Talk:William Blum

message: It's notable. People may not want to be endorsed by the world's most notorious terrorist, but that doesn't change the fact it happened. It doesn't change the fact that sales on this book jumped astronomically. I had never even heard of Blum prior to this. This is notable, and it should stay in the article. (Bjorn Tipling 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement Blum made, covered in the Washington Post  is also notable. (Bjorn Tipling 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: At first, Blum said he was pleased about the endorsement, not because he respects Bin Laden, but because it gave him attention he could use to further spread his message. A completely reasonable and pragmatic view. But it seems that the tide has changed, and that the endorsement is now working against him, at least according to the quote by Blum currently in that section of the article. In any case, it's noteworthy and should stay in. --Kvaks 13:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Osama Bin Laden Statement is notable 

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some adjustments/expansion of material about Blum that gave it more fuller, accurate context. Please review, though. I note that he is called a "Washington Historian," so I added that, and looking at the source its not clear that his entire employment with the State Dept. was that of a low level computer worker, so I left that out and simply stated he worked for the State Dept.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not delete sourced information. Please do not insert unsourced and opinion statements.Ultramarine (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are doing that. You are cherry picking what information to include and exclude on the basis of POV. For instance, as the other editor pointed out, you remove "historian' despite what the sources say. And I disagree with your moving around the material and putting it in other places that makes the article harder to follow. What specifically are you claiming is "unsources"? Can you list it here so I can see what your talking about instead of edit warring? And what material that you want to add that is sourced that you say needs to be there? If so, we should agree about that and agree where in the article it belongs. The place to solve this is here on talk, not in edit summaries. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what sources say. Historian included. What was unsourced was marked as such earlier and then removed when no source given.Ultramarine (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: # The article refers to "a May 22, 2006 article entitled, Come Out of the White House With Your Hands Up", but does not indicate who published it.
# The statement about the no-fly list is cited to a blind link. When I follow the blind link, it goes to a RE/Search interview with Paul Krassner. Now, I like RE/Search and Krassner as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't consider either a particularly reliable source. Krassner is as much a satirist as a journalist, and it can be hard to tell sometimes whether he is factual or deadpanning. He can be a useful pointer to information, but I would always follow up and look for a more solid citation before presuming he was factual. - Jmabel | Talk 14:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 of the citations provided are weak 

message: There's a recent Reddit post Concerning edits from Philip Cross that his replacing of references to democracynow.org with nytimes.com, suggested as a form of propoganda. It's not the first time someone noted Cross doing something similar, but I want to bring attention to this page specifically. 50.125.92.35 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If Philip Cross is indeed responsible for replacing references to activist sources closely affiliated with the subject of this article with references to far more reputable news organizations known for fact-checking and accuracy (I haven't checked the history), then he should be commended for hewing so closely to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:DUE. Alas, I suspect that far more work needs to be done on that front.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your kind comments, User:TheTimesAreAChanging. I added the Democracy Now source myself as a substitute for a citation to Global Research, a website which is on the List of fake news websites and is not a reliable source (RS). As the Democracy Now article is a brief ephemeral piece mainly confirming that William Blum had died, I did not consider it worth retaining when the cause of Blum's death (kidney failure) became possible to cite using the NYT obituary, from Wikipedia's perspective a blue chip reliable source. The Democracy Now article relates no information which cannot be sourced from elsewhere. Improving the sourcing is what editing Wikipedia is about. Philip Cross (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I see. Thank you very much for providing your insight! 50.125.92.35 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns of Edits from Philip Cross 

message: Blum was known to have very socialist/anti-capitalist views. Yet I have noticed it is not mentioned anywhere in the page. One edit that mentioned it was removed. 174.215.161.120 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blum's socialist views.