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 do nt think so Unless you can actually defend your changes citing policy you will need to revert them 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 that s says who he worked for and the dates Pulling this information together from different primary sources is original research You can not quote somebody as calling Near East Report a propaganda sheet any more than another editor can say Belfast is inhabited by drunken and violent Irish people with the quote cited to Thomas Nast You also can t cite three people attacking Blitzer s scholarship in Territory of Lies without any response from Blitzer or his supporters Firstly I wo nt respond to your silly example referring to where I live Your racism is disgusting and reflects only on you but that s your problem Secondly please do nt further insult the intelligence of editors by implying that Near East Report was possibly published by someone else in 1970s Blitzer edited the book ergo he worked for AIPAC likewise he was editor of the weekly publication Near East Report into 1978 Source The directoy listing showing his name listed as the responsible party at the weekly He worked for them in 1976 77 78 regardless of whether you seek to portray that as outside work or anything else His name is on the front cover of the book as editor right His name is listed in the weekly publication as editor right Are those facts in dispute by you Friedmans words are his own you removed not only the quote who s 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 is nt necessarily required if its a minority view and or it ca nt 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