Talk:Anna Baltzer

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Bitterwaters.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead
I have removed "Jewish-American" from the lead per WP:MOSBIO. If you are going to include ethnicity in the lead as the reason the person is notable, then you must spell that out in the lead sentence or the 2nd sentence at the very least. Can you please make your case here before reverting and let the community decide? TIA, --Tom (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is religion. Being Jewish and pro-Palestinian is a notable characteristic of the subject. Being Jewish-American but pro-Palestinian is a rare combination in the Is/Pa conflict. "Sponsors" are a secondary source which give the subject added notability and recognize the Jewish/Pro-Pa oddity. Encourgage you to learn about the Is/Pa confict, this encyclopedia is an excellent source for that. You can do so by going back to my last unmolested revision under section "See also". Henry Delforn (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't use words like 'unmolested', we expect good faith. Notability by Wikipedia criteria (which is what counts) is not established by ethnicity or a combination of ethnicity and viewpoint, please read WP:People. Your sponsorship links fail WP:EL and I'm not sure why they are even called sponsorship links. I did think they might be of use in the article but I've just looked at them and don't see how they are of any use. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sponsors (at least in the article) are non-governmental organizations that support (financially or otherwise) the subject's mission, if the links fail, it may be because the article is in the process of being completed. Please don't misunderstand the word "completed" (or "unmolested"), it is used relative to my work, I and I alone say when my work is completed not other users who may contribute at infinitum. This is not my article any more than this is my encyclopedia. When my work is completed then the community does as it sees fit, that is not a process I care to control. The point is that my work in creating this article has not been given sufficient time to be "completed".Henry Delforn (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sponsors do not create notability; notability is not contagious, and cannot be achieved by contact with notable subjects. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... by others, do not submit it. The second you posted the article, it was ready to be edited by others. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed this again. It seems that currently only one editor thinks it belongs and the case has not been made for inclusion. Feel free to get others input of maybe RFC. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnicity" in lead is what makes the article most notable. Here is a book review that supports "Jewish-American" in the lead:"Perhaps the most comprehensive and accessible in-print collection of an international’s experience in the West Bank, Witness in Palestine combines Baltzer’s compelling first-hand accounts with her prolific photography, maps, and detail. An essential resource that documents her experiences between 2003 and 2007, made more powerful by her own narrative as a Jewish-American." The review was written by Noam Chomsky.
 * Henry Delforn (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this worthy of a bio
Has this person reached the level for article inclusion?--Tom (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question (not being sarcastic), that's a good question. Three points at the moment to please consider when answering the question. First, evaluate the subject's peers (other activists) with respect to accomplishments and who already have Wikipedia article bios. This will require lots of effort to research, but it's there. It was part of my research that was included in the article before being deleted. Second, give the creator of the article sufficient time to compile (and present) the facts before answering the question. Not all notable facts have been presented in a clear and concise manner. And finally, note that if one Googles the subject by complete name, one may find over 17,000 hits on the subject. This is a form of notablility and good "business" traffic for Wikipedia.Henry Delforn (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Henry, we only care about WP:People (and not about other articles). Tell us what criteria there gives her notability? And you've had plenty of time to show notability by our criteria. The vast majority of the Ghits you found have nothing to do with this Anna Baltzer. I did find but that isn't enough. Although I can find newspaper mentions of talks she is going to give/gave, I can't find anything else on Google news. I suspect the answer is no and that it should be taken to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) 1) Articles stand on their own merrit and comparisons against what else is out there isn't the standard. 2) Keep working, agreed. 3) Google hits is also not the standard. See WP:BIO. --Tom (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, I'm not feel'n the encyclopedic notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction to previous Google quote ( 17,000 ): its 117,000 and it is indeed about "this" Anna Baltzer. If you follow up on the hits you will find scores of articles similar to the one quoted in ref[1] above. While it is true that media coverage of Balzter is poor, it is also true that mainstream US media coverage of the pro-Palestinian position in the Is/Pa conflict is nearly non-existent. One has to research other non-mainstream media sources. For example, local closed-circuit television (say, Channel 17 Santa Barbara) or national but less well known television broadcasts (say, DemocracyNow!) or local church group flyers all over the States. This article gives Wikipedia readers awareness of people involved in the censorship struggle in this particular issue. The article is a concentration of research and facts about a very poorly told national story. It has merits that may not fit the WP:policies. Wikipedia is not the place for censorship. Successful AfD only makes the point of media censorship on this topic.Henry Delforn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC).
 * I can't get more than about 21,000, perhaps you didn't use quotation marks, without them I get 92,800. Do a -Palestine and I get 4100, some of which relate to an author of Gene expression variation between distinct areas of breast cancer measured from paraffin-embedded tissue cores which probably isn't her. But in any case, as you suggest, the article may not meet WP policies, and if it doesn't, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. 'Worthiness' is not grounds for an exception. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not about "feel'n", it is about facts. Noam Chomsky testimonial on Baltzer's book: "Even those who are familiar with the grim reality of the occupied territories will quickly be drawn into a world they had barely imagined by these vivid, searingly honest, intensely acute portrayals of unflagging courage, wanton cruelty, and enduring faith that through non-violent resistance fundamental decency will somehow prevail -- an outcome that lies very much in our hands. I cannot find words to express my admiration for the solidarity workers and peacemakers, international and Israeli, and the people of Palestine whom they are supporting in their struggles to survive and overcome." Henry Delforn (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While some of the merits may not fit WP:policies ("It has merits...") others certainly do. But let me bring to your attention the issue of censorship on this exact same topic that hits right at home. The very same organization (so-called watchdog) that reports on Israeli/Palestinian issues (C.A.M.E.R.A.) infiltrated Wikipedia in May 2008 to censor pro-Palestinian positions (see Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). You are encouraged to read the article and section "Wikipedia campaign" in the Wikipedia CAMERA article. Shall we count the number of bios of Israeli activists versus pro-Palestinian activists on Wikipedia? Henry Delforn (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you please consider removing this as a WP:TALK violation? Your personal views are not relevant and are generally inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the last part as not a forum. --Tom (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)ps, I would remove more, but I will let that be up to others. I at least removed the part about "I have friends that are...." stuff...--Tom (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is NOT your third opinion. Under basic criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject." I think the referenced links tend not to be independent. The requirement for inclusion doesn't appear to be celebrity but some visibility or influence.  I would not question the importance of her efforts to assist the Palestinians just whether she is notable enough under the guidelines. I agree the lack of attention she's received may be for all the wrong reasons, but the requirements don't seem to provide any exception for that.
 * My only other concern is I'm not sure the core editors have had time to include her book, Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories, and its impact. Has her stature in the Palestinian debate, here, in Israel and elsewhere changed markedly as a result of the book? Is she a sought after voice on these issues outside of advocacy groups? In areas of the world more receptive to her views has she become notable? My impression from looking through the web references is that she chronicles Palestinian struggles. Without more, I'm not sure she qualifies. --Eudemis (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While it is NOT my third opinion, it is a respected and thoughtful opinion nevertheless. As creator and among core editors, I can tell you that the subject’s book has not even fully considered precisely due to the reason you suspected, time. I don’t have to tell you or anyone else in this forum the demands on our time outside this encyclopedia, as such, I am admittedly not the best person to do due diligence on this article. Hence, “holes” are evident with respect to providing notability references, but it does not mean these references are not in existence.


 * Take for example, the impact the book has had in the Palestinian debate. The subject’s book was the basis of a play by professor emeritus, Patrick McGeever of IUPUI Indianapolis, called “Munira and Spud”. Take for example, the point raised: is she sought out outside her advocacy groups? The subject, although not presently scheduled to do so due to time conflicts, is expected to appear by request in the news/documentary radio & television program DemocracyNow!. The subject has already appeared more than 100 times and lectured at more than 300 universities, schools, churches, mosques, and synagogues around the world . And take for example, the point of: areas of the world where she has become notable. France is such an area, as evident by multiple publications directly about the subject, and although these publications may not take a pro-Israeli viewpoint in the Pa/Is conflict (not intellectually independent), they are not derivative secondary sources. The very fact that there are international publications at all, especially in France with respect to a Jewish-American, is a testimony of impact and hence, notability. Finally, the subject has served as a consultant for movie productions and major lawsuits involving the Pa/Is conflict, she has contributed to multiple upcoming books, and she has been the subject of renowned cartoonist.  I will post further responses to comments in the near future.Henry Delforn (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The external links you give seem more like astroturfing. Most appear to be letters to the editor she wrote herself or are similar articles sent to sympathetic advocacy groups.  You mention France but there is no difficulty for a Jewish-American to be published there nor anywhere in the world now that a media site can be set up on the web by any organization.  I looked at earlier versions of the article that you posted and frankly, it looks like a person's personal web site, not an encyclopedia article.


 * Additionaly, the links you sent above, one is a bio for a former professor that doesn't mention her, another is an advocacy group's home page, and the last is her personal web page. Let's wait for a NYT or some widely acknowledged media source to write their own article on her. Mohummy (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, one the time, wrt "...one is a bio for a former professor that doesn't mention her...", here's a direct email quote verifiable by contacting the said professor at his email listed in the link you mentioned. "Hi Henry, Yes, my script "Munira and Spud" was directly inspired by Anna Baltzer's book, her online communications and a talk I heard her give during one of her lecture tours...Cheers, Pat McGeever". A public publication of this quote is in progress. Henry Delforn (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Having casually run through some web searches, I have been startled by amount of ink she has generated and not from her sponsoring groups. She has become a lightning rod for controversy surrounding the Israeli policy of settlements in Palestine. Her appearance at the University of Southern Indiana drew local television coverage (ABC)  from  March 2006. Groups have organized hostile receptions at her appearances. They have encouraged their members to attend her speeches and to challenge her facts with prepared questions.  In trying to discredit her, her detractors have unwittingly raised her profile. In fact they often cite her web page, appearances and DVD's  e.g. "And in her DVD, 'Life in Occupied Palestine'"; "In her blog, she reveals...."  Given her camera friendly face and controversial message, she's sure to keep garnering media attention and people will look for her article.


 * Her press coverage is out there.


 * This article, like so many others, needs work but I say keep. --Eudemis (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1.) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons – “Reliable secondary sources: Testimonials about Anna Baltzer’s book”
“Baltzer's moving and vivid memoir tells the story of the daily struggle along the Wall in the West Bank, with stories and pictures that capture not just the hardships, but also the resilience of the Palestinian people. It also tells the story of courageous internationals like Baltzer, dedicating their time and energy to the struggle of the suffering, who give many of us hope that, with the people of the world working together, justice and peaceful coexistence in Israel/Palestine are possible.” “By combining a lucid and captivating text with artistic photography, this book draws you into the life of an average Palestinian living under exceptional circumstances of occupation, oppression, and colonization. This vivid account is also a deeply personal story that will inspire you not only to have hope but to actively seek and work for peace and justice.” “Even those who are familiar with the grim reality of the occupied territories will quickly be drawn into a world they had barely imagined by these vivid, searingly honest, intensely acute portrayals of unflagging courage, wanton cruelty, and enduring faith that through non-violent resistance fundamental decency will somehow prevail -- an outcome that lies very much in our hands. I cannot find words to express my admiration for the solidarity workers and peacemakers, international and Israeli, and the people of Palestine whom they are supporting in their struggles to survive and to overcome.”
 * Tanya Reinhart, Israeli activist and author of Israel/Palestine and Roadmap to Nowhere:
 * Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, author of Sharing the Land of Canaan
 * Noam Chomsky

2.) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons – “Reliable sources: Articles written about Anna Baltzer”

 * Electronic Intifada
 * First Mennonite Church (Lincoln, Nebraska)
 * Counter Currents
 * The One-State Solution
 * Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization
 * Abundant Hope
 * Americans for Middle East Understanding (AMEU)
 * International Solidarity Movement
 * Common Ground News
 * Jerusalemites
 * Labour Net
 * Occupation Magazine
 * Palestine Journal
 * Ma’an News Agency
 * OpEd News
 * Middle East Crisis Response
 * Baheth Center for Studies
 * Action Palestine
 * Women Against Military Madness[www.worldwidewamm.org]
 * Mondoweiss
 * Washington Times Republished in: Information Clearing House; Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine; If Americans Knew; Syracuse Peace Council Newsletter; Southside Pride (Minneapolis, MN); The New Mexico Sun News.
 * FRENCH Le Crime d’être né Palestinien
 * GREEK
 * TURKISH
 * SPANISH Witness in Palestine featured on “En Contexto”
 * ITALIAN
 * Henry Delforn (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't really reviewed all of these but you are really stretching when you are using things like her reports, a letter to the editor by her, and just general postings on a blog-type site as confirmation that she's notable (especially if you are going to claim that's all "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as asked for). Frankly, if that's the best you can do, I'm consider nominating for deletion. To be blunt, your argument is focused on its weakest link and the more weak links you add to your claim, the less credibility you have.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm opining per 3O. I've never interacted with anyone listed here, or in regard to this article. I'm here because this request for opinion was simply the next on the list.
 * FYI, I'm neither Jewish nor Palestinian and I'm hardly a news junkie or student of the Middle East. Yet, even I've heard of Anna Baltzer and even seen one of her books. If I'd been near a computer at the time, I likely would have tried to look for an article about her at Wikipedia. Love her or hate her, but don't pretend she doesn't exist as an entity average people in the Wikipedia community may want to research.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem, AuthorityTam is that the person must be notable under Wikipedia guidelines WP:Notability which requires good, reliable sources. So far I'm hard pushed to find any of the given sources that actually meet this criteria. If this goes to an AfD as it now stands with its lack of any substantive source then I'd very reluctantly vote for deletion. - Gallo glass  21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder per above entries, Noam Chomsky and Tanya Reinhart are without doubt "good, reliable sources". With respect to the actual content of the article as it stand now, it has been chopped up to such an extent that it is no longer recognizable to me. At the moment, effort is being made on creating persondata and infobox. Revamping, as far as my input is concern, will follow. Would like to also remind editors that among my initial postings was the explanation of why the 03:49, 6 April 2009 version was so extensively long and disorganized. The mistake (my mistake) was to compile as much research as possible directly onto the article as a matter of print-medium convenience for later refinement and selection of relevant material. Clearly, this kind of editing should have been made in a (man, i hate using this word...sandbox). Why is AuthorityTam's link red? Henry Delforn (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have, however, no reliable source that they said any such things; nor are the things they allegedly said necessarily evidence of notability of this person. As to the other question: unlike some of us, AuthorityTam has never created a userpage for him/herself. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to you immediately because you were good enough to inform me of your nomination for deletion. While your communication and its policy is appreciated, the act of removing this subject from this encyclopedia is an act of censorship. To understand why this is censorship, you have to take a broad perspective of the subject at hand, the PA/IS conflict and how it relates to Wikipedia. For example, you might want to read articles by Cade Metz of TheRegister.co.uk that relate to Wikipedia. Now I know what you are going to say, I don't care about the broader issue I just care about WP:People. But that problem is not for me to resolve. And lastly, wrt "We have, however, no reliable source that they said any such things; nor are the things they allegedly said necessarily evidence of notability of this person", that is a completely unreasonable statement. Maybe we should both get together and drive to MA and ask Chomsky himself if he said such a thing...you drive. Henry Delforn (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm staying out of the political thing; I just want reliable sources. All we have now is a cover-blurb-style quote of something Chomsky allegedly said, with no reliable source as to where this statement was published. Now once we verify where the quote was published, we can judge the statement on its merits. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good wrt the "political thing". There are several reasons why this article needs to be in Wikipedia. Let me reiterate one among my favorites which is completely in the best interest of this encyclopedia. Instead of quoting Ghits as done previously, let me quote YouTube hits. I picked out a sample of the first 9 videos found by searching by subject's name, here are the results (video length/hits): 1) 4:02/29,580; 2) 4:54/1,630; 3) 1:52/1,026; 4) 7:08/785; 5) 6:41/7,789 6) 10:07/4,716; 7) 9:04/2,232; 8) 8:22/1,756; and 9) 3:48/2,099. That's a total of 51,613 hits of traffic that is willing to spend at least 3 minutes in the site. It's not about politics, WP:People, personal opinions, egos, etc - it's business. My prediction over time is that the article will be heavily vandalized due to controversial popularity with the subject and topic. I have no personal or professional axe to grind here. What motive could I possibly have other than the best interest of the encyclopedia as a Wikipedia editor? None. Henry Delforn (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, any discussion really belong at the AFD page. Second, why is so hard to simple find a source that fits within policy?  I don't know where you get the idea that people are going to ignore policies that we apply to almost 3 million articles for this one.  If you want to change policy, go argue at the policy pages for some weird exemption for this article and this article alone.  Otherwise, I think a more productive measure would be to look for sources that fit what's being asked (and it's not particularly insane) and try to incorporate them.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you caught on to my subjectivity, good job. Equally, however, there is subjectivity in applying said policies to those 3 million articles by different editors. For example, what one editor may deem as a reliable quotation source for notability (say a book publisher printing of a book review quotation on their website) another editor may not (say the same quotation printed in the author's book). No credible publisher is going to accept an author's book review quotation without verification from the original source, else the publisher would be liable. Thanks for your help. Henry Delforn (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what dispute resolution is for. Besides, I think User:Eudemis has actually found a few reliable sources at Articles for deletion/Anna Baltzer, enough to change my view.  If it does survive, I think it'll be fine but it will be limited in what can be said.  One idea may be to look for Palestinian or other Middle Eastern newspapers (major ones, which are reliable enough), since the problem really may be just one of systemic bias in our system.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to say that publisher's blurbs, Amazon blurbs, are not acceptable, or at least not without a link to the original. Not becaus they may not be accurate (and they may not be), but because, just as happens on theatre billboards, they may not be representative of the original. WP:Verifiable is a fundamental policy, not a guideline. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect to verification of the Noam Chomsky quotation in the book's back cover, here's an email statement from Paradigm publisher. "Dear Mr. Delforn, Thanks for your message. I can verify that I solicited and received this endorsement for Anna Baltzer's directly from Noam Chomsky, who is a friend of Paradigm Publishers and has published two of his own books with us. The other endorsements are valid as well. Please write me if you require further information. Best wishes,-Dean Dean Birkenkamp Founder and Publisher" Henry Delforn (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On a personal level, I think independent secondary sources would be more productive to add. We have a few newspaper sources that could be useful.  Just from a outside prospective, I would tend to look down on an article that contains a large amount of quotes like book covers.  A journalist quoting Noam Chomsky or someone describing her would be a lot more impressive than something from her book publisher.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Publishers are never reliable sources in the first place; e-mails from publishers to you are even less so. We need solid, reliable sources, not blurbs solicited by the publishers from other authors they themselves publish. Publishers have an overwhelming conflict of interest, since they are in the business of selling their author's books, not in the business of providing impartial, dispassionate analysis of a subject's importance. What makes this so hard for you to understand? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here are some “Independent secondary sources (journalists)”: …be back later to answer the question. Thanks again. Henry Delforn (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ERIN ANDERSEN
 * Jamal Najjab
 * Matt Quinn
 * Hunter Riley
 * Michael King
 * Nick Hytrek
 * ZEYAD MASARAANI
 * Nafeh AbuNab
 * Hannah Mermelstein
 * Nick Cooper
 * Abbey Stirgwolt
 * USAToday
 * Stephanie Kaloi
 * Judy Benson
 * Ghassan Tarazi
 * Mike Sanch
 * YASMIN YONIS
 * Book’s influence in “Literature, Photography and the Arts”

In general, I don’t disagree with what you say. But there’s more. For a reputable publisher, as is Paradigm, to purposely or unintentionally falsely quote a major figure, as is Chomsky, would require a huge potential upside reward for taking the risk of being libel. The book in question doesn’t represent a huge reward for the publisher. In fact, in this case with Chomsky’s reputation and the current number of books sold, I would put the risk-to-reward ratio well over 10:1. It’s just bad business - not worth it.

Evaluating reliable sources can sometimes be over-done. Let me give a specific example while speaking of Chomsky. Here is a quote from Noam Chomsky regarding Wikipedia reliable sources, ''“Thus someone once asked me about a citation of mine, saying they'd looked it up in Wikipedia and it was identified as "unverified." … It was footnoted to the primary documentary source of Israeli cabinet records, page number and all.”'' I have personally spent considerable time looking for this particular unverified citation in Wikipedia but have not been able to find it. Hence, the problem was apparently “resolved”. But I hope you know what I am saying. Thank you. Henry Delforn (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources
Speaking for myself, it has been very difficult obtaining reliable secondary sources for article:Anna Baltzer. I make this statement without speculation of why this has been fact. This being the case, it is evident that some related editors can not be faulted for coming short in providing supporting publications that establish the subject's notability. On the other hand, few other editors have gone beyond a resonable call of duty to find such publications. The "22:39, 9 June 2009" version of the article has sufficient supporting references to meet and exceed Wikipedia:Notability (people), specifically, the "Basic criteria" that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Henry Delforn (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Note of removal
Hello, I just typically like to leave a note when removing content from articles. I had to remove what looked like poisoning the well. If some guy has praised Baltzer, then either it's notable or it isn't. But there's no way the article can include a small dig at him in the process. It's rather inappropriate to point out that a source has been criticized in the past right before including why they're mentioned in the article. This is, of course, also ignoring the more basic fact that very few notable people are completely without criticism. 209.90.134.74 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, some editors still refuse to use talk pages. If you refuse to discuss changes, don't make them. It's disruptive if you so despise cooperating.
 * Once again, the text I removed is unacceptable for multiple reasons:
 * Again, it's poisoning the well. You can't precede a quote or statement with a pre-emptive negative criticism of that source. And, realistically speaking, there's really no justification for it. Besides being a general violation of the policy on neutrality, it quite simply interferes with the flow and readability of the article. Interrupting sentences with disclaimers to defeat those sentences is kinda silly.
 * It seems like it must be a violation of BLP. I mean, it's negative criticism that isn't necessary for the understanding of the article. BLP calls for "a high degree of sensitivity". Criticizing a source solely for the purpose of defeating their point is hardly 'sensitivity'. (There's a buttload more passages that support not including it, but I won't quote them all. Just read the policy page linked to in this bullet point)
 * Who the frig hasn't been criticized at one point in time or another? If this were acceptable, then just about every quote of a politician, tv or movie star, journalist, or activist (not to mention any governments, stations, papers, or organizations related to them) would have to include a similar disclaimer. Oh, and churches also. Couldn't include a quote from anyone involved with any religion without also including a cheap shot. It's absurd.
 * The "article" linked doesn't even come close to being a reliable source. Even wikipedia's own article on CAMERA describes the site as a "pro-Israel media watchdog group". That doesn't describe a reliable source suitable for a neutral article. The Reliable Sources noticeboard includes a great deal of discussions on CAMERA. The general consensus is that it should be used with great care, for limited citations, and not for BLPs. Guess what: this is a BLP.
 * Readers cannot "decide" if they they care about us violating the rules and including absurdity into the articles. It doesn't even make sense.
 * In short, we're talking about whether or not it's appropriate to be in a position where you're obligated to include the fact that someone was praised, but then precede that with a biased, horribly non-neutral and blp-violating disclaimer (which links to a website that makes Fox News and the Huffington Post look like valid neutral journalistic sources) to discredit that praise.
 * It isn't allowed. And, since I've taken great care to explain why it isn't acceptable, I'd appreciate if the next editor actually discussed it here before reverting. 209.90.134.73 (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
IP 149.169.59.146 has added a whole section of unsourced original research and opinion to the end of the criticism section (which needs some major work, in the first place), based on something she didn't even say! What she said was: "...in addition, the Palestinians have made a non-violent call for the United States and the entire world to boycott and divest and impose sanctions - something that was endorsed by the archbishop Desmund Tutu and other South African leaders - to in a nonviolent way pressure Israel to be held accountable in the way that other countries, you know, people talk about sanctions against Iran and Sudan....". I am deleting this since it managed to violate the three most important rules according to WP:BLP (namely WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR). --Fjmustak (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud
The material being repeatedly inserted into this article is completely lacking in reliable sources. Under WP:BLP in general, and our special rules on Arab-Israeli conflict artices in particular, it cannot remain here. If this information is true, provide reliable sources and respect WP:NPOV. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Resume inflation (claiming a Fulbright, or to have gone on a Birthright Israel trip is serious. It belongs on the page, carefully worded.FinchleyRd (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not belong here if it lacks reliable sources. This is not only a BLP, it's also under special sanctions due to the whole Arab-Israeli thing. Without reliable sources, it must come out. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Gatestone Institute and Arutz Sheva are reliable sources, remember, they are being cited as the sources of an allegation. Not of a fact.  This is a serous alllegation, and one that gains credibility from the fact that Baltzer (who tweets incessantly)  has had two days to produce a simple documentation of her Birthright Israel trip, and Birthright is quoted as saying they never heard of her.FinchleyRd (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the sources are adequate enough according to WP:RS to be used as a source of these allegations. However, it should be done in a more neutral way than has been done already, with a special attention to WP:BLP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with improved wording.FinchleyRd (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm new here. I happened to have checked a certain section for grammar this morning, now I see it is gone. I see "Orange Mike" removed it, the very same "Orange Mike" who raised the issue here. I see talk about it is still ongoing. In fact I was checking the Fulbright web site to see if I could verify things for myself. I come back and the section I edited is now gone, and "Orange Mike" removed it, and all while people are still talking about it here. Is that proper for "Orange Mike" to do that, to raise an objection, then, even while talk is proceeding, apply his own solution? Just as a passing observer, he removed everyone's changes, including mine, while it is still being discussed. So shouldn't that section be added back and improved instead of removed by the same person raising an objection for discussion here? I really don't know. Lawfare (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not only proper, it is mandatory. As explained at WP:BLP, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Gatestone Institute does not qualify as a reliable source for accusations of this magnitude. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that. And I've never heard of Gatestone before.  But, I do not see the material as being "contentious".  Are you saying someone proving someone else is lying is "contentious"?  Does "contentious" mean people out in the world are contending over this, or does it mean people on Wikipedia are contending over this?  For example, it is a simple matter to look up the list of Fulbright scholars and see whether or not she is on it.  If she is not, what's to "contend"?  Are people going to "contend" that she is a Fulbright scholor when in reality she is not?  I totally get the gravity of the issue of people using Wikipedia to battle of this issue.  But she either is or is not a Fulbright scholor, that's easy to prove, and Lee Kaplin publicized it and made it relevant.  Further, he is not being "contentious."  I say if she is not listed as a Fulbright scholar, then Lee Kaplin is obviuosly correct, it is not "contentious," and it should be added as lying about your background is entirely relevant as to whether someone is lying about something else. Lawfare (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have no evidence from reliable sources that Kaplan has done anything of the sort; and we are not supposed to do original research, even if such a list of Fulbright scholars exists. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it's not really "original research" if no research is involved, if you are simply looking at an existing list provided by the Fulbright program itself. I'm sorry, as a newbie, it seems silly to me to apply an "original research" policy to something that is simply there for all to see and no research is involved.  Is it original research to look at a list of US Presidents and decide whether or not John Jay is a former US President?  Who knows, I'm new.  Maybe I don't get the rules.  But it seems to me looking up a simple list that's sourced to the very Fulbright program itself has nothing to do with orinial research. I can see leaving Lee Kaplan out then adding the Fulbright list ourselves can be viewed as original research, but not where Lee Kaplan said x and, will ya lookey here, there x is, right on the Fulbright website.  Clearly Kaplan is accurate if Fulbright proves he's accurate. Efforts to keep him out seem like, well, just so much more propaganda to me, to leave out of a story a reliably sourced story on how she faked her background and that source's sources themselves confirm the information. If I were reading about this person, and if I learned from Wikipedia that she call herself or is a Fulbright scholor, but if Wikipedia also does not provide solid evidence that she is lying right from the Fulbright program itself as raised by the Lee Kaplan article, I would think very poorly of that Wikipedia article.  Actually, I would think it was a great article and would not even be aware some guy was bending over backwards to make she the page makes someone look like an angel. Indeed I hear this is the very problem with Wikipedia, and here I am adding a few grammar edits, and they get wiped out in an effort to bend an article for what appears to me to be a biased reason. This is just so much ridiculousness.  The Kaplin story said x, the Fulbright confirms x, x goes against the current content of the Wiki article, but x doesn't get included, or worse, it gets included that deleted out.  This is discouraging. Lawfare (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

<- I would wait a few days for mainstream RS to pick it up or not. JPost, YNet and Haaretz might publish something. Perhaps Forward too. The Gatestone Institute is essentially a primary source in this instance and they're not a prominent organization, so without secondary coverage their isn't evidence that anyone cares (i.e. there is no way to assess due weight). INN is a settlerist media outlet (that isn't meant as an insult, it's just how it is, and good luck to them) and about the worst source possible to use in this BLP. JWire is an opinion piece/editorial which is fine (as is the response from Peter Slezak) but it is being misused in the edit via editorializing. Wait a few days and there will probably be decent sources but partisan editors and editors unfamiliar with the rules governing WP:BLPs and WP:ARBPIA should walk away.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sean. Wait till it gets picked up by a more mainstream RS. I'll strike my comments above for now.Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another article . Wikipedia regularly covers news as it breaks, it certainly covered the Lance Armstrong controversy as it unfolded.  Why is this developing scandal to be treated differently?FinchleyRd (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, to wait. But waiting for mainstream media to write about it limits Wikipedia to only what such media writes about, does it not? (btw, FinchleyRd has already found additional support) I'm too green to know about how Wikipedia works, but it seems to me such media is generally biased, and part of that bias includes not reporting on things they do not want to report on. It's like when Bush was president the media led every news broadcast with the soldier death count while under another president there is no death count and you would never know we were still at war in Afghanistan, Uganda, and other places. I would like to think Wikipedia would have accurate information, not a summary of what's presented in the main stream media. In the present case, for example, would it not be simple to verify the Lee Kaplan info and include those sources as well. By the way, she's called "Jewish," but I see no support for that in the article, nor does it seem relevant what her religion is, except to the extent her religion is used as it is by her and her supporters. I'd like to see someone look into that. Lawfare (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates on WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. In order to include something in an article, it must be recorded in a WP:Reliable source -- mainstream media outlets, books, academic papers, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed some dodgy stuff -- dodgy in the sense that it did not have sources that meet WP:RS. THis is particularly the case for Arutz 7, where there are several discussions on WP:RSN with a clear outcome.  Also please note WP:NEWSORG -- we must not use opinion articles to support statements of fact.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think including that others are pointing out how Baltzer (Piller?) is provably lying about her background (without saying she's lying) is relevant to other claims she makes and goes to her credibility.  Without that balance, one assume's she's telling the truth.  People who lie about their backgrounds are usually lying about other things.  Leaving that out of this article despite it being reliably sourced and provable right on the Fulbright site, for example, casts a false light of credibility.  Then saying the sources are not good enough because they are not politically correct sources is really crappy as well.  And it's not an opinion that she misrepresetns Flbright. Anone can look it up.  But they won't if you let her say she's a Fulbright and challanges made are deemd not reliable by enough editors so are not included.Lawfare (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Gatestone claims turned out to be poorly researched and inaccurate, and as a result the article seems to have been pulled . Good thing editors were vigilante about WP:BLP and WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lawfare, assuming that the information Plotspoiler points to is true, I would suggest that you have demonstrated some woeful credulousness here; perhaps you would do better to find another area of Wikipedia to edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll move on. The author updating his info obviates the issue. I'm confused by this whole thing. Well I'm new so I'm sorry if I caused any problems. I'll go edit knitting or something, and likely stay off talk pages. Lawfare (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Gatestone article now seems to have been deleted from their website, without any trace. They have offered no comment or explanation; but, without even an unreliable source to back the claims, surely this whole episode can now be dropped. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A list of Fullbright scholars is a primary source and it can be used in this article to determine that Baltzer is indeed not on the list. In addition there are a growing number of secondary reliable sources that verify she is not a Fullbright scholar. I would like to suggest that any mention of her Fullbright status be removed until such a time that we can be entirely certain of her participation or lack of participation. There should be no mention of any fraud or lying on her part unless and until there is clear and convincing, BLP-compliant, secondary reliable sources. This would be in keeping with WP:BLP and the most appropiate action to take. Lastly, her participation in Birthright is equally suspect and should be removed, but with the same sans fraud allegations. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2013
Balter needs to be changed to Baltzer in one place.

PeterAttwood (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What was she arrested for in 1997? Why does she have 2 different last names?
The answers to these questions should be included as well as the fact that she previously lied by claiming she was a Fulbright scholar when in fact she was only a teaching assistant who went to Turkey, NOT as a Fulbright scholar.

An entire section should be dedicated to the numerous lies Piller/Baltzer has spread in the past 3 years.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7609 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.205.143 (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP. It applies to this page too, by the way, not just the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified referents in paragraph on "Political activism"
The last three sentences of the paragraph are a quotation that is missing context. The first of those three sentences refers to "the SJP event," but does not identify either the SJP or the event. What event? And who or what is this "SJP"? Neither is there any earlier reference to either of them (the SJP or the event) anywhere in the Wikipedia article as it presently stands. Taken out of context as they are, these statements are wholly unclear.

Now, one may infer from context that it was an event held on a college or university campus somewhere, sometime, and that Anna Baltzer spoke at this event. And since the link is to a story in the Cleveland Jewish News about a "Pro-palestinian group at Case . . .", a reader who bothers to check the citation and knows Cleveland probably will figure out that the event in question probably took place somewhere on the campus of Case Western Reserve University. If he follows the link, he will even see that the meeting was held "Just before the Thanksgiving break." (The article's posting date of "December 6, 2007" will give him the year.) And if he takes the time and trouble to Google "SJP" and "Anna Baltzer", he might even figure out that "SJP" probably stands for "Students for Justice in Palestine."

But the reader shouldn't have to do all this, or any of it!

So it would appear that the paragraph on Baltzer's "Political activism" may have been longer at some point in the past, with a more complete and therefore clearer quotation. The paragraph now reads like something necessary to meaning either was deleted at some subsequent point, or perhaps never was there in the first place! In any event, the paragraph has read as it presently does for well over a year now, so whatever mistake was made goes back a long time.

(Unfortunately, the article cited has been archived, and is now only available to subscribers. So I cannot read it to verify that it was quoted accurately (it reads like it contains a quotation within a quotation, but is not presently punctuated that way; it also may be missing a spokesman's name without ellipsis, and using parentheses where brackets were called for), nor to see the prior sentences that identified the event in question and the SJP.  And I have no direct or independent knowledge of whether "SJP" actually stands for "Students for Justice in Palestine" or not.

Although, since I just discovered — by trying an internal link just to see what would happen — that Wikipedia already has a page for a group called "Students for Justice in Palestine", I'm guessing the odds are pretty good that that was the group named in the earlier, unquoted portion of the article in the Cleveland Jewish News. Which also turns out to have a Wikipedia page.)

Finally, the words "Israel policy" in the final sentence of the paragraph have been made to link to the Wikipedia entry of something called the "Israel Policy Forum", but that link probably is inappropriate, because she was not in fact criticizing — or saying anything about at all — that group. The link is a non sequitur. The link was probably added because Baltzer is an American Jew who is critical of Israel's policies, and the IPF appears to be composed of American Jews who at times, and in some ways, are critical of Israel's policies. However, their views and Baltzer's are not even remotely the same.

So I removed the link. But I am not sure that I am in a position to fix the unspecified references. My best guess as to how to fix them would be to add a clause to the beginning of the first quoted sentence, before the quotation begins, and to add clarifying words in brackets within the quotation as well — so that the end of the paragraph would end up reading something like this:


 * After Baltzer spoke at Case Western Reserve University in 2007, at a meeting sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine, "A Jewish student-life coordinator at [the campus chapter of] Hillel . . . called the SJP event 'very well organized and well attended. It seemed very non-threatening and very non-violent. Baltzer made an extra-special point that just because she was anti-Israeli policy, it doesn’t mean she is anti-Jewish.'"

I have attempted to correct the probable punctuation errors as well.

(Assuming the article did not actually name the Hillel spokesperson, no comma was necessary after "Hillel." Even if the spokesperson was named in the article, as the original inclusion of a comma after "Hillel" suggests, ellipsis is necessary in light of the fact that the person's name was omitted from the quotation here, and we now have no way of recovering it.  And I added internal quotation marks around the words that must have been a quotation of the Hillel student-life coordinator, because otherwise the article's author was the one reporting that the event "seemed very non-threatening and very non-violent," etc., which seems unlikely.  "Speaker" should have been in brackets, not parentheses, but I removed the word since it is unnecessary if we've just said Baltzer spoke at the meeting.  Plus I added italics to "policy" and "Jewish" for greater clarity.)

Better still, since it is so unlikely that the article's author, rather than the student-life coordinator, was the one assessing the peacefulness of the meeting and the pro-Jewish bona fides of Ms. Baltzer, we can dispense with the internal quotation marks and just quote the spokesperson, instead of the article:


 * After Baltzer spoke at Case Western Reserve University in 2007, at a meeting sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine, a Jewish student-life coordinator with the campus chapter of Hillel said the event was "very well organized and well attended." (Some 500 people gathered to hear Baltzer and others.)  The Hillel spokesperson added that the event "seemed very non-threatening and very non-violent. Baltzer made an extra-special point that just because she was anti-Israeli policy, it doesn’t mean she is anti-Jewish."

But I am not comfortable making these changes when I cannot see the original article. (Maybe the article's author was sharing her own subjective impressions rather than those of the Hillel spokesperson she interviewed afterward.) So I merely suggest them.

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:2F (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)