one comments in a few days, feel free to add it. JoshuaZ 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading over this discussion, the behavior seems very problematic, although it does not appear to have been abusive. But to have a subject of a WP:BLP not only editing his own biography but also directing assistants to do so, and to edit other articles, seems to be opening the door for abuse (very similar to the abuse that was uncovered when congressional staffers were doing this very thing). I would ask that Mr. Kramer get a Wikipedia login that identifies him as who he is, and publicly disclose the accounts of his associates who are editing for him as well -- that way all the chips are on the table. If problematic edits are then made, their source will be identified right away. I hope that Kramer and whoever he has hired to edit wikipedia for him pay attention to this material as well. csloat 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So, some time has passed. Can Mr. Kramer please indicate who his assistants are that he has directed to edit Wikipedia? If these people are editing other articles as well as this one, there are definitely concerns about good faith that could be raised. Those concerns could be cleared up easily if such editors are publicly identified. Thanks. csloat 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Your request is out of line. No one knwos who you are, either. For all we know, you're a paid assitant to one of Kramer's politcal opponents. Request that editors identify themselves are a vioaltion of numerous principles of WP. Isarig 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, editing as a paid representative of a subject of a WP:BLP without informing people of that interest is a violation of numerous principles of WP. As you know, this became a significant issue when it became known that paid political staffers were editing the biographies of Congressmen. If you think I have violated some rule by requesting that people reveal such conflicts of interest, feel free to start an RfC against me - I'd be interested to see where it goes. You've certainly reported me before based on more specious claims. Your vehemence on this particular issue makes me wonder about your own interests here; you could certainly clear the air by letting us know what they are.csloat 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My interests here are to have an encyclopedia which is NPOV, and to avoid an environment where editors are subject to intimidation and veiled threats such as the one you are using, in an attempt to force them to reveal their identity. Your bad faith here is amazing. As you correctly note, I have reproted you in the past. As as you proabbly remember (but fail to mention), those reports, far from being specious, resulted in your being blocked. Rest assured I will not hesitate to report you again, should you keep this up. Isarig 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone is being paid to insert information into wikipedia in order to make articles lean in particular directions, that clearly violates the values of Wikipedia. Again, this was a big issue when certain Congressional staffers were exposed doing that. If you or any other editor is being paid by Mr. Kramer to edit in a particular manner, the right thing to do is make that information public. I am entirely sick of your attacks on my character, Mr. Isarig. I have asked you to stop the personal attacks over and over and yet you continue. This has nothing to do with me, and I don't see why I should even entertain your ridiculous accusation of bad faith, other than to remind you to read WP:AGF before replying to me again. While you are catching up on your reading, I should also ask you to stop holding up the mediation on the Juan Cole page -- either accept the designated mediator or reject him so we can move on. As far as the issue here goes, it is likely that you are well aware of what the problems are with someone being paid by the subject of a biography to enter information into that page (or into the pages of biographies of people that subject has a conflict with). That you characterize my claim as some kind of threat is completely hysterical. Feel free to file an RfC against me for insisting that there is something wrong with a conflict of interest like the one presented here, but please stop personally attacking me and insulting me. csloat 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is too funny for words. You baselessly accuse me of being paid by Kramer to edit WP with a certain bias, and then have the audacity to complain taht I am not assuming good faith with regards to these accusations! No one is being paid, afaik, to edit this article to lean in a particular direction. Your accuasations that such is the case are baseless, and yoru demands that editors identify themselves to you (while you, of course, remain anonymous!) are the epitome of bad faith and undermine the spirit of this project. Isarig 23:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't accused you of anything, and I'm not interested in how amused you are by this very serious issue. And you were the one to use the phrase "bad faith," not me, so I don't think I was stretching your words in the least (in fact, you used the same phrase again in this post!). Your claim that nobody is being paid to edit Wikipedia is false, at least according to Mr. Kramer, who admits having instructed his assistants to do this above; all I did was suggest that whoever is editing Wikipedia as a paid representative of Mr. Kramer should let us know who they are. If anyone (including you) is editing Wikipedia because they have been instructed to do so by their employer, that is "the epitome of bad faith" and undermines "the spirit of this project" in very obvious ways, and that is true whether their employer is a Congressman or an academic. Again, Isarig, will you please stop personally attacking me and just pay attention to the arguments here? Your claim that I remain anonymous is ludicrous -- my username is well known and associated with my blog, and other wikipedia editors have even published my real name and affiliation (which I have never tried to hide). And, of course, you know very well who I am (at least in an occupational sense) since you used that information in a very public and very ludicrous attempt to personally attack me not so long ago. For you to now pretend I am protecting my "anonymity" is laughable. I don't care who anyone is in a personal sense, but I do care - and Wikipedia cares - if someone is being employed by the subject of a biography to change that biography, or the biographies of other subjects. Stop trying to make this personal, Isarig. csloat 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't play these games of sophistry with me. You have written, about me, "Your vehemence on this particular issue makes me wonder about your own interests here; you could certainly clear the air by letting us know what they are", followed by " If you or any other editor is being paid by Mr. Kramer to edit in a particular manner, the right thing to do is make that information public." - this is a clear accusation. This is your last warning - do it again and you will be reported. You are quite possibly the worst offender of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I have seen on WP. What is comical is that you showed up here more than 7 months after Kramer acknowledged his assistants had added links to appropriate articles, apologized if he vioalted some protocol he was not aware of, and said his editors would identify themselves if/when they edited again. Since that time, the article has seen relatively low volume of edits, nearly all of them from well knwo WP editors. More to the point, between Dec 2, when you showed up demanding that editors identify themselves, and Dec 14 when you again showed up to comaplin that "time has passed" and no one has met your demands, there has been exactly 1 edit to teh article. What is driving you on this witch hunt? Isarig 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of playing games and of bad faith or of being "quite possibly the worst" of anything. I know what I wrote, and I did not accuse you of anything; I said your vehemence made me wonder, and that if you were editing as a paid assistant, that it was wrong to hide the fact that you were doing so. That is not "a clear accusation"; what you quote is a conditional statement. Please stop threatening me Isarig - I have said from the beginning that if you think I am doing something wrong by making the suggestion that paid assistants of a BLP subject should identify themselves that you were welcome to avail yourself of Wikipedia remedies. You suggest that Kramer said his assistants would identify themselves, but the only thing I see him saying is that they would get accounts. This is not a "witch hunt" - it is a simple issue of potential conflict of interest -- if such conflicts exist, they should be made public. That is all I have advocated here, and you would see that if you re-read my posts without personalizing them. Have a nice day. csloat 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
why don't you set a good exmaple, by identifying all the possible conflicts of interest you might have, on any article of WP you have edited? That would include, of course, at a minimum, your current and past employers, and those of your immediate family and close friends. It should probably include any and all political affiliations you may have currently, or had in the past, and again , ditto for immediate family and close friends. I bet that doesn't sound quite appealing to you, and there's little chance we'll see anything like that from you, seeing as you continue to hide behind a psuedonym (both here and on your blog) - yet here you are demanding the same of editors of this page, while the issue that prompted it is more than 7 months old. Isarig 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I will be the first to let you know as soon as a current or past employer asks me to edit an article about myself (or anyone else!) on Wikipedia. It doesn't sound nearly as unappealing as you make it sound. Please stop the personal attacks -- telling me I am "hiding" behind a pseudonym is nonsense. You are making a big deal out of this -- all I stated (which I thought was perfectly reasonable) was that if someone is being paid to edit Wikipedia or is being asked to edit wikipedia as part of their job, that fact should not be obscured. If this doesn't apply to you, just leave it alone -- why are you taking it so personally? (By the way, I must ask you to also quit making specious charges against me -- I made no personal attacks here; I simply challenged your arguments. thanks!) csloat 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

why should it matter if someone is being asked to edit WP as part of his job, vs. someone editing WP out of political motivation? In what way are these "conflicts of interest" different? Isarig 03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, why should it matter if a politician advocates a political platform because she or he believes it, as opposed to having been asked to advocate it because they were bribed? In what way are these "conflicts of interest" different? Do you really need me to walk you through the logic here? Again, Wikipedia has dealt with this issue in the past, and the issues are no different now just because Kramer is not a Congressman.csloat 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy is faulty on at least 2 counts. 1, from a legal perspective, bribery is a crime, so it matters if a politician has been bribed. Conversely, WP policies do not forbid editing for pay, so no violation occurs, and even if WP policies did forbid it, it would still not be a crime. 2, from an ethical perspective, bribing politicians was made a crime because it (ultimately) could lead to a violation of the principle of equality - it would enable the rich to "buy" policy changes favorable to them. No such problem exists on WP, because you could pay your assistants as much as you want to edit WP in your favor - and csloat could still wipe their edits out as soon as they are made. Now, how about answering my question? If you are concerned about bias, or potential conflict of interetst, are you also advocating that partisan editors confess all their political and ideological leanings before editing? Isarig 04:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on -- you're splitting hairs about the definition of bribery and avoiding the actual issue - hair splitting aside, what about a government regulator who sits on the board of companies he or she is supposed to regulate? No, I am not advocating that partisan editors confess their ideological leanings (though most editors do anyway); I am simply advocating that edits made for money (or for an employer) be identified as such. It should not be that controversial a point. The difference is between people who make edits because they believe in them and come to do so on their own, and people who make edits because they were paid to do so or because their boss told them to do so. It is no different from having meatpuppets. Again, I don't think my point is that controversial and I think the only reason you are making a big deal out of it is because I am the one making the point. Can you please stop making this personal? I have wasted far too much time on this as it is. csloat 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not splitting hairs. You used an obviously bad analogy, and I pointed out why it was faulty. And you are again being non-responsive to the question: I am asking you what is the difference, in terms of WP:COI and the need to disclose the potential COI, between a paid contributor and an unpaid activist, and you reply that the difference is that one is a paid contributor and the other is an unpaid activist. That's non-responsive. Why should edits being made for money be disclosed, but edits being made to advance "the cause", or "the party" , or for the sake of peer approval not be disclosed? How are they different? How are monetary benefits different from non-monetary benefits, as far as their potential to create COI? In your new analogy - of course the regulator who does that has a COI, but so would a regulator who sits, as an unpaid advisor, on the board of a non-profit activism group that has some interests in the regulated body - you would expect such COI to be disclosed regardless of the monetary compensation involved. Isarig 06:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I explained the difference -- one is acting out of belief, the other for pay (or fear of losing a job). It is responsive. That difference is one firmly established in American legal tradition, for example, and I shouldn't need to keep explaining it to you. Again, this was an issue for Wikipedia before - read this - and the issues are no different here. csloat 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agian, that is not a response to the question you are being asked. I am aware that one is being paid, and the other is motivated by ideology. I am asking you how does that difference impact the amount of bias, or the potential conflict of interest between editing WP in a neutral way and advancing the cuase. You have yet to answer that, depsite being asked at least 5 times. I take it you have no answer, which is fine. We can leave it at that. (One final note, since you keep bringing it up - contrary to the impression you are trying to cretae here, the issue of Congressional staffer edits was not settled by having WP require that they identify themsleves. The edits were reviewed and "most of the edits were considered to show good faith by Wikipedia editors, a minority were considered improper. At least one of the addresses involved was blocked from further editing" - teh address being blocked was for making abusive edits, which is common WP practice for any editor making such edits.)Isarig
Of course, without knowing who was a paid staffer, there was no way to evaluate which edits were abusive -- the edits were only reviewed after they had been identified. You're asking for a distinction I have already made -- the distinction between someone who genuinely believes what they write and someone who disingenuously writes as if they believe because they have been instructed to do so. I really have no interest in continuing to counter what appears to be sheer sophistry on this matter. I have made my position clear, and everyone else who has entered the discussion appears to agree, and Wikipedia policy appears to be consistent with my position -- again, you are advocating a bizarre form of paid meatpuppetry, something users are generally banned for. So, that's that -- people paid to edit Wikipedia should let other editors know that they are doing so. csloat 20:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just talking nonsense. Edits are either abusive or not, regardless of who makes them. To allege that a certain edit would be considered abusive if made by X, but not if made by Y is ridiculous. Specifically, the single paid congressional staffer IP that was blocked was blocked for [libelous statements, adding content with malice and adding childish insults] - all which are blockable offenses which are easily identifiable regardless of the identity of the editor. You are repeatedly asserting that there is a difference between someone who believes what they write and someone who disingenuously writes as if they believe because they have been instructed to do so - but other than pointing to the obvious fact that one is paid and the other is not, you have not explained even once why that difference matters, as far as the possibility that a COI exists. Contrary to what you claim here, most of the editors who got involved in this dispute have recognized that there is no difference between paid editing, and activism-based editing. See for example this and this. Contrary again to what you claim, WP policy nowhere agrees with your position - which is a demand that paid editors identify themselves while unpaid activists do not - but rather encourages every editor who might have a COI to avoid editing articles in which the COI exists - whether they are paid or not. I think it is quite evident at this point, that for all your highfalutin nonsense about the distinctions allegedly drawn in American legal theory and in philosophy between paid COI and unpaid COI, you actually don't have any explanation why these two types of COI are any different as far as editing WP goes. We'll leave it at that. Isarig 22:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, just take a deep breath and calm down; once again I implore you to stop hurling insults at me. I have been extremely patient with your personal attacks. As I said on the COI page, payment is not the key issue (though it is an issue), and I have explained the difference in detail -- you conceded my arguments and reverted to the same refrain that I have not explained myself. The main issue here is the same as that raised by meatpuppetry -- someone being directed by another to make a statement as if it were they themselves making the statement. It is a simple issue of deception, and all I have advocated is that people should not be deceptive. You have accused others of sophistry yet your arguments seem to be the height of sophistry. Are you really pro-deception? Do you think we should eliminate the rules against sock- and meat-puppetry? Do you think it is OK to create a phony consensus about a version of a page by paying a staff to edit the page and make false arguments in talk? As you should know, I agreed with the other editors that unpaid COIs should be made explicit too, and I suggested a reasonable way to do so -- anyone who is editing at the explicit behest of another should indicate they are doing so. This does not mean you have to identify your political party or list that you belong to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. But if Mothers Against Drunk Driving requires you to insert certain things into Wikipedia as part of your duties to this organization, other WP editors should be informed about that. It truly boggles the mind to see anyone so vehemently opposed to that claim, and it raises questions that have so far been unanswered. If this doesn't apply to you, Isarig, why are you so personally invested in it? csloat 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It is getting tiresome to see you start every post by claiming that I am insulting you or attacking you. I am doing neither, Unless you consider pointing out that your claims are false to be an insult or an attack. If that is the case, you need to review WP:NPA, specifically the section that says Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.. You have now, after we've been going at it for a few days, conceded that there is in fact no real difference between paid editing, and unpaid partisan editing, which is good. If I played a small part in your coming to that realization, I am happy. Your suggestion that anyone who is editing at the explicit behest of another should indicate they are doing so (rather than just paid editors, which is what you were advocating for earlier) is progress, but not enough. As I pointed out in that discussion, the existence of a directive to edit is immaterial to the COI. Consider the following 2 cases: An employer does NOT instruct his employee to edit articles about the the employer (personally) or the employer's business - but the employee does so anyway, under his own initiative (either becuase he thinks this will benefit him in some way, or because he really believes the employer is helping make the world a better place) - surely a COI exist here, even without the employer's instruction. It is so obvious that the COI exists, that it is one of the first things mentioned on WP:COI: "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors". Now, consider a scenario where a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving goes to his MADD chapter meeting, hears explicit instructions from his chapter leader NOT to edit WP in a POV view, but since he recently lost a child in a DUI-related accident, he does edit WP related to drinking, from a predictable POV. Clearly, a COI exists, despite the fact that he was instructed by MADD leaders not to edit that way, and despite the fact that he is unpaid, and truly believes in his position. The end result is the same: WP is edited in a non-neutral way. The only way to avoid this is to require ALL editors to disclose any and all actual and potential COIs, and to create an effective monitoring and policing mechanism for this policy. This is of course impossible, so we have to rely on the community to ferret out POV edits, without bowing to demands from the likes of you that specific subsets of editors disclose potential COI, while others remain anonymous. As a final note, though I have said this already: casting aspersions about what my personal interest in this might be is a CLEAR CASE OF PERSONAL ATTACKS, one which you have already been called on by other editors. I have no personal interest in this. I am only interested in a NPOV WP, free from bias introduced by either paid contributers or ideologically motivated unpaid partisans. If you repeat this aspersion again, I will report you. Isarig 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling my posts highfalutin nonsense is a personal attack. Please stop threatening to file spurious reports - you threaten only the integrity of wikipedia when you do that, not me. As for your claim that I have changed my mind; it is incorrect - I have acknowledged there are similar issues with unpaid members of an organization who are explicitly ordered to make edits to wikipedia as part of their job -- that has been my position all along; the fact that there be a monetary incentive (or a fear-of-disobeying-an-employer incentive, which concerns me more) is additionally problematic for reasons you claim not to understand and I will not belabor further. As I noted on the COI page, I acknowledge there will always be gray areas and I never stated that my proposal would end all POV problems; only that it was a good simple rule of thumb to follow -- your examples are amusing but they really don't dispute this point at all. If you have no personal investment in this, then leave it alone; stop pretending I am personally attacking you just because I'm asking why you're so personally invested in this. csloat 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest since there is nothing that's specific to Martin Kramer. If you think my warnings are spurious - just try me. Isarig
I didn't say your threats were spurious. I said you were threatening to file spurious reports. Now you are threatening yet again. Why do you keep trying to intimidate me? csloat 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think the report is spurious - try me. Cast the same aspersion again, I'll report you, and we'll see how the WP community treats an editor who continues to baselessly insinuate that another editor is a paid meatpuppet. Go on, I'm waiting. Isarig 02:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Grow up. csloat 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

Please read WP:COI. The issue of bias is a major concern at wikipedia and part of our attempt to deal with it is to tell people who are being paid to edit wikipedia to only edit the talk pages and let others decide whether or not to add the material to the article. WAS 4.250 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems quite reasonable to me. csloat 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Entry is a smear[edit]

This entry, as currently constituted, is really just a smear of Martin Kramer. It says nothing about his scholarship or career, and serves as a platform for lengthy derogatory quotes from his political opponents. Way, way short of even the most minimal Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree, and removed some, with a suggestion below. Mackan79 (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs work[edit]

I'm not familiar enough with the subject of this bio to make a lot of improvement, but it would seem the article could use some better material from these sources, added to more appropriate places. I see some criticism, which has been placed prominently in several sections on his work, but which it seems to me should most likely be summarized in the section on his "Political involvement." I am not so familiar, as I said, but it seems the support for Campus Watch here is the main issue, which could be succinctly mentioned without then having so many statements of criticism in so many places (Massad fits in this category, as does Beinin and possibly others). I removed a bit already, but otherwise I'll just leave this as a suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Massad quote doesn't even specifically relate to Kramer; it is a blanket statement on "Kramer, Pipes, and co." What in the world is it doing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

I added this section (or rather, drastically changed the one that was already there), which covers a controversy over a recent speech he gave. I think it's fairly neutrally written and probably significant enough to belong in the article, but please comment below if you disagree. Robofish (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Id say that if the most we can say is that a couple of blogs accused him of genocide, then it doesnt meet our standard of inclusion. If it gets beyond that, maybe I would change my mind, but as it stands, I say remove it all. Bonewah (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should be cautious in including this because it includes severely defamatory claims that are a violation of WP:BLP. To accuse someone of supporting 'genocide' is extremely defamatory and propagandistic even given EI's manipulation of what he said. Therefore, I would disagree that this information should be included unless someone can argue otherwise per Wikipedia policies. Not everything need be included simply because it is a matter of public record. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The key here is WP:RS. Simply being a blog post doesn't lend enough reliability to establish notability of the material. On the other hand, we can refer to relevant reliable people, such as Stephen Walt [16] and Juan Cole [17]. Note that both Walt and Cole stop just short of the G-word. Also, The Harvard Crimson [18] might count as sufficiently reliable. In any case, we would also have to include Kramer's response, if any. —Ashley Y 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have added a section covering the above issue under the heading "Remarks on Palestinian aid". I realize the serious BLP concerns here and have gone out of my way to present both sides of the issue and use only statements from reliable, relevant sources. As well as criticism I have included the defense of the remarks made by the Weatherhead Center. I am not aware of any defense made my Kramer himself but if one exists then it should be added.

I have also avoided repeating the genocide claim, which has only been made in blogs, except to note that Stephen M. Walt rejected it.

So before anyone deletes this section, please understand that it is completely different from the earlier section and take the time to judge it on its own merits. I sincerely believe this is a notable issue and that the sources cited are reliable. Factsontheground (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this section has to be done very carefully if at all and it cannot be used as a means to create a WP:Coatrack. Kramer did write on his remarks [19] and offered a defense [20] against his critiques. These of course must be included as well as the actual paragraph so people can judge for themselves. At the same time, we must be cognizant of WP:Undue weight as this is a minor footnote compared to his entire career as an academic and analyst. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about Kramer's rejoinder. I'll read it carefully and see what is the best way to summarize it.
I am curious as to why you entirely removed the Boston Globe opinion piece. Surely the Globe is a reliable source? Even if a whole paragraph on the article is undue, it would probably be better to retain a reference to the article as a source or to summarize it in a single sentence. Factsontheground (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please retain the reference. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we would be better to include his actual quote, rather than paraphrasing it. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Whose (and which) quote do you mean? Factsontheground (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Kramer's statement under question. Otherwise anyone can paraphrase it to reflect their personal bias. One should be able to judge it for themselves. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Kramer's quote, the one that caused all this fuss

“Aging populations reject radical agenda and the Middle East is no different. Now eventually, this will happen among the Palestinians, too. But it will happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status. Those subsidies are one reason why in the ten years, from 1997 to 2007, Gaza's population grew by an astonishing 40%. At that rate, Gaza's population will double by 2030 to three million. Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza's runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have. That may begin to crack the culture of martyrdom, which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men."

Bonewah (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Weatherhead statement is given in truncated form here. Not only did it defend Kramer's right to speak, it described accusations against him as "baseless." Indeed, this is the statement's primary significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
My attempts to fix the section has been reverted twice. I've been told there must be a "consensus" to make changes. You can view my final edit here. The whole accusations were totally made up by a guy at EI. This was later regurgiated by several other magazines, dubiously attributing a quote never said by Kramer. Kramer posted an article in the Jerusalem Post thoroughly debunking the accusations, and then listed the speech in video and worded-form. The accusations were not merely baseless, but libelous. 3 people accused Kramer of saying thinks he never said, then move on to demonetization rhetoric like "genocide," "racism," and other intellectual buzzwords. I can understand the need for consensus but FOTG knee-jerk revert is suspect. My edit is sourced (reliable) and written just fine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan12345's edit perfectly fall in line with the "consensus" established here. The "consensus" was that we would include a discussion of the issue without committing a BLP violation by labeling him as a support of genocide. The information that Wikifan only adds to understanding of the issue, rather than harm it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for consensus-based edits but I felt the edits were rather urgent considering the nature of the article. When a paragraph is falsely attributing a statement made by a relevant figure, I think it is important to fix the problem as soon as possible than wait a week before we can all agree on the content. It seemed so overwhelmingly because there was so much evidence in support of Kramer and it would be dishonest not to correct. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I already restored it. They were perfectly reasonable edits that better explicate the "controversy." Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada[edit]

EI is not a reliable source, nor is it a notable news organization. Mention of it should be removed from this article unless it's claims are particularly notable and have been reported by reliable sourcs. The aid-remarks controversy did not occur because EI wrote an editorial; do you seriously think that luminaries like Stephen Walt get their agenda from EI? Factsontheground (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

EI isn't a reliable source, but the Kramer rumor was STARTED by the original EI editorial. the Harvard Crimson isn't a reliable source either.

Harvard Law Record[edit]

This seems like a notable and relevant source, particularly given Harvard University's close relationship to Kramer. Factsontheground (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Harvard student groups[edit]

Again, although they are only students, Harvard is a very notable university and it has a close relationship with Kramer. The fact that so many student groups (16) have denounced the statements is certainly notable. John F. Bowman is president of the Undergraduate Council so he is representing the student body. Factsontheground (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"demonstrating the accusations were not based on his actual presentation."[edit]

This sentence is unacceptable per WP:POV as it is using Wikipedia's voice to take sides in a controversial debate. How can we be sure that critics did not base their accusations on his actual presentation, given that Kramer has published it himself on the internet? The assumption that they are basing their criticisms only on secondary sources and not the text of the speech seems highly unlikely. Factsontheground (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The problem with the section is that it gives too much credence to a blatantly libelous and defamatory editorials published by EI, and then parroted by a variety of other independent media. Kramer published his speech in full and in word-form, showing the accusations pressed by EI was not based on his actual statements. Does that make sense? The accusations leveled by EI were not predicated on fact and IMHO this needs to be emphasized. What is not mentioned is that many political commentators dubiously accused Kramer of advocating genocide and promoting racism, which prompted a rebuttal. This isn't the first time his words have been taken out of context. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Stephen C. Walt, Yousef Muntayyer, Jessica Corsi and the Harvard student body objected to Kramer's speech and there is no indication that they were not basing their objections upon Kramer's actual words. In fact, Walt and Muntayyer are likely fact-checked given their publications, so it seems particularly unlikely they would base their accusations upon dubious secondary sources like Electronic Intifada. It also seems highly unlikely that the President of the Harvard Student Council would write a letter to the President of Havard on the basis of an EI editorial and not Kramer's actual words.
Do you see what I'm saying? You can denounce and discount EI's editorial all you like -- I'm not objecting to that -- but the statement that I am objecting to ("demonstrating the accusations were not based on his actual presentation.") is unfairly dismissing the words and opinions of more reliable sources such as Walt, Muntayyer and Corsi, who certainly have based their accusations upon Kramer's actual words. You can narrow the statement to apply only to EI ("demonstrating that Electronic Intifada's accusations were not based on his actual presentation.") or the statement should be removed.
Personally, I think E.I.'s claims should not be mentioned at all since they are an unreliable source and there are BLP issues with using criticism from an unreliable source. Factsontheground (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You aren't seeing the facts. In this context the critics are not reliable sources, they have their own opinions and they must be known. However, KRAMER demonstrated the self-righteous attacks were not based on fact but fiction. There is no way to get around this. The statements cited by EI and then parroted by Walt were fiction. Period. We cannot pass off fiction as truth, that is libel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, I'm getting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe from this conversation. Of course the critics have their own opinion but so does Kramer. Wikipedia must present both sides of the story and not take one side as fact. The statement I have pointed out ("demonstrating the accusations were not based on his actual presentation") is a violation of WP:NPOV by using Wikipedia's voice to present Kramer's point of view in this controversy and dismissing the views of luminaries such as Stephen C. Walt and the Harvard student body as inherently false and misguided. I am changing "demonstrating" to "arguing" which is a minor change; most of your edit is preserved. Also can you indent your above comment? Factsontheground (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
All right. I think we could easily cut down the section because it looks rather bloated. I can shorten Kramer's quotes, but also I think we could merge the Harvard agenda into a single paragraph. All this voices from the leadership, individuals, harvard crimson. I doubt the relevance or necessity of so many inclusions. Also, the paraphrasing is a bit much. Could that qualify as plagiarism? thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Wikifan. A single paragraph for the opinions of both Corsi and the Harvard student leadership is reasonable, given that Corsi's piece is notable mainly as a Harvard student writing the editorial in one of the most well-known Harvard student newspapers. I did make heavy use of quotations in order to ensure that I was not misrepresenting what was being stated, but it cannot be considered as plagiarism because it is not an attempt to pass another's work off as my own.
As for the size of the section, we shouldn't overstate the significance of this event to Kramer's life and career. However, it has been a massive issue for Kramer, who has devoted his last 3 blog entries to defending himself from criticism of his speech. Being the object of an editorial in a mainstream, high-circulation publication like the Boston Globe may be a once-in-a-lifetime event for an academic. Factsontheground (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Another interesting note about this affair is that Beth Simmons (Director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs) wrote a response to Munayyer's incendiary piece in the Globe, which she called an "insightful essay", and said that it "gives Martin Kramer’s positions on the Middle East the response many of us, as individuals, feel they deserve." She then goes on to emphasize the Center's obligation to academic freedom, but it seems a markedly less strident defense of Kramer than the earlier position of the Center. Factsontheground (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. You seem to have a better understanding of the overall situation than I do. My only concern was that Kramer's words were being taken out of context, which is what the majority of his defense revolves around. You can imagine my surprise when I witnessed prominent academics accusing Kramer of promoting genocide, seeing as how Kramer doesn't have a history of such controversy. I'm not sure how important this is but I know Kramer was a very vocal critic of Stephen M. Walt's book and most of his website consists purely of criticism of him and his partner. Perhaps Walt's accusations were inspired by revenge? I don't know. Academics can be vicious. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Walt may have been motivated by revenge, but he did go out of his way to reject the genocide claims and defend Kramer's right to free speech. Surprisingly, Walt is actually on the board of the Weatherhead Center so he would be capable of calling for a vote to oust Kramer, but he has declined to do so, for whatever that's worth. Factsontheground (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This section is WAY too HUGE and out of control!!! Stop WP:Undue weight and watch the WP:Coatrack. We're not including the response that every individual had to say on this topic and for the sake of WP:BLP, don't bloat the invective against Kramer. Seriously, this section cannot get any larger. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I do agree most of the critics seem to parrot the same view (because it's all based on a rather biased editorial published by EI) so perhaps we merge the least relevant figures into a few sentence. E.g, x, x, and x said Kramer is inferring genocide blah blah. Just an idea. I dont think we have to enumerate every critic and include an entire quote. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, what evidence do you have that Walt, Munayyer or the Harvard student leadership based their criticism upon the Electronic Intifada editorial? They've probably never heard of EI, let alone be copying their editorials. Factsontheground (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, Plot Spoiler, Kramer has been given a great deal of space in which his defense is presented, more space than is given to his critics. There are no WP:BLP concerns since the criticisms are all sourced to reliable sources. Factsontheground (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

... and there you go. It's unbelievable that you are removing all mention of the Boston Globe piece, considering its high profile and that Beth Simmons herself responded to it, and its equally unbelievable that you are removing everything to do with the Harvard student controversy considering that most of the student leadership has got involved.

Here's some advice - instead of wiping out all mention of op-eds reduce the size of their mention. You will never get my support for these slash-and-burn edits. Factsontheground (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

Oh boy... despite the fact that I was the one who introduced the section on his recent controversial speech in the first place, looking at the article now it seems to have grown out of all proportion to its importance. I guess that was probably inevitable, but I think we're dealing with a clear case of undue weight and recentism here. While the Herzliya Conference speech is the reason Kramer was in the news recently, it shouldn't dominate his biography in this way, given his lengthy and significant previous career. I don't want to be the one to do it, but this section does need to be cut down - we don't need to list every major response for instance, only the most notable ones. Robofish (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So what are the most notable ones? Stephen C. Walt's who is on the Weatherhead Center's board? The Boston Globe piece which is in a high circulation newspaper and got a personal response from Beth Simmons? The Harvard student leadership representing 16 student groups and led by the President of the Student Council writing an open letter to the President of Harvard and Weatherhead calling for Kramer to be sacked?
As I said before I'd be happier after these changes if each criticism was still mentioned yet the overall size given to each criticism was reduced. The ones in the article are all quite notable, picking and choosing the Walt piece (for example) over the Boston Globe op-ed does not really make sense. Factsontheground (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You can place a ref to each criticism, but you can't necessarily rehash the argument of each one. That is the essence of WP:Undue weight!!! I could also dig for every instance of support and then we could make the section 150 pages. How about that? Plot Spoiler (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Ivory Towers controversy, which gets short shrift here, was much, much bigger, and went national: and This episode is limited to Harvard, one op-ed in Globe (not news story), and some blogs. Out of proportion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want this section to be reduced in size why are you giving so much space to Kramer's apologists (including himself)?. WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The Boston Globe editorial and the uproar at Harvard University are highly prominent and deserve a significant proprotion of the space in this aticle, not complete erasure. Factsontheground (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
As of this moment, the discussion of the Harvard affair is 605 words, the rest of the entry is only 540 words. Undue weight. And there is no Globe editorial. An editorial is the view of a newspaper's editorial board. The Globe ran an op-ed by an activist from something called The Palestine Center. It's barely a cut above a blog post. There has been no news story about this anywhere except the Harvard Crimson. Nothing even in the Chronicle of Higher Education. How can it be "prominent" but not newsworthy? So far, just back-and-forth statements of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Kramer's "apologists" Factsontheground? Which apologists? We only put his own defense -- which is necessary given this is already falling into dangerous BLP territory. It seems you can't be sufficiently NPOV to even work on this article -- particularly given that you eliminated the part of the Weatherhead quote that said it no way was he advocating genocide. I further condensed the article and in terms of criticism, I included the most notable criticisms from Walt and Harvard students. This section should be paired down even further... Plot Spoiler (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the section is pretty decent now. Could probably be condensed even more but this could work... Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There are currently 10 sentences in support of Kramer and only 4 sentences criticizing him, not counting the reproduction of the controversial part of his speech. This is not balanced and WP:UNDUE, particularly when the criticism is highly notable.
Plot Spoiler you can either condense Kramer's defense or I will restore the criticism so that it has equal weight.
Secondly, nobody is accusing Kramer of "genocide"; they are accusing him of advocating genocide which is completely different. Factsontheground (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Who is Jessica Corsi? She isn’t identified in her article, but she’s not a prof, she’s a law student class of 2010. She sure doesn’t warrant a Wikipedia entry of her own, so why is she quoted as an authority? And why isn’t Yousef Munayyer identified? He is executive director of something called The Palestine Center, which tells you everything. The truth of it is that the only critic of consequence who deserve to be quoted is Walt. The others are nobodies. If some student wrote an attack on Rashid Khalidi, how long would a quote from it survive in his entry? If someone who directed the David Project wrote an attack on Joseph Massad, how many minutes would it take for a quote from it to be deleted? Whatever you think of his views, Kramer is an academic of stature, it’s only appropriate to bring criticism from persons of comparable stature. If grad students and activists are the only people who can be quoted, it shows that heavyweights--and Kramer has plenty of critics among them--sat out this controversy. So then why is it so bloated in size here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right, unknown... Facts doesn't understand WP:BLP. We are not including any more criticism/praise. The section is quite balanced given BLP requirements. Plot Spoiler (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content[edit]

Okay, why are people removing sourced content from WP:RS? WP:BLP does not apply to material from reliable sources. As for your claim that I 'don't understand BLP' perhaps you need to reread the policies yourself? Factsontheground (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Turning something into a coatrack by finding every single critical source on Kramer's remarks, regardless of reliability, is a violation of BLP. This also goes along w/ undue weight but creating an undue amount of critical information against said subject, thereby violating BLP. Anybody can cherrypick statements in support or against and make the section completely out of control. Without your added edits, the piece contains a reasonable balance between the two. Per BLP, said subject must be given ample room to respond. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP only applies to unreliable information added to biographies. It does not apply here, no matter how much you want it too, because all the information is cited to highly reliable sources. Stop citing a policy that simply does not apply here.
The critical sources you keep removing are highly notable and reliable -- Beth Simmons is the director of the Weatherhead center, an editorial in the Harvard Law Record is highly notable. Furtermore your version is massively weighted towards Kramer, giving his defence twice as much space as the criticisms, a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. My version gives Kramer more than ample room to respond, it just doesn't make his defence unfairly and unduely dominate the section unlike your version. Factsontheground (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
BLP does INDEED apply, even if the sources are reliable. And you should also note that there are three sources critical of Kramer (Walt, Globe, Harvard students) and two supportive (*Kramer himself* and Weatherhead). This hardly constitutes WP:Undue under WP:BLP, given that we're already stretching it with the slanderous-type remarks being made against him that are included in the article. Lastly, it corresponds with BLP that the said subject will be given sufficient space to refute such charges. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between sufficient space and undue domination of the section. Secondly the Weatherhead Center was not supportive of Kramer's comments; Beth Simmons even said that the criticism was valid. Rather they defended Kramer's right to say the comment, not the comments themselves. Stephen Walt (who is on the Weatherhead board) did exactly the same thing yet he is counted as being critical of Kramer. Factsontheground (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Weatherhead did defend the comments against their characterization as "genocidal," the key criticism. The Harvard Law Record piece was a student op-ed, NOT an editorial. Another student wrote an opposite opinion for the Harvard Political Review: Include both or neither. There is only one real editorial on the subject, and that is in the Harvard Crimson, here: The editorial, the opinion of the Crimson editorial board, has more weight than the statement by some student groups. Why is the statement mentioned, but not the editorial? To cover all this fairly, the section would have to be doubled in size, but that would be ridiculous, since this is just one episode (already over) in what appears to be a 30-year career with lots of bigger controversies (e.g. his book on Mideast studies and his role with Giuliani). IMHO the whole affair should be characterized in a few sentences, with footnotes sending readers to the relevant sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Both those articles exonerate Kramer from genocide but otherwise do not defend what he actually says.
The accusation of advocating genocide is not the key criticism. Walt and Munayyer's criticisms are the most high profile and important yet Walt specifically rejects that Kramer is advocating genocide and Munayyer simply does not mention it. What they both point out is that if Kramer said the exact same thing about African-Americans he would be regarded as a racist. Hence, the key criticism is rather that Kramer's comments were racist.
As for undue weight, this controversy has been big enough to warrant a high-profile editorial in a high circulation newspaper like the Boston Times. Very few academics are the subject of mainstream news like that. Kramer has himself devoted his last 4 blog entries to the affair, suggesting that he personally thinks the affair is very important and significant to his career. Factsontheground (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's the Boston Globe, not the Boston Times--not the sort of mistake you would make if it were not a local paper. Munayyer's piece was an op-ed--one person's opinion--and not an editorial. Kramer has hundreds of blog posts, when he thinks something is important he blogs intensively (Massad at Columbia, Gaza war). In this case, he did not respond to Munayyer or Walt or the Crimson, so maybe he thinks the criticism doesn't even warrant a reply. There is no way we can know whether he thinks the episode is important or not. As for the racism charge, this was the fallback after the genocide charge flopped (overkill). Walt himself was accused of antisemitism in a prominent op-ed in the Washington Post: If this belongs in Kramer's entry, then that belongs in Walt's. If it's all just opinionated mudslinging, why should it be in either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Kramer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)