Talk:Rashid Khalidi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moshe Ya'alon quotation[edit]

An article that shows rashid's lack of credibility should be added... [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.14.109.32 (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(title and misleading accusations redacted for WP:BLP reasons) There is already an entire article about the incident, False Moshe Ya'alon quotation. If you read that article the quotation was correct, save for the placement of the quote marks, which resulted in it being incorrectly and apparently mistakenly attributed to Ya'alon rather than an author who was characterizing what he argued to be Ya'alon's attitude. Khalidi's role, as one of the 8-10 academics and prominent journalists and hundreds or thousands of less notable ones who repeated the inaccuracy, is minor. Although it is indeed sloppy for any academic or journalist to repeat another's mistakes without checking the primary sources, it is not a noteworthy event in Khalidi's career, and we're not going to plaster this on every article about everyone involved, although I note that some of the activist press has been doing that in blogs and editorials. Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misattribution is not minor. 49.183.11.30 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

I think the criticism section needs to be expanded. This page should not be a forum for political views, but at the same time he has been blasted for many of his controversial views. By not including these opinions, we are not giving a full picture of his public persona. Without an expanded criticism section, I think this does not have a NPOV. --Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I was reading the talk page. This reads like a media release bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.11.30 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rashid Khalidi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Racial slurs" section[edit]

You can't just write a section called "racial slurs" and fill it up with claims against him (even one by a undergraduate student!). It is a blatant WP:BLP violation. You have to provide a reliable source for it, provide context, and if he responded to the charges (which he has) you have to bring his response. You cannot judge him in Wikipedia's voice. Khalidi says "I was of course referring to those figures in and around the new administration and the Netanyahu government, irrespective of their religion, who promote a pro-occupation and pro-settlement political agenda." [1] which is the plain truth as you can hear for yourself. Unfortunately for him, he chose the word "infest", which allowed his enemies to avoid responding to his political argument. Zerotalk 12:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was procedural.You can restore new user edit if you want to take responsibility for it.--Shrike (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rashid Khalidi. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rashid Khalidi. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation[edit]

Using a frickin blog to claim that Khalidi said "coded anti-semitic discourse" is outrageous, and should be met with a block. nableezy - 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Khalidi is a public figure whose comments were the subject of significant media attention. the brief text was sourced to 3 WP:RS publications and a "blog",a actually, an an essay by Professor Jarrod Tanny who is a RS for his own opinions. Nableezy you deleted this, requesting rephrasing and additional sources. I provided them. I suggest that you self-revert your 2nd deletion of this reliably sourced material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is a reliable source for his own opinions, however you put as a section header of a BLP Coded anti-semitic discourse. That is, you, in Wikipedia's voice, have claimed that a living person engaged in coded anti-semitic discourse. And you did that based off of a blog. Finally, please see the terms of use of the blogs at Times of Israel. See how it says Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. Then read WP:BLPSPS which says the following:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

As Time of Israel explicitly disclaims any editorial control over the blogs, including somebody's personal opinion that a living person engaged in coded anti-semitic discourse even if as their own opinion is explicitly forbidden by policy. Including as a God damn section title where it appears in the table of contents should result in a block. No, I will not self-revert, the entire section is based on sources of low quality and do not demonstrate weight for inclusion. Additionally, several parts of it are explicitly forbidden by WP:BLP. I challenge the inclusion of that section entirely for BLP reasons, and if you revert me I will absolutely ask for the block that you should be given for including that section title in the first place. nableezy - 01:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You objected to "slur", so I used the phrasing used by Jarrod Tanny , a professor of Jewish history, and a good source on this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said remove per weight, I objected to much more than slur. And no, Mr Tanny is not a good source on this, the source you included is explicitly disallowed and if you return it I will ask for sanctions per the BLP arbitration case. nableezy - 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the other sources, you have the exceedingly partisan National Review, of which Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says: There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Then you have an opinion piece in the Observer, which describes itself as Observer offers metropolitan professionals an original take on the latest in news, culture, politics and luxury, bringing its irreverent sensibility to a national audience. Not a RS for contentious claims about a living person, and regardless as an opinion piece unusable to demonstrate any weight at all. Finally, there is the single nominally reliable source here, a piece in the Jerusalem Post, which says

For some in the Jewish community, "infest" possesses an antisemitic connotation that hearkens back to the Nazi era, when Jews were described as "rats" or "vermin."

Thats not exactly the stringing rebuke you have the article taking. In sum, I see no reason to include this at all due to WP:WEIGHT, and any inclusion of maybe 90% of it violates WP:BLP. nableezy - 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of Khalidi's words about people who hold certain views that he listed into "American Jews" is not only a slur on Khalidi but a slur on American Jews. Zerotalk 05:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also very true. He did not say one word about Jews, American or otherwise, making for another fabrication and a straightforward BLP violation. nableezy - 09:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased the material to address the concerns expressed above. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not, and you have returned material explicitly banned by WP:BLP, and restored material challenged per BLP in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. I am again reverting the poor sources, though I'll leave a bit of it. nableezy - 11:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that critical theorist Bernard Harcourt says:
demeaning and dehumanizing expressions such as “infest,”[1]
So, in addition to the significant media coverage Khalidi got, it should be noted The New York Review of Books says the expression "infest" is demeaning and dehumanizing. XavierItzm (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that a piece that says nothing about Khalidi or what he said says nothing about Khalidi or what he said? Please read WP:SYNTH, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:BLPSPS as you seem to want to violate all of them today. nableezy - 11:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE does not apply to your incorrect blanking of National Review, which does not apply to "Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof", per WP:RSP. I had inserted it as support for "Khalidi said pro-Israel people would ‘infest’ the U.S. government." Do you dispute this mundane, uncontroversial detail? Also, WP:BLPSPS does not apply to this WP:RS[2] which you also deleted. See what you did? You threw the baby with the bathwater. Sad! Finally, you need to read WP:SYNTH: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards". Incredible. It looks to me like WP:WL is being used here to evade an issue. Please familiarize yourself with policy, and please refrain from making further unconstructive edits and unfounded accusations. XavierItzm (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lol [p]lease familiarize yourself with policy, and please refrain from making further unconstructive edits and unfounded accusations. What WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE actually says:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Next, the nonsense about so-called RS. The JPost opinion piece is, hello, an opinion piece. The National Review piece is unreliable given it outright lies about what Khalidi said, saying The famous Columbia professor repeatedly used a Nazi-era metaphor to depict Jews as vermin. No, he did not. He did not say one word about Jews. Yes, I suppose the claim that a living person called Jews vermin is mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof. Silly me. As far as OR not applying to the talk page, that seems a bit disingenuous given you said it should be noted ... . Incredible indeed. Again, the material you re-inserted was a. explicitly banned by WP:BLPSPS (the blog) and challenged as a BLP violation (National Review and so on). Again, restoring material challenged as a BLP violation requires consensus. Again, go read the policies yourself. And please refrain from making further unconstructive edits. Further BLP violations will be reported to AE, as I see you also have the required notification in your talk page history. nableezy - 12:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The JP opinion piece was fully attributed and had never been previously disputed by anyone until you deleted with zero justification. Your edit summary was "restoring deleted content requires consensus for the record".[3] Deletion was uncalled for and it was deleted in a classic case of throwing baby with badwater. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE did no apply and you should revert. The NR report says "The longtime Columbia University professor last month said repeatedly that supporters of Israel would “infest” the Trump administration — language that evokes the imagery and metaphors of the Nazis". This is entirely uncontroversial and the NR report was cited in support of the sentence "Khalidi said pro-Israel people would ‘infest’ the U.S. government". This content from the National Review constitutes "due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy", and therefore fully meets WP:RS/P. BTW, your interpretation of the title of the NR article is incomplete. Do you think the "pro-Israel people" mentioned by the various sources are Zoroastrians? You ought to self-revert, least a wider audience see what's going on here. I see you still refuse to accept your WP:OR claim was as unjustified as the rest. Please do go ahead and report to AE, we'll see about WP:BOOMERANG. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it hadnt previously been disputed, as hello it had not previously been added. I am absolutely not going to self-revert. And if you return a BLP violation that has been challenged on the talk page as such without consensus I will report it. Cheerio, nableezy - 15:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2023[edit]

Add a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokers_of_Deceit:_How_the_U.S._Has_Undermined_Peace_in_the_Middle_East in the published works section DMH43 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashid_Khalidi&diff=1188021525&oldid=1186918599 Cannolis (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an up-date?[edit]

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/12/20/this_is_a_colonial_war_historian 93.211.212.206 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy/Criticism section?[edit]

Should a controversy or criticism section maybe be added? I understand NPOV needs to be maintained and it might be giving undue weight but I feel like the article could be expanded with one, or maybe a less-loaded 'reception' section? Khalidi's work has been discussed negatively and criticized quite a lot, it would paint a fuller picture. Cowlan (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalidi's work has been discussed negatively and criticized quite a lot—by whom? Certainly not scholars of repute. This is ridiculous. إيان (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I personally enjoy Khalidi's work, I was just wondering whether the article could be expanded. I tried finding reliable sources and while I did find some criticism from revisionist historians, it mostly comes from self published blogs, op-eds etc. Probably would be undue weight to include Cowlan (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khalidi tries to make a case that there was widespread Arab peasant resistance to Zionist land purchase before 1914, but not very successfully. He relies on only a few instances of conflict to support his claim, but Avneri's more thorough research shows that these cases were not typical. In most cases the Arab tenants were happy to take the cash compensation and escape from the poverty of peasant life. In fact, some Arab peasants offered land for sale which they didn't actually own, knowing that the Zionists would pay anyway. (It's ironic here that the al-Khalidis were one of the leading Arab landowning families who sold a lot of their land to the Zionists). 144.6.1.58 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does IP have a reliable secondary source? إيان (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in This Very Wiki in the article on Mandatory Palestine that many land acquisitions and transfers were illegal and unregistered -- which are the transfers I refer to above. Khalidi is a -- self-admitted -- Palestinian nationalist and, sadly, in my view (having already done some years of an almost completed BA History major), a political (Nasserite) and ethnic (Arab) and religious (Islam) polemicist with very little material in his books that I have found genuinely useful. 144.6.1.58 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t warrant adding a controversy/criticism section, as per WP:NOR Cowlan (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024[edit]

Change "born 1948" to "born November 18, 1948" ~source: https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/khalidi-rashid-i-1948-rashid-ismail-khalidi 192.124.23.10 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "How Trump Fuels the Fascist Right". The New York Review of Books. 29 November 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2019. uses demeaning and dehumanizing expressions such as "infest,"
  2. ^ https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Culturally-coded-antisemitism-across-the-political-spectrum-479371
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashid_Khalidi&type=revision&diff=902374041&oldid=902373128
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rashid_Khalidi&oldid=1220465159"