Talk:Elliott Abrams

message: So my changes are, covering up >> downplayed. Personally, I don't see how Abrams covered anything up. To cover something up, you'd need irrefutable proof that it happened, and then hide that proof from the press. I think, while there may have been some coverup allegations, what HRW and the like were accusing him of was downplaying the atrocities. Then I just gave the specifics on which groups the U.S. opposed -- don't see much wrong there.
Then I removed the "fabulous achievement" quote and replaced it with "strong support." The intent of the quote is to say "wow, what a moron, he's calling the Reagan policy a fabulous achievement when a battalion just massacred 900 people." But this ignores that the administration was frustrated with the incapability of the civilian government to control the military -- this is why we threw our support to Duarte in 1984, rather than caudillo death squad extraordinaire D'Aubuisson.
Then "knew about El Mozote and human rights abuses all along." All I'm asking for here is a good source that proves such an assertion. J. Parker Stone 22:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: citation for judicial decisions

message: What's the source on his membership in a socialist organization? Bruxism 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are a couple pages that state and document the fact:   -David Schaich 02:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, that is an unreliable source. I caution you to review the BLP policy, which you seem to have frequently violated with POV-pushing edits.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  YPSL? 

message: - Since at least January 2006, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah groups in order to overthrow the democratically-elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories. ...
Each of these was fully supported by Asia Times articles, to which I provided a cite and a link. They were completely deleted however on the ground that these are not top notch sources. The Asia Times is a major source of news and qualifies as RS under WP rules. Please explain why I should not restore.--NYCJosh 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the entire section has neutrality issues, but I took out the weasel phrasing and made it clear where the criticism came from. MoodyGroove 00:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for attacking Hamas

message: I've read Undue Process, and I know the section being referenced. It reads: "It had all been arranged with great secrecy through the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Brunei. I had traveled to London, using my own passport, and registered at the Hilton in my own name. I had called the Sultan's suite at the Dorchester and asked for the aide I was supposed to meet with, using a code name we had agreed upon so he would know who was calling, but the British--whom he assumed were monitoring his phones--would not. ..." p. 89. I think it's pretty clear that Abrams used the code name at the behest of the Bruneians because of their own domestic political concerns--they wanted to keep the donation secret more than the Americans did. (After all, the modifications Congress had made to the Boland Amendment the previous December allowed Abrams to funnel donations from foreign countries to the Contras--he didn't have to keep it secret because it was illegal or unsupported by Congress, it wasn't.) However, I think describing the use of a code name as "standard procedure" is a bit misleading. Abrams didn't really have a "standard procedure" because this was the one and only time he (or anyone in the State department) asked a foreign government for aid. I think we should substitute "at the request of the Bruneians" or "for security purposes" for "as a standard procedure".PeasantScribbler 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some consideration, I think that the whole question is only marginally relevant. I edited the section to say that the meeting was secret, which is true enough. The discussion of the Boland Amendment in the section should make it clear that 'secret' doesn't mean 'illegal'.PeasantScribbler 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicaragua 

message: How is Carter's view of Abrams relevant to this article? If we give a quote by such a controversial figure, there needs to be a mention of some views on Carter. Overall, Carter's personal opinion has no place here. The role of Wikipedia is not to describe one thing from 100 points of view, but lay out facts. Lizrael (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Carter 

message: From the opening paragraph: "Although Abrams is considered a leading neoconservative,[1][2] his appointment by Bush was controversial due to his conviction in 1991". Is the fact that Abrams is a neoconservative makes his nomination less controversial? This just doesn't make sense. Lizrael (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously the modifying phrase was as follows: "Considered a leading neoconservative, Abrams' appointment ... ". This was ungrammatical because the phrase should modify Abrams, not his appointment. Also, at the time, I thought that the intention of the modifier was to smear the term neoconservative with criminality. Probably the modifier could be dropped without controversy. Still, it might be important information that major news media wrote features about him highlighting his leading role in neoconservatism.PeasantScribbler (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The label of a neoconservative seems fine to me, but we should separate the fact that the appointment by President Bush was controversial from the fact that Abrams is often labeled as a neoconservative. I'll edit the first section, and you tell me what you think of the result. Lizrael (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's fine now.PeasantScribbler (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: I propose deleting the entire Panama subsection. It has been unreferenced for a long time. Furthermore, it doesn't make much sense. Abrams concurring with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not make a policy official. Bureaucrats have some policy-making power (including the power to make "unofficial" policy), but they don't have the power to make policy official--that's what the politicians do. If anyone was making the policy official, it was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.PeasantScribbler (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panama 

message: There are major problems with the article. It is clearly meant to denigrate Abrams based on reports from sources that are known to have a political agenda like The Nation or wild allegation without substantiated proof (like the Observer report). Abrams is consistently described as a warmonger who doesn't care about human rights violations. The whole article doesn't rely on information from people who worked alongside Abrams (like Secretary Shultz's account of the Reagan presidency, Ronald Reagan's diaries, etc.), authors who interviewed him (like the book On The Brink by Jay Winik), or academic articles on the subject (for example, James Scott, "Interbranch Rivalry and the Reagan Doctrine in Nicaragua", Political Science Quarterly 112 (2): 237-260, 1997 and Daniel Drezner, "Ideas, Bureaucratic Politics and the Crafting of Foreign Policy", American Journal for Political Science 44 (4):733-749, 2000). Except for one quote from The Nation, the article doesn't include views espoused by Abrams in articles authored by him, statements before congress, books he wrote and interviews he gave. The result of this lack of serious research is an article of wild allegations, and rebuttals. Very few facts are established. Therefore, I have placed the disputed neutrality warning on the article. Please don't remove it until you've discussed it here or fixed the problems. Lizrael (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the neoconservative label from the lead. If somebody thinks this belongs elsewhere, please discuss here, thank you. Tom (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the label "neoconservative" shouldn't appear in the opening. Lizrael (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the article doesn't need the label at all. However, maybe we could restore the references to the 'external references' section. The referenced profiles were more neutral than several of the biased accounts that are currently included in 'external references'. PeasantScribbler (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Perceived Agenda in a publication is not a valid reason to repudiate an article contained therein. Recommend arguing against specific facts stated in the article rather than against the publication itself, or be seen as having a biased perception yourself. Dilapidus (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The article that served as the reference to the sentence "Other sources have alleged that Abrams and Otto Reich played an active role in planning the coup" is full of wrong facts. Therefore, I removed the sentence and the source. The overwhelming amount of incorrect information in the article makes it a completely unreliable and biased source. Here are a few examples pertaining to Abrams alone:
* Abrams is said to be a part of a pro-Israel lobby. Abrams was never affiliated with any foreign country's lobby.
* Abrams is said to serve as Assistant Secretary under Nixon - lie.
* Abrams is said to have been "also implicated in drug trafficking organized by the US State Department and the CIA to finance the Nicaragua contras, whose operative head was Colonel Oliver North". The Iran Contra investigations by Congress and the Independent Council never found any connection between Abrams, North, drug trafficking and the Reagan administration's support of the Contras. Lizrael (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: VHeadline is not a credible source. (The article in question is, frankly, ridiculous.) However, I think it an interesting part of Abrams' biography that he has inspired huge reams of paranoid conspiracy theory. If (or when) this article gets cleaned up, it should still make some reference to the vitriol and libel that Abrams has faced. Technically, the source backed up the statement: allegations were made (although they were bizarre allegations made by non-credible sources). PeasantScribbler (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of "vitriol and libel", check this line from another "credible" source, AlterNet: "Elliot Abrams emerged from Dick Cheney's dark nether regions of the federal government...". Jesus! Lizrael (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  VHeadline, a credible source? 

message: The one sentence in the "Involvement with Project For the New American Century" doesn't merit a whole sections. The fact that Abrams signed a letter is mentioned below as well. I removed the section. If you wish to reverse that, please discuss it here before that. Lizrael (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNAC 

message: This section contradicts itself and lacks sources:
When Congress shut down funding for the Contras' efforts to overthrow Nicaragua's democratically elected Sandinista government with the 1982 Boland Amendment, the Reagan administration began looking for other avenues for funding the group.[14] Elliott Abrams was appointed in charge of this. Abrams said: "We want them to stop subverting their neighbours and repressing the people of Nicaragua. Now, does that require overthrowing the government? Well, it doesn't if they change their behavior. And that's the question. What do you need to do to get them to change their behaviour?"[15]
First, there's no proof that Abrams was in charge of looking for other avenues of funding the group. In fact, there is proof to the contrary - that the operation was carried out from the NSC (not State).
Second, Abrams' quote says that the Reagan administration didn't support the overthrow of the Sandinista government, but aimed at changing the regime's behavior. The wiki article claims otherwise.
Third, the claim that the Sandinista were democratically elected is correct, but the regime has changed it course after being democratically elected, and this at the heart of it - the nature of the regime (its behavior), not whether it was democratically elected. If you add those words, you need to address the repression and creation of a one-party state in Nicaragua in the 80s. Lizrael (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sandinista were democratically elected, thus it is restored to article. The quote from Arbrams comes directly from his own mouth therefore restored. Vexorg (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Improved wording to be more accurateand in keeping with reputable source. Vexorg (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit. The 1984 election was conducted under a state of emergency where Sandinista thugs broke up opposition rallies and intimidated opposition leaders, with assistance from Cuban security forces. Those elections were about as fair and free as Saddam's election with 100% of the vote in 2003. RayTalk 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vexorg, you can't just blurt out a sentence and go reversing. The talk page is for discussions. Abrams became the Assistant Secretary for Inter-American affairs in 1985, following the elections in Nicaragua in 1984, which were not democratic, and following significant "consolidation" done by the regime. I'm not saying that the article should say that the Reagan administration was pursuing the overthrow of a Marxist autocratic regime, but it should not say that the Sandinistas were democratically elected. What I'm proposing makes more sense - there would be no mention of the nature of the regime, that's it. An article about Abrams isn't the place to discuss whether the Sandinistas were democratically elected and whether it was a democratic regime. As for the quote from the talk show - it means nothing. Abrams is clearly trying not to say that the Reagan administration is pursuing a policy of regime change in Nicaragua, but the wiki article says otherwise. Lizrael (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicaragua 

message: === Nicaragua ===
When Congress shut down funding for the Contras' efforts to overthrow Nicaragua's democratically elected Sandinista government with the 1982 Boland Amendment, the Reagan administration began looking for other avenues for funding the group.National Security Council internal memorandum, "Options and Legislative Strategy for Renewing Aid to the Nicaraguan Resistance". January 31, 1985. Declassified under FOIA Elliott Abrams was appointed in charge of this. Abrams said: "We want them to stop subverting their neighbours and repressing the people of Nicaragua. Now, does that require overthrowing the government? Well, it doesn't if they change their behavior. And that's the question. What do you need to do to get them to change their behaviour?"
In early 1982, when reports of the El Mozote massacre of civilians by the military in El Salvador began appearing in U.S. media, Abrams told a Senate committee that the reports of hundreds of deaths at El Mozote "were not credible," and that "it appears to be an incident that is at least being significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas." The massacre had come at a time when the Reagan administration was attempting to bolster the human rights image of the Salvadoran military. Abrams implied that reports of a massacre were simply FMLN propaganda and denounced US investigative reports of the massacre as misleading. He later claimed Washington's policy in El Salvador a "fabulous achievement."
In 1993, members of the Salvadoran Truth Commission testified about the El Mozote massacre in a congressional hearing of the House Western Hemisphere subcommittee. Chairman Robert Torricelli, Democratic Senator from New Jersey, vowed to review for possible perjury "every word uttered by every Reagan administration official" in congressional testimony on El Salvador. Abrams denounced Torricelli's words as "McCarthyite crap". Documentation eventually emerged proving that the Reagan administration had known about El Mozote and other human rights violations all along.
On 30 June 1987, the United States State Department demanded the ouster of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, made the announcement. Abrams took note of a resolution passed on 23 June by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee demanding the creation of a "democratic government" in Panama, and officially concurred, thus making the toppling of Noriega the official U.S. policy. Abrams also demanded that the Panamanian military be freed of "political corruption." --YakbutterT (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Central American content now missing

message: When Congress shut down funding for the Contras' efforts to overthrow Nicaragua's democratically elected Sandinista government with the 1982 Boland Amendment, the Reagan administration began looking for other avenues for funding the group.National Security Council internal memorandum, "Options and Legislative Strategy for Renewing Aid to the Nicaraguan Resistance". January 31, 1985. Declassified under FOIA Elliott Abrams was appointed in charge of this. Abrams said: "We want them to stop subverting their neighbours and repressing the people of Nicaragua. Now, does that require overthrowing the government? Well, it doesn't if they change their behavior. And that's the question. What do you need to do to get them to change their behaviour?"
In early 1982, when reports of the El Mozote massacre of civilians by the military in El Salvador began appearing in U.S. media, Abrams told a Senate committee that the reports of hundreds of deaths at El Mozote "were not credible," and that "it appears to be an incident that is at least being significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas." The massacre had come at a time when the Reagan administration was attempting to bolster the human rights image of the Salvadoran military. Abrams implied that reports of a massacre were simply FMLN propaganda and denounced US investigative reports of the massacre as misleading. He later claimed Washington's policy in El Salvador a "fabulous achievement."
In 1993, members of the Salvadoran Truth Commission testified about the El Mozote massacre in a congressional hearing of the House Western Hemisphere subcommittee. Chairman Robert Torricelli, Democratic Senator from New Jersey, vowed to review for possible perjury "every word uttered by every Reagan administration official" in congressional testimony on El Salvador. Abrams denounced Torricelli's words as "McCarthyite crap". Documentation eventually emerged proving that the Reagan administration had known about El Mozote and other human rights violations all along.
On 30 June 1987, the United States State Department demanded the ouster of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, made the announcement. Abrams took note of a resolution passed on 23 June by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee demanding the creation of a "democratic government" in Panama, and officially concurred, thus making the toppling of Noriega the official U.S. policy. Abrams also demanded that the Panamanian military be freed of "political corruption." --YakbutterT (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicaragua 

message: Ethnicity should not be too much emphasized thus mentioning his ethnicity in the infobox is not appropriate and I will remove it. -- And Rew 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not appropriate per what? Ethnicity should not be emphasized in the lead sentence per MOSBIO unless it is the reason for the person's notability. As far as mention in the family section or info box, that seems ok and usually isn't that big a deal unless their is more to it. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Elliott Abrams. 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BvSC8Irn?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markdanner.com%2Farticles%2Fshow%2Fthe_truth_of_el_mozote to http://www.markdanner.com/articles/show/the_truth_of_el_mozote
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030423012407/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf to http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This biography reads like a bathroom wall covered with graffiti. Any biography involving Israel would, if ignored. Doesn't Abrams' organization even care enough to rebut? My students turn to Wikipedia first, for everything. You can't just turn your noses up and walk away. Profhum (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most incoherent, slanted, vandalized Wikipedia bio I've ever read-- why?  

message: This section was in the bio, entirely unsourced and mostly unneecessary. 
== Affiliation history ==
=== Institutional affiliations ===
* American Committee for Peace in Chechnya: Member
* American Jewish Committee: Former member, National Advisory Council
* Center for Security Policy: Former member, National Security Advisory Council
* Committee for the Free World: Member of 1985 conference on Reagan-Gorbachev summit meeting in Geneva
* Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf: Former Member (1998)
* Committee on U.S. Interests in the Middle East: Former Member
* Council on Foreign Relations: Member
* Counter Extremism Project: Advisory board member
* Ethics and Public Policy Center: President, 1996–2002
* Francisco Marroquin Foundation: Former chairman
* Heritage Foundation: Alumnus of Heritage Foundation Resource Bank
* Hudson Institute: Senior Fellow, 1990–96
* Independent Task Force on Colombia: Former member
* Middle East Forum: Signatory of 2000 report urging military action against Syria
* National Endowment for Democracy: Board of Directors
* NGO Monitor: member of the International Advisory Board
* Nicaraguan Resistance Foundation: Former chairman
* Project for the New American Century: Signatory of 1997 Statement of Principles and various other statements
* U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: Former member
=== Editorial affiliations ===
* National Review: Former contributing author
* Policy Review: Former contributing author
* Beliefnet: Columnist
=== Public service ===
* U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: Chairman, 2000–2001; Commissioner, 1999–2001
* Inter-American Foundation: nominated as member of Board of Directors for the 1985–90 term
Bangabandhu (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  affiliations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Elliott Abrams. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513072854/http://www.soros.org/about/bios/b_neier to http://www.soros.org/about/bios/b_neier
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.markdanner.com/articles/show/the_truth_of_el_mozote
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Elliott Abrams. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306215750/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org//entity.jsp?entity=elliott_abrams to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=elliott_abrams
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805142820/http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0212abrams.html to http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0212abrams.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * No/nowhere. The Alterman source reads like an opinion piece.  Therefore, it shouldn't be cited for its facts. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to including it as an opinion source with in-text attribution in the body of the article, provided it the subject was treated with appropriate balance. This Washington Post article supports that approach. R2 (bleep) 08:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: According to opposition economist Fransisco Rodriguez the sanctions on Venezuela have been the central most important factor in driving the country's economy into a tailspin.  He describes what has happened over the last few years as putting the country through a combined "three great depressions", referring to the great depression of the 1930s.  This individual Elliott Abrams has been the Trump administration's point person in carrying out these brutal sanctions, blocking compromise, liquidating and blocking Venezuelan assets, promoting the illegal seizure of its embassy, halting its trade lines, blocking medicines, blocking financial transactions, and even foodstuffs.  Why does this wikipedia page have zero critical input on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ldbOsXyWno
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mention above, you need to find reliable sources for anything related to Elliott Abrams, whatever you think of him. I signed your comment in this section, using details in the edit history entry, as the bot had not done so. It is usual to sign on talk pages using four tildes (). Philip Cross (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reliable source is posted right above. If you do not believe this is a reliable source that says something about your own thinking but nothing about this source.  It is an interview of Fransisco Rodriguez a major opposition voice who was an advisor to the Henri Falcon campaign which ran in the 2018 election against Maduro. IF you watch the long interview with him he talks about the sanctions being the key factor in Venezuela now experiencing an economic crisis equal to "three great depressions", referring to the great depression of the early twentieth century. I think you should click on the URL to actually see the source, also if you believe it is an unreliable source you need to explain why that is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.0.44 (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Video sources are discouraged. You cite an interview on the Grayzone YouTube feed, the main website has a mixed reputation among editors. This is still open: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing, no discussion on his role in mounting the brutal sickening sanctions on Venezuela

message: Hi
What was the problem about peace plan The Intercept's report that you deleted it? The Intercept is a valid news publication. It even refers to Washington Post. They both have a neutral viewpoint and are reliable sources. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you just copy-and-pasted the exact wording from this source. This is a copyright violation per WP:COPYPASTE. Feel free to rewrite the material in your own words. KidAd (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran's peace plan 

message: Include the below paragraph as last section under ==Career==
=== Biden Administration ===
On July 3rd, 2023, Abrams was nominated to the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy by President Biden. He still needs to be confirmed by the Senate before serving on the commission. LocalWiseGuy (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: but I left out the Democracy Now citation. Xan747 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Democracy now citation mentions how he needs to be confirmed by the Senate before serving on the commission. LocalWiseGuy (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023 

message: On July 3rd, 2023, Abrams was nominated to the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy by President Biden. He still needs to be confirmed by the Senate before serving on the commission. LocalWiseGuy (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: but I left out the Democracy Now citation. Xan747 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Democracy now citation mentions how he needs to be confirmed by the Senate before serving on the commission. LocalWiseGuy (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biden Administration