Talk:Martin Kramer

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Published works

message: 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. --70.48.242.224 13:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Kramer is Journalist?

message: 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.  --70.48.242.224 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Kramer call himself a neoconservative?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.)  --64.230.123.75 00:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Kramer responds to Iraq War quotations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You can always give a shot at Archive.org. A hit, this time. --213.216.199.22 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Fisk link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  --70.48.240.217 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to note that Pecher warned me  when I removed an article by Kramer that was critical of John Esposito from John Esposito's article  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.  --70.48.69.93 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Kramer to John Esposito's quote

message: 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.  --70.48.240.217 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have found two references now, Forward  and John Esposito  (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 , ,  (by Joel Beinin, another professor of Middle Eastern studies), .  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.  --70.51.228.208 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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"  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)
replies: text: ack -> POV. --tickle me 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you meant here,  Tickle. Armon 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.  --70.48.69.93 02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: I have made a RfC here .  --70.48.69.93 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Asking him occurred to me too -but wouldn't that then be original research? Armon 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Or post his response on WikiSource. --Sneftel 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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." .  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.  --70.48.69.93 14:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Israeli-American

message: Pecher wrote: "the section is original research and highly offensive."  The content of the removed "See also" section was the one following link:
* Jonathan Calt Harris, a well-known protégé of Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes
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.  --70.48.69.93 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  --70.48.69.93 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  --70.48.69.93 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: See also removed by [[User:Pecher|Pecher]]

message: Martin Kramer has supposidely (there is no primary source confirmation) contributed on this talk page via the IPs: User:88.153.4.59 and 88.152.182.199.  Both of these from bezeqint.net -- 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 bezeqint.net (the same block Martin Kramer supposedily edited this page from) and washingtoninstitute.org (where Martin Kramer is a fellow in the US).
Here is a partial listing of the edits
* Robert Pape, 5 February 2006, User:81.218.179.47, the specific edit
* John Esposito, 9 November 2005, User:66.208.36.66, the specific edit
* Shakib Arslan, 16 July 2005, User:81.218.87.104, the specific edit
* Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, 17 July 2005, User:82.80.172.33, the specific edit
* Gilles Kepel, 30 October 2005, User:68.55.136.28, the specific edit
* Fatema Mernissi, 1 August 2005, User:212.179.214.252, the specific edit
* Arthur Hertzberg, 31 July 2005, User:82.80.62.226, the specific edit
* Michael Ignatieff, 31 July 2005, User:82.80.62.226, the specific edit
* Musa al-Sadr, 15 November 2005, User:66.208.36.66, the specific edit
* Bernard Lewis, 31 July 2005, User:82.80.62.226, the specific edit
* Albert Hourani, 31 July 2005, User:82.80.62.226, the specific edit
* Fouad Ajami, 1 August 2005, User:212.179.214.252, the specific edit
* Natan Sharansky, 18 July 2005, User:82.80.6.206, the specific edit
* Arab nationalism, 10 July 2005, User:82.80.165.110, the specific edit
* Pan-Arabism, 31 July 2005, User:82.80.62.226, the specific edit
* Juan Cole, 10 July 2005, User:82.80.165.110, the specific edit
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:
*62.219.142.211 - bezeqint.net
*66.208.36.66 - ip66.washingtoninstitute.org
*68.55.136.28 - c-68-55-136-28.hsd1.md.comcast.net
*81.218.87.104 - bezeqint.net
*81.218.179.47 - bezeqint.net
*82.80.6.206 - bezeqint.net
*82.80.62.226 - bezeqint.net
*82.80.165.110 - bezeqint.net
*82.80.172.33 - bezeqint.net
*212.179.214.252 - bezeqint.net
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 , and this English to French correction on Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson .
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.  --70.48.241.41 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are germane and their origin is not of much relevance. Pecher Talk 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  on the Requests for Investigations page.) --70.48.241.41 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ). If they continue report to WP:AIV for blocking. Thanks for helping. Petros471 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  --70.48.241.41 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: As per my talk page, I feel that the discussion with you is deteriorating and it is time to take this to mediation.  --70.48.241.41 00:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  --70.48.241.41 00:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Is Martin Kramer link spamming Wikipedia?

message: 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.  --70.48.241.41 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As per my talk page, I feel that the discussion with you is deteriorating and it is time to take this to mediation.  --70.48.241.41 00:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  --70.48.241.41 00:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pecher Reverting Link Spam - Why?

message: 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)
replies: text: That seems quite reasonable to me. csloat 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: 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 79.183.231.198 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I largely agree, and removed some, with a suggestion below. Mackan79 (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Entry is a smear

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 79.177.253.107 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Harvard Law Record]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harvard student groups 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112232504/http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2401 to http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2401
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uYWIPmHC?url=http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/reader/archives/arab-pen-english-purse-john-sabunji-and-wilfrid-scawen-blunt/ to http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/reader/archives/arab-pen-english-purse-john-sabunji-and-wilfrid-scawen-blunt/
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) 08:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228135825/http://washingtoninstitute.org/download.php?file=IvoryTowers.pdf to http://washingtoninstitute.org/download.php?file=IvoryTowers.pdf
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) 19:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A lot of good content (both positive and negative) about Kramer have been deleted from this article over the years. I've only restored some of it and there's bound to be more hidden in the history. ImTheIP (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of this page