`::No, the only problem here is your attitude. You need to calm down and argue your case for exclusing criticism of Blitzer and details of his bibliography/relationship with AIPAC from a rational standpoint. You also need to argue for these exclusions on a policy basis. Characterizing the statements of 2 critics, people as liable for court proceedings as wikipedia, ``tangential``, is no good. He worked for AIPAC. Evidence reflected in his published work for AIPAC also exists. Attempting to disallow inclusion of criticism because you havent found ``the other side`` is no good either. That he made a rebuttal was originally mentioned by me. I spent time looking for his rebuttal, please include it if you have more luck finding it. ::I did find published evidence of Blitzer working for AIPAC. You must move on to trying to discredit that evidence. Yes getting the name of the paper wrong was a silly mistake but doesnt reflect on the cited sources, or details of Blitzers work for AIPAC.    `