"::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.  

"