Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 1

Anti-semite slander
How could such an esteemed university as Columbia University hire an anti-semite? I highly doubt editor Avraham's unsubstantiated claim that Khalidi is an anti-semite. He provided no reference to his claim. He merely put him in that category. Being critical of Israel does not make one an anti-semite. Dogru144 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going through the citations and updating where necessary. If the evidence does not prove anti-Semitism, I'll be glad to leave it out. As for universities hiring anti-semites, I sadly direct you to Leonard Jeffries and Joseph Massad. -- Avi 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Massad works at Columbia as well. -- Avi 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So let me see if I have this straight Avi: Khalidi is a professor at Columbia and Massad is a professor at Columbia...you personally judge Massad to be anti-semitic...ergo Khalidi is an anti-semite?! Both consider the state of Israel to be an apartheid regime, but this does not mean they hate all Jews! Calling Khalidi an anti-semite is a politically motivated ad hominem attack, sadly not uncommonly leveled in debates surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is an egregious and embarassing error. Cite evidence from Khalidi's writing or speeches which warrants such a label; you cannot. Inoculatedcities 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Verified quotations
I have verified the citations for everything with a reference entry, and I have re-written the text to be more faithful to the citations and less sensationalistic for those areas I have edited. It should not be removed, as it is verified from reliable sources and should be weasel-word-free, at least the parts that I have gotten to so far. -- Avi 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Newspaper editorial articles are not really reliable sources for this kind of thing. Neither are the allegations of lobbying groups such as CAMERA. As for the hnn.com article, it says it was written by an intern and comes with a lengthy semi-discUlaimer, which makes me doubt whether it is wise to use it as the basis for inserting an item entitled "Allegations of Plagiarism" into the Wikipedia biography of a noted historian. I have therefore removed all these elements. Palmiro | Talk 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are reliable sources for 1) when they bring quotations of people and 2) to show an opinion exists. No one is making an allegation BASED on an editorial, rather we are bringing the allegations MADE IN the editorials.

Further, the way to handle NPOV is not to remove cited and referenced material (if the material meets WP:RS) but to bring all sides, as I have done with Khalidi's denial of teh claim of "brainwashing" etc.

As for the hnn quote, I'll look into that further as well. Thank you. -- Avi 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see Some definitions under opinions. If the opinions are attributed to the proper source (to prevent weasel wording) than the fact that they exist are facts, and the organizations own website is always the best place for that. To use CAMERA's site to say unequivacably that he is an anti-semite, for example, would be wrong, I agree. But to say that CAMERA, who makes it their business to monitor teh middle east, feels that khalidi is X, Y, and Z, is NOT an issue of WP:V or WP:RS or WP:NPOV. By all means, bring work from organizations that disagree so that the reader can make their own decision based on the evidence. -- Avi 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

POV on Political Views
These quotations, whether verified or not, are a blatant skew of Khalidi's political beliefs. They are simply a compilation of the least representative quotes possible, clearly designed to advance an agenda against Professor Khalidi. They ought to be tempered with rhetoric reflecting the majority of Khalidi's sentiments. cjs 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, please add second-party descriptions of his views that are contrary to what is already there, as long as they conform to WP:V and WP:RS, that is the best way to flesh out the article. -- Avi 04:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously you are not going to get a balanced article if you choose attacks in the gutter press and pro-Israeli government lobby groups as your sources. Neither is combining such sources with more neutral sources going to really result in a good article. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, remember. Palmiro | Talk 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are calling the Washington Times, PBS, and the Chicago Tribune gutter press? I don't understand. -- Avi 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the latter two are quite reputable, but the Washington Times is not, and neither is the New York Sun, though I see that bit is now gone. Palmiro | Talk 23:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, I am removing the POV tag. If you have opposing views in verifiable and reliable sources, please bring them, but the evidence is what the evidence is. -- Avi 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I cut the last part of the Washington Times slander, because the quotation implied that Khalidi had stated what was in fact part of the article by "Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris". There is plenty of substance already from the WT editorial, and if the reader wants to go check it out, they certainly can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.208.22.2 (talk • contribs) 11:36, October 16, 2006   (UTC)


 * I restored the text as it is a direct quote from the article; however, I did paraphrase it in such a way to make more clear who said what. -- Avi 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the title to "Controversial Statements," since the statements appear to have been chosen primarily for their controversiality. "Controversial Political Statements" would be another option. This section could also be combined with the "Criticism" under a larger heading of "Controversy." One problem with simply titling it "Political Views" is that it suggests they are typical and broadly representative, which doesn't appear to be why they were chosen. Being that they seem to have been culled to show his extremism by critics, they might also simply be included under Criticism. Mackan79 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To add to myself, on second thought, these quotes probably shouldn't be here at all, considering that they were clearly taken out of context to criticize him. The first, regarding occupation, is probably the most legitimate, since it was simply chosen for the controversiality of the statement.  The second quote, regarding the right under international law to resist occupation, appears to have been chosen  because it may reflect a misstatement.  The third appears to be a smattering of single words which portray Kahlidi as insulting the American people.  Is this really the kind of thing that goes in an encyclopedia article?  I'm skeptical.  It appears basically to be an arsenal for critics, without being clearly labeled as such.  Mackan79 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourced material is being blanked out by Palmiro
Please stop. The fact you don't like it is not a wikipedia policy. It's all sourced and verifiable, and very researched and comprehensive, and it will all obviously stay. How on earth will you think that citing things he said about Israel or the allegations made agaisnt him about plagriasm and international law issues all sourced is "cherrypicked and a violation of wikipedia rules" - don't be ridicilous. Amoruso 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that this is all in an "accusations" section - you can't get more WP:NPOV than that. Deleting that section was just strange IMO. Amoruso 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This page suffers from severe problems with WP:BLP
It is in plain violation of Wikipedia policy to fail to include the article subject's denial if he is accused of something. I am in the process of correcting this, but the article is still rather unbalanced. The only substantive section is on criticism of Khalidi. Kalkin 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means add his rebuttal, but do not delete verifiably and reliably sourced accusations. -- Avi 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove a single piece of factual information. Please do not confuse me with previous editors. Kalkin 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Case in point. Avi just made the following changes:


 * 1
 * In an interview on PBS, Khalidi has described Palestine as under "occupation" since 1948, saying "about half of it was occupied by Israel (which under UNGA 181 was supposed to obtain roughly 55% of Mandate Palestine, and which by the time of the armistice had taken control of about 78%, including half of what was to have been the Arab state)... the remainder was, as you say, under Egyptian and Jordanian control from 1948-1967.
 * Became:
 * In an interview on PBS, Khalidi has called the existence of Israel as an “occupation” of Palestine since 1948.
 * 2
 * A Washington Times op-ed quoted Khalidi as calling Israel an “apartheid system in creation” and a “racist state” that “brainwashed” Americans do not understand, and as deeming "Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority since the 1880s... 'an Arab city' whose control by Israeli 'foreigners' is 'unacceptable.'"
 * Became:
 * Khalidi has been quoted in the press as calling Israel an “apartheid system in creation” and a “racist state” that “brainwashed” Americans do not understand. He further has called Jerusalem, notwithstanding its Jewish majority since the 1880s, an Arab city whose control by Israeli “foreigners” is “unacceptable”.
 * Note that Khalidi denies making those comments.
 * 3
 * Khalidi denies ever being a P.L.O. spokesperson, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."
 * Was removed entirely.


 * And he has the nerve to title one of his edits "reverted whitewashing and blanking of data."
 * With disgust, Kalkin 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kalkin, it pays to follow the entire edit history before making accusations. GO back, check, and then come back and state your case. Thanks -- Avi 00:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting this while I was in the process of posting about it. I'll review the article again in a few minutes when other editors have finished with it.  All my edits came from already linked sources, which editors had cherrypicked to avoid including denials from Khalidi or the context of his quotes, so I'm afraid trying to get the article in shape isn't going to be pleasant.  Even if all the accusations can be quoted honestly and sourced reliably, which they are not at present, the section is certainly given undue weight. Kalkin 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No it's not. In fact the opposite, it's listed under accusations to avoid WP:POV but it's all very relevant. If you think it gets too long, you can create another article and keep the beginning of this and link to the main article. But it's sourced and relevant. Amoruso 00:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope your nausea and disgust have eased now that you see what I did in toto [[image:smile.gif]]. I have no issues with bringing his own statements in defense, that helps NPOV. I do have issue with removing accusations that themselves are well sourced and well founded. It is not a coincidence that so much can be found linking this man and the accusations. -- 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "nausea", just "disgust". You didn't finish restoring everything - notably the context for the occupation quote - but I forgive you anyway.
 * Look, I don't want to remove information without consensus, because it'll just get into a fight. But I think the section on "accusations of misstating international law" is frankly just silly.  There are disputes among international legal professionals about what exactly constitutes legal resistance; it's by no means clear that guerrilla warfare is automatically illegal, as the counter-Khalidi interpretation would imply.  Even if he had got this wrong, he's not supposed to be an expert on international law.  What's the point of having this in the article?
 * To state my biases clearly, the plagiarism accusation and the PLO accusation are pretty clearly politically motivated smears. But at least they're bad, if true.  They need to be balanced but I'm not sure they should be removed, at least if we can get more sourcing beyond the Moonie Times and CAMERA.  By contrast I don't actually agree with Khalidi on the international law question (I take China Mieville's position that international law is inherently indeterminate, because of conflicting rules, and therefore useless for progressive purposes, something I think this dispute illustrates quite well).  But I don't see why this matters for Wikipedia.
 * Kalkin 02:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While Kalkin's edits have certainly improved the article, it still remains grossly biased. It is ridiculous that the vast bulk of an article on an emininent Palestinian historian consists of politically motivated accusations, only one of which (that regarding the right to resist occupation) is arguably sourced to an academic in a related field. What we have here is a grotesque violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (see the section regarding undue weight). Compare this with, say, the article on the far more controversial Bernard Lewis, where none of the many attacks on Lewis by non-academic writers is mentioned.
 * As a starting point, anything that is sourced to groups such as CAMERA as well as factual claims sourced to opinion, as opposed to news, articles in highly-ideological newspapers such as the Washington Times, needs to go. Hopefully we can reach consensus at least on this minimum point. Palmiro | Talk 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I disagree with you. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America also known as CAMERA is a reliable source for bringing opinions regarding people with philosophies similar to Rashidi. I direct you to Reliable sources where it states "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion." CAMERA is reliable enough to demonstrate the strong opinion and substantiating evidence that Khalidi is biased and holds extreme views regarding Israel, Zionism, and perhaps Jews in general. -- Avi 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are effectively accusing Khalidi of anti-Semitism, which is despicable. CAMERA is not qualified to assess the qualifications or bona fides of historians and in general the views of political lobby groups such as CAMERA are not a good way to assess historians. I don't see why the views of such political lobby groups, which exist only to object to any Palestinian daring to express a Palestinian opinion, are relevant to any encyclopaedia article. Were some historian or even some well-known and respected non-historian such as Friedman - quoted in the article - to express opinions about Khalidi that would be a different thing. But groups like CAMERA are worthless, and anybody who knows who they are will already know the sort of terms in which they will attack anyone like Khalidi. My question is, why the double standards? Why nothing like this on the article about Bernard Lewis, for example?
 * In the end, this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a right-wing blog. Palmiro | Talk 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the page suffers from severe balance problems, besides the accuracy and sourcing of allegations. I agree that the Bernard Lewis article demonstrates a more appropriate balance of criticism and general description.  And finally I agree that accusing Khalidi of anti-Semitism is indefensible, and debases both the political discourse on the Middle East and the real threat of anti-Semitism itself.
 * Here are my suggestions for improving the article:
 * 1) Reduce the stuff on international law and move it to the political section. This article isn't the place for a debate on whether Palestinians have the right to armed resistance, or exercise it appropriately.  Khalidi's opinion can be noted and that's enough; wikilink to articles that deal with the question more fully.
 * 2) Leave in the comments from Friedman quoted in the Moonie Times about Khalidi as a PLO spokesperson and Khalidi's denial. Remove the CAMERA stuff as questionably sourced (from CAMERA) and saying little (A PLO spokesperson trusts him enough to give him access to archives.  Scandal!).
 * 3) Trim the plagiarism section massively, leaving just a sentence about the allegation and a couple sentences from the letter from Ziad J. Asali.  It seems to me to be a non-story given the clarification by the owners of the website, but it's worth having for the clarification.
 * 4) Expand the political views and research interests sections for balance.
 * This would leave the criticism section at about the length of Bernard Lewis', and considerably longer than that of, say, Martin Kramer, though the latter's criticism section is in fact too short. Kalkin 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who Lewis is, and his relevancy to this article appears to be zero. Your or my opinions about this man (Khalidi) are irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on verifability, not truth, and as long as the article brings reliable and verifiable sources, that is what wikipedia requires. Now, by all means, the way to combat NPOV is to bring acceptable sources from the various sides. Bring more praise for Khalidi from Said, Massad, etc. It is sorrowfully obvious that the same cadre of people will be supporting each other (khalidi, massad, etc.) and the same cadre of people will be attacking them (pipes, kramer, etc.). The perception of extreme anti-zionistic, anti-Israel feeling, and strong suggestions of anti-Jewish opinion as well, is well documented and well sourced. It is a shame that it is true, for these people seem very intelligent and articulate, but they are on record as being accused of using their talents to disseminate a severe point of view. This is a fact. That they defend their interest group, Palestinian Arabs, with the same fervor is commendable, especially if you are a Palestinian, but it is in addition to their Israeli sentiment, not instead of it. -- Avi 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Strong suggestion of anti-Jewish opinion" is a straightforward libel - no source quoted here accuses Khalidi of anti-Semitism. Kalkin 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. I was editing the massad article at the same time, and Schreiber et al. is there. I have stricken those comments. Thanks! -- Avi 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fascinating that someone who has no idea who Bernard Lewis is still considers himself qualified to write an article about a Middle Eastern historian. That's one of those moments that just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about wikipedia. Kalkin's proposals are generally good. I'm not sure why we would expand the section on Khalidi's political views, though; he's known as a historian, not as a politician or political activist, and if we're expanding anything it should be material on his contribution to the scholarship. Palmiro | Talk 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I view my role as not writing the article, but verifying the citations others have brought, finding verifiable citations for statements that don't have and removing statements that cannot be proprly sourced. I leave it to you "experts" to bring new information, although I can google aswell as anyone. My point is that your OPINION is as useful as mine in this matter; neither is acceptable as a source for wikipedia (see WP:OR). Instead of vociferously trying to supress certain information, bring reputable information to confirm your point to the table instead and work to BUILD the article, not destroy it. Also, for that fuzzy feeling inside, I suggest Alka-Seltzer and laying off the late-night pizza ;) -- Avi 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point of my edits and my remarks. I am not trying to suppress information but to ensure that we have a balanced, relevant and fair article. This does necessitate that we don't give undue weight to political lobby groups and their camp-followers in writing an article about a historian. That's been pretty much my point all along. Palmiro | Talk 21:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I had to delete the section regarding PLO associations. I wanted to save it, but it's just too stretched. Friedman said that he worked for the Palestine Press Agency, Wafa. Good and fine. It was then stated here, however, that Wafa is the PLO press agency. This was not sourced. According to Wikipedia's Wafa entry, moreover, Wafa is not the PLO press agency, but rather the agency of the Palestinian National Authority. According to the Wikipedia on the Palestinian National Authority, the PNA and PLO are distinct. Now, of course, if this Wikipedia information is incorrect, a revert may be in order. Assuming it's correct, though, this left the option: say that Friedman alleged that Khalidi worked for Wafa, and that Wafa is run by the PNA, and then explain that the PNA isn't the PLO, but what, is also Palestinian? I don't see how that works. The next statement, then, was simply that Khalidi's wife had worked for the same organization. Newsworthy perhaps if this were really the PLO, but apparently it's not even that. So then below that, we simply had an explanation of how Khalidi represented the Palestinians in Madrid, not as part of the PLO, but with other people involved who did represent the PLO. We then had Khalidi denying the associations, followed by CAMERA admiting that they don't actually say he worked for the PLO. Put all this together, I don't see how a section on alleged PLO associations, which is basically an unexplained partisan attack to begin with, is justified. If I'm getting something wrong, though, please explain. Mackan79 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about WP:V not truth or one's perception of it. The section quotes WP:RS and therefore relevant. There are many sources linking the agency to Wafa. In fact, there is huge amount of evidence linking him to PLO that still was not described in the article - deleting it makes no sense. Amoruso 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The source does not state the key proposition, that Wafa is the PLO press agency. Friedman did not say this. This was added without attribution, and is apparently false.  You say you have many sources; where are they?  Unless you can source this, it should not be there, and it should certainly not be stated as fact.  This was not already discussed.  Please do explain; for now I will simply remove the statement that Wafa is the PLO press agency, since there is no source for this.  Unless corrected, however, the whole thing should be removed, because this renders the whole paragraph incomprehensible. Mackan79 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Boyle quote
I think whoever brought the Boyle quote is mising the point of the accusation. No one denies the rights of the Palestinans to resist. Their method, however, violates the 4th GC by not having set uniforms, signs, carrying weapons openly, etc. If they used a Palestinian military is one thing; what they are using is terrorist activities. So Boyle's quote, while perhaps accurate, is completely irrelevant in answering the misstatement accusation against Khalidi. -- Avi 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But in the quote provided in the article, Khalidi doesn't say that some particular act of resistance in which fighters didn't wear uniforms was legal. He says exactly the same thing as Boyle, which is that Palestinians in general have a right to resist with armed force.  As above, I think this whole "accusation" is rather silly.  Seriously - why is it important?  Plagiarism - that's a real charge.  Misstating international law? Kalkin 16:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It shows Mr. Khalidi's leanings. He is agreeavly a notable Palestinian scholar, both in lineage and study, and his statements are given great weight when made public, as they should be. However, his particular bias needs to be demonstrated so that the wikipedia reader can make their own decision. It is not the article that has a POV, it is the subject. -- Avi 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it could be relevant for those reasons, by as you explain it I don't see it as an "accusation." How about it goes back into the "political views" section, which needs expansion anyway? Kalkin 16:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a little research on the Boyle quote finds the book and book review on which it is based. If anyone can actually get their hands on the book and find the page number, we can dispense with the Gillespie review in its entirety. -- Avi 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New and Reduced
I hope people aren't offended by my various changes. I think the critics still get their shots in with the controversial statements (the more important issue, I would think), without giving excessive attention to the more attenuated accusations or the apparently relatively petty plagiarism charge (but still mentioning even that). I'd almost suggest the disputed neutrality banner could be removed at this point? Mackan79 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to these changes. Who says this is a petty argument ? Seems pretty serious and well documented to me. Shouldn't be non noticeable. Amoruso 09:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The charge (not charges, this relates to a single incident) consists of an article posted on a website, which Khalidi and the organization both claim he didn't even know about. Is this serious academic plagiarism?  On the scale of plagiarism charges, I would have to think this would be on the very moderate end of the scale, and inconclusive that he was even involved in any way.  This was not a book.  This was not a scholarly article.  There is no pattern.  If we're even putting it /in/ the article, we're saying it's serious, quite serious.  By making an entire section called "Accusations of Plagiarism," we're turning it into a monster.  If there's a larger section on the campaign against Khalidi, this could go in that section.  As section 3 or 4 of a biography of his life, this is way overdone.  Question:  When and where have these charges been published?  I'll await a response (please note that I left comments regarding other changes above). Mackan79 14:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the fact he denied it makes it not serious ? Would you think he would not deny it regardless whehter it's true or not ? This is not an article on a website - it's a big affair where many scholars made this claim and it's a huge controversy. Amoruso 14:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not an article on a website? Can you explain?  What I'm saying is that this is probably the least notable case of alleged academic plagiarism I have ever seen, for a whole number of reasons, some of which I listed.  I'll wait, though, to see what happens with the PLO accusations.  There could possibly be an accusations section, but there needs to be some concensus of what should go into it. Mackan79 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso: I'm a third reader taking issue with you on the subject.  I've read the so-called plagiarism accusation links and find them flimsy and petty at best.  They should be removed entirely.  In fact the accuser you name, Alan Dershowitz, hardly a dispassionate observer, has made such controversial allegations of others.  After seeing Rashid Khalidi in an interview the other evening, I consulted Wikipedia to learn more about him and was surprised to find the majority of his entry (after the links and references) overwhelmingly negative.  Reading the supporting links, some of which were subjective, highly-charged opinion pieces, it seems clear--short of any further evidence--the breadth of the negativity is without merit.  The fact is that accusations are just that, accusations, and as they are worded and ill-supported here should not be a part of any encyclopedic entry. 4.249.117.193 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The accusations are indeed exactly that - accusations - which is what the article says. Accusations are also interesting enough and encyclopedic to note when it comes from prominent figures or incidents like this one. Wikipedia is a source for ALL this information as long as it maintains accuracy which it did by saying these are accusations. There's no reason to censor this information. How can you say it's not notable when it's all over the net and many people had their say on this is not something I understand. As you can see in the article provided, the PLO allegations are also very abundant and should not be supressed in any way. Amoruso 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the third comment, that's also how I ended up here, with the same reaction. Amoruso, I do not believe the standard for Wikipedia is what is "all over the net," and I think you understand that fine.  I imagine you're aware that there are plenty of unfounded and unnoteworthy accusations all over the net, particularly relating to such contentious issues as the Israel-Palestine conflict.  In any case, I'll keep trying compromises.  Mackan79 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso: You would do well to re-read the English Wikipedia Official Policy on Biographies of living persons, in particular the section on Biased or malicious content: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."  The petty, ill-supported accusation of online plagiarism is:  1. not relevant to the subject's notability, but more importantly with the other accusations, 2. overwhelms the article, and 3. gives a disproportionate amount of space to the petty criticism.  It should be removed.  4.249.117.193 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mackan79, please note you have violated WP:3RR on th article. Amoruso 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso, I was not aware that the rule applied to partial changes, although some of mine may have regarded blatantly defamatory statements. In any case, I'm happy to hold off on further changes. While I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, however, I'd also note that you and Avraham appear to be stretching guidelines by reverting large sections without attempting to incorporate good faith efforts to remove obvious bias in the article.  (Continued below)


 * In the continuing hope that a compromise can be reached, let me explain the bias that remains. 1.  Although none of the previous two sections give headlines for specific topics, suddenly the third one regarding "Accusations" gives a large individual headline for each allegation that has been leveled, starting with the highly inflammatory "Accusations of Plagiarism."  This is plainly unnecessary, inconsistent with the rest of the article, and draws more attention to these two accusations than anything else in the article, in clear violation of Wikipedia standards.  2.  As it stands, the accusations section is not a section /about/ accusations, but a section /of/ accusations.  The PLO section, particularly, presents specific alleged facts to suggest Khalidi is tied to the PLO.  This does not recount the accusation, but /makes/ the accusation -- but then without even explaining how the conclusion is drawn.  This is not neutral; Khalidi's tie to the PLO is a criticism which is disputed.  If the PLO section is to be justified, it must be an encyclopedic /explanation/ of an accusation that has been made, and the basis for the accusation.  It cannot simply consist of various bits of information which people can assemble themselves into accusations.  3.  Unless clarified, the Thomas Friedman statement is simultaneously inappropriate as a smear by association, and for giving false credibility to an accusation that it doesn't even explain.  The fact that Thomas Friedman made an offhand statement in 1982 attributing Khalidi to Wafa is not itself an accusation that Khalidi has "PLO associations," particularly when the accusation is not explained, whatever that explanation would actually be.  Thomas Friedman should not be presented as if he supported this accusation.  If the statement of Khalidi's alleged work for Wafa is to be made, it needs to be made clearly, explaining its relevance, and without bolstering it with irrelevant evidence.


 * These are the basis for the edits that I made, which were not extensive edits. If you disagree, please do explain.  I am attempting to do this in good faith, and would welcome your disagreement if you would explain it.  Mackan79 23:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded, and you didn't explain your original basis for reverting, I'm going to reinstate my edits to the accusations section. Please note again that I did not delete the plagiarism charge, but simply switched the order. I still think the PLO section needs to be much better explained, but I'll leave it there for now to see if anyone can tie it together. If you or anyone disagrees with the edits, the reasons for which are explained in detail above, I would much appreciate the attempt to explain that disagreement here before simply reverting to the prior version. Otherwise, I'm not sure how the mediation system works, but I'd be happy to try that. Thanks. Mackan79 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed:
 * However, legal scholars such as Nicholas Kittrie of the law school at American University have pointed out that under Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention, only legal combatants have the right to armed resistance, and that by failing to carry their arms openly and have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, the Palestinians are not legal combatants and thus as Alan Baker, legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, stated in a report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, they have no "right of resistance to occupation in international law."[4]

Reason: This states the opinion of one person, but there are many other opinions that are not stated. In the law journals there is plenty of argument that occupied persons have a right of armed resistance. (One example: Adam Roberts, The American Journal of International Law, Jan 1990.) Nobody, for example, would challenge the notion that the residents of Poland had the right to violently resist the Nazi occupation and nobody would claim that only persons in uniform had that right. The argument is actually over the circumstances when armed resistance is allowed and the form the resistance can take. There seems to be no unanimity on that, and of course there is even less unanimity over whether any of this applies to Palestine. However we can't just quote one side of the argument as if it is the legal consensus. And we shouldn't open the general argument herte either, since it is off-topic. --Zerotalk 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Godsend Quote
Avraham, I object to various aspects of this quote and changes to the surrounding section.

1. I do not find it noteworthy that Alan Dershowitz called Khalidi "hateful." Alan Dershowitz's fame rests largely on his inflammatory rhetoric. It is not important to Khalidi's life and work that Dershowitz called him "hateful," particularly under the circumstances. 1.a. If the "Godsend" quote is to stay in any form, it should not include Dershowitz' unexplained characterization that this is a hateful statement. It also should not include an explanation, however, as Dershowitz' attacks are politically suspect, and an explanation would require this further explanation, which would overwhelm the article. 1.b. This "hateful" characterization absolutely should not appear in the opening of the accusations section, which should require much more than a single use of the word by Alan Dershowitz. "Hateful" is a highly inflammatory word, similar to the previous characterization of Khalidi as a "reliable propagandist." Words of political opponents should not be quoted simply because they are inflammatory; this creates clear bias in the article. Very very few encyclopedia articles would quote opponents calling the subject of the article "hateful."

2. The Godsend quote is taken out of context, and fails to note that Khalidi was speaking of racists who thought that Muslims can only understand violence. If the quote is to stay, it needs to include the full paragraph.

3. I find this general style of including quotes like these, without explanation, highly problematic in an encyclopedia article. Without explanation, these quotes stand simply as an arsenal for critics to use against Khalidi. This is not what Encyclopedias do: "And now, we'll have a list of quotes that could be used out of context to damage this man's reputation." If you want to include a quote, you should explain the context of the quote, and how this represents a controversy. As I said earlier, this is the difference between explaining an accusation and making an accusation. In Biographies of Living People, my understanding is that we aren'tjust supposed to be making accusations, whether cited or not.

4. I disagree with your explanation that Dershowitz' charge was cleared by Harvard, and the explanation that he was trying to show a real infraction as opposed to a fake one. 4.a. This provides an excessive platform for Dershowitz to attack Khalidi in an article about Khalidi. It is an important point in the context of Dershowitz' accusation that Dershowitz made it in a response to accusations against himself. It is not important, in an article about Khalidi, to explain Dershowitz' full argument for doing so. 4.b. It's also made less important when the explanation is biased and incorrect. I strongly disagree that Dershowitz presented Khalidi to show real academic dishonesty as opposed to fake dishonesty. As he stated, he presented it as a /challenge/ to these scholars to be as critical of Khalidi as they were of him. Obviously the difference is huge; while the "challenge" explanation severely undercuts the idea that this was a serious infraction by Khalidi and suggests Dershowitz was trying to distract attention from himself, the explanation you've manufactured makes it look like he's singled out Khalidi as the worst example of plagiarism he could find to show what /real/ plagiarism looks like.

Now it's still very possible that the whole plagiarism charge shouldn't be there at all, for reasons already discussed. If it is, though, Dershowitz accusation should clearly be impeached with his obvious bias. This should not be an opportunity, however, for Dershowitz to counter-counter attack. If this counter-counter attack from Dershowitz is necessary, then the plagiarism charge simply should not be here. Of course, Dershowitz' article remains cited for anyone to see

I'll await your response before making changes. I hope you will see that I'm trying to be very straight forward here and explain the exact reasons why I object to aspects of this article. I'd appreciate any response in kind. Thanks. Mackan79 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate both your taking this to talk and the civility of the discussion, thank you. It is refreshing to be able to discuss issues and not ideology.
 * I understand your point, and while I think it does say something about Khalidi, the article will survive without it.
 * If it's removed, that will not be an issue either.
 * Re: Godsend, see #1
 * Firstly, I belive Dershowitz is not just chllanging Columbia, but is leveling an accusation, as he states “Now, a serious charge of real plagiarism has been leveled at one of the triumvirate’s favorite anti-Israel professors­ Rashid Khalidi.…There are numerous additional instances of verbatim copying in the Khalidi essay.” The challange is not to Khalidi, but to what he calls the triumverate to treat one of their own with the same scrutiny they profess to treat him, as he says


 * Further, Dershowitz himself has been the target of hateful villification by Cockburn et. al., and once civility goes out the window, one man's passion is another's hatespeech. So Dershowitz being unjustly accused by Khalidi supporters, according to Harvard, and especially in reference to Khalidi's being accused of the same act, is required if the mention of Dershowitz's being accused is brought. Dershowitz is of the opinion that the attack against him is contrived, especially as he cites original sources. For example, I quoted Khalidi directly from the "In These Times" article, as opposed to quoting Dershowitz quoting Khalidi. So, according to Dershowitz, since the Cockburn article is subscription only, I would be accused of plagiarism by Cockburn.


 * Personally, I believe that Dershowitz should be accused and defended in his article, and Khalidi should be accused and defended here. So I'd prefer to have Cockburn's attack and Dershowitz's defence in Alan Dershowitz and Dershowitz's attack and Asali's defense here. -- Avi 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Avraham, I appreciate the dialogue and compromise. I still think the context of Dershowitz' accusation is integral, though, if we're going to discuss this plagiarism charge.  You'll have to admit that it was an interesting rhetorical move for Dershowitz to tie the two issues together, but by doing that, he absolutely undermines the stand-alone accusation against Khalidi, and it can't be left out.  In truth, I think it shows some recognition from Dershowitz that this really isn't a serious charge against Khalidi either, to the extent Dershowitz is drawing parallels to himself, and doesn't have somebody else drop it as a bombshell against Khalidi.


 * In any case, I think it's probably basically fine now with the modifications I've made, and not unfair to Dershowitz. I added that he defended himself and made the accusation in the article, not just that he responded by making the accusation.  I don't think you can add more sentences defending Dershowitz, though, without requiring a further explanation.  ("Dershowitz was cleared by Harvard.  Meanwhile, nobody took the accusation against Khalidi seriously enough to even investigate it.")  If you continue to find this unfair to Dershowitz, though, my suggestion again would be that the plagiarism charge then shouldn't even be here.  After all, there is something sketchy about an accusation made specifically as a defense.  If you have other options though, I'm happy to listen. Mackan79 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist
This category was added, but it strikes me as controversial and unsourced, so I removed it. Has Khalidi said that he is an anti-Zionist? I don't know of a statement to this effect. Mackan79 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.sonic.net/%7Edoretk/Issues/01-03-SPR/thecrisis.html RK uses apartheid system, implies need for violent struggle against "occupier", etc.). -- Avi 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems he's talking about the West Bank. I don't want to be difficult, but this is a WP:BLP, which from what I understand calls for careful scrutiny.  Anti-Zionist, to many, means an opposition to Zionism, or the movement for a Jewish homeland in Israel.  As far as I know, Khalidi has never taken a position agaisnt Israel's existence, but merely certain actions.  In fact, he seems to be very careful not to say exactly what he thinks should happen in Israel.   All in all, I don't think it's strong enough to justify the category, which is only supposed to appear in clear instances in the first place.


 * If you could quote the particular section that you think establishes him as an "Anti-Zionist," that might be helpful. I'll leave it for a short time, but then delete it if it isn't supported, as I think is justified or required under WP:BLP. Mackan79 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see his rant quoted here -- Avi 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More info here. -- Avi 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And here. -- Avi 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And more background here. -- Avi 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More background -- Avi 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are very fair and balanced sites you have sourced Avi, not like they have their own agenda, right? --Tom 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No less than Khalidi himself, Tom. -- Avi 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't even disagree with you Avi; I'm simply saying the matter is controversial. Having read a bit more of Khalidi's stuff, I think it's far from clear that he'd consider himself an anti-Zionist, or that the label could uncontroversially be applied.  That's all I'm saying, which I think is the standard under WP:Cat. Mackan79 04:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice that I have not restored it, as some of the sources I brought would not pass WP:ATT. CAMERA, the interview, and Frontpage should, some of the others not. I agree it is somewhat controversial, for only a blindly hating zealot would self-identify as anti-Jew/Israel. But there is plenty of evidence out there that he is anti_Israel at the very least. -- Avi 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The two middle paragraphs (Controversial Statements and Accusations) are hopelessly biased against Khalidi. There is barely a sentence in them which allows Khalidi to rebut the charges. Plus, there is nothing that expounds upon what his substantive views are on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Except for the first paragraph & the list of Khalidi's publications, this is a "hit job." I am embarrassed that this article doesn't have a POV warning at the very least.

There is NO evidence that Khalidi is "anti-Israel" except in the mind of hardline Zionists. I just heard him on a conference call sponsored by Brit Tzedek, an American Jewish peace group. He wants to same things for Israel & the Palestinians that liberal American Jews want. His views about Israel are entirely within the mainstream of the Israeli liberal discourse. To say anything otherwise is to entirey distort reality. richards1052Richard 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of terrible, terrible paragraph
The first para of "criticisms", as observed many months ago above, was absolute garbage. The entire paragraph replicated one random blogger's tendentious interpretation of an offhand comment. Khalidi used the term "occupied", which has all sorts of meanings and does not necessarily refer to military occupation. Some yahoo decides it's a "GOTCHA!", because he can twist it to mean that Khalidi wants to drive the Jews into the sea. Well, good for him. The fact that Wikipedia editors would keep this kind of crap featured prominently is disturbing. Even outside of a WP:BLP, it would fail WP:V and WP:NPOV blatantly. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in reference to the above, the terrible paragraph referencing 'occupation' was removed again. It doesn't matter if material is well cited if the original article cited is ITSELF not well-cited. The criticisms section does not cite any work from respected scholars or authors, it merely refers to inflammatory pages from the far right on the political spectrum, and the original articles are often the result of faulty scholarship on top of that. THIS ARTICLE IS IN DIRE NEED OF A MORE BALANCED VIEW. While Professor Khalidi's views are controversial in some circles, the article must reference the controversy (i.e. all sides of the debate, to the extent that is possible), and not one side. He is a highly regarded scholar among Middle Eastern historians and is widely cited by many writers who come from a variety of backgrounds and political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.243.252 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. We are not supposed to, nor allowed to, be engaging in original research regarding the content of the articles. If the source is reliable, it may be brought. We are supposed to be a tertiary site, with no original research allowed. Instead of deleting reliable sources that you do not like, which, is a violation of WP:NPOV, bring other reliable sources for balance. -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Refs
In trying to navigate between the refs and notes, it appears they stop working around number 7 on the Albert Hourani Prize. I tried to fix this, even by converting the second reference back to Refname MEICV into a ref of its own, but it still didn't seem to work on preview. I'm wondering if maybe once you put some in the templates, then they all have to be in the template in order to function. If you're familiar with this, Avi, maybe you can take a look. Thanks. Mackan79 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wafa
I believe something similar was removed in 2006, but I think the following sentence still isn't accurate: "In the 1980s, Khalidi's alleged associations with Palestinian organizations, such as the Palestinian News Agency came under scrutiny; the PNA had connections to the PLO.[12]" Ref 12 goes to Thomas Friedman's column, which refers to Khalidi as a former writer for "the Palestinian press agency, Wafa." The connection to the PLO appears in turn to derive from the Washington Times editorial also mentioned in the ref, which I find here. However, any other references I can find refer to Wafa as the press agency of the Palestinian National Authority rather than the PLO as it states in the Times editorial. As such, it seems this should at least be changed to reference the Times editorial rather than Friedman, but even then, I'm not sure the statement is correct. Mackan79 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wafa is the national news agency of the Palestinian National Authority. It has received funding from UNESCO  and the British government, among others. There is no direct relationship between the PLO and Wafa. I think the Times assertion that there is, is based on the view that the PNA is related to the PLO (albeit again, indirectly) and in a kind of WP:SYN analysis, that link is extended to Wafa and the PLO. I think it's best to stick with describing Wafa as a PNA affiliated organ. If the alleged PLO link is to be mentioned at all, it should be attributed as Mackan suggests. Cheers.  T i a m u t talk 09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to make a correction for now, thanks for the information (FYI I asked for Tiamut's input on her talk page). It appears that the Washington Times statement then was simply incorrect, and that we should avoid relying on it.  This also raises questions about the rest of that paragraph; I just haven't been able to look into that part yet.  Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On further review, I removed the section for similar reasons as last year. This almost all comes down to a single very dubious editorial in the Washington Times that clearly has a gripe with Khalidi.  I'm also very unclear that the Human Events column is talking about anything other than the relationship to Wafa.  This would be a sentence at best, but I see no indication that this is material that should go into his biography.  Mackan79 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The allegation is pretty clearly baseless - and so what if he was somehow tied to the PLO, anyway? - but it's received enough news attention that it deserves a spot in the biography. A quick search turns up mentions in the Jewish Press and CBS, not just the Moonie Times & the right-wing blogs. I'm going to re-add the section, though I'll try to rework it. Kalkin (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the LA Times piece about speaking on behalf of the PLO, I don't know if you saw it DKalkin, but I agree with its removal considering it just came out today. It could be accurate, and I almost readded it to the end of the paragraph, but I think with new specific claims such as this, it makes more sense to wait and see. Mackan79 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NYC teacher training program
Relating to the changes here, I'm concerned that many of these statements were quote mined, and some were presented inaccurately (attributed to the school board, when it appears to have been the Chancellor's press secretary). I think people need to be more careful when adding negative material to this article. All in all, I'm not sure the issue is worth discussing at all, relating to an apparently minor issue in 2005, but even if so, these types of provocative headlines ("Barred from NYC teacher training program") filled with negative material should be avoided. Mackan79 (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi's denial of PLO association
We need a source for this. Whig historian (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian


 * It's sourced in both the Ari Berman piece and the original Washington Times editorial, I believe. Kalkin (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks, I found it and put the reference upWhig historian (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian

PLO vs. PA
It is incorrect to refer to the PA in the 1980's since the PA was created at the time of the Olso accords. To refer to the PA in the 1980's is anachronistic and incorrect. Whig historian (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian


 * True, and good point. However, it still leaves us confused.  It appears that Khalidi worked for Wafa, which is the PA press authority.  That seems to be just about the only thing that's undisputed.  We don't know what Wafa's predecessor was before the PA existed, nor do we know whether Khalidi worked for it. Kalkin (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I typed Wafa Palestinian News Agency into a google news archive search. It produced stories going back to the 1970’s in which the New York times describes Wafa as the PLO “press service”

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50A14FA3D5C12728DDDAB0A94D1405B898BF1D3

The “Palestine commando press agency, Wafa” http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F00B13FD395E127A93CAA91782D85F468785F9

more http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=FA0A14FC3E54137A93C0AB178FD85F478785F9

there are a slew of articles confirming that wafa was the PLO press agensy in the early seventies, and ever sinceWhig historian (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian


 * As for who Khalidi worked for, the LA times says it was the PLO, we can cite that. Along with Khalidi's denial.Whig historian (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian

allegations of PLO...
A statement made by the Los Angeles Times is a very different thn-ing thqan a statement made by the World Net Daily. This is a significant news article making a serious allegation. and it merits inclusion in the article. Perhaps the rest of this section can now be abbreviated. But this source merits inclusion.Whig historian (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian


 * I agree that the source merits inclusion - the LAT is a respectable newspaper. I am, however, very doubtful that it is accurate.  It's quite strange that the article doesn't even mention Khalidi's denial, which makes me suspect that the decisive wording of the passing mention of Khalidi's role is based on confusion rather than actual confirmation.  This may be an example of the kind of recirculation of what started as a fringe smear that Berman discusses.  I've actually emailed the reporter, asking about his sourcing for that claim; perhaps, if I receive a reply, things will be clarified. That might be useful to us, even though of course a personal email can't be cited on Wikipedia. Kalkin (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement merits inclusion. It is material to Khalidi's career.  It is in the Los Angeles Times.  Whig historian (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian


 * I concur with Kalkin and Whig Historian that this information belongs on Khalidi's page. Thomas Babbington (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington


 * Note for the record in case of future dispute: this is not a separate concurrence. Both User:Whig historian and User:Thomas Babbington have since been blocked as sockpuppets. Kalkin (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, here's what I got from the LAT reader's rep:


 * Thank you for sending a copy of your inquiry to the readers' representative office.


 * I understand that there has been dispute over whether Rashid Khalidi worked for the PLO. I've confirmed with the editor and reporter that the April 10 article is accurate, based on previous reporting done by the L.A. Times. The Times article, as you might have noticed, did not say that he was employed by the PLO, but said more precisely that Khalidi "often spoke to reporters on behalf of" the PLO. (The story also noted that he was teaching at a university at the time.)


 * (In addition, I see a New York Times article from 1982 in which Thomas Friedman quotes Khalidi as "a director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa.")


 * Basically it looks like they're sourcing this purely off the Washington Times op-ed. In their view, Khalidi hasn't directly denied the article's claim. Kalkin (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

About that Farewell Dinner
According to the Los Angeles Times, at a farewell dinner given for Khalidi by "local Arab Americans" in Chicago in 2003, "a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians, " and "One speaker likened 'Zionist settlers on the West Bank' to Osama bin Laden."


 * This is serious stuff. And it comes from the LA Times.  It belongs on this pageWhig historian (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian


 * I simply don't see any reason why this would be notable. These are summaries of other people's words, not Khalidi's (words which anyway do not sound particularly shocking - this would hardly be the first time Israel had been accused of state terror).  Can you explain? Kalkin (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Khalidi was a major figure in the Chicago Arab community. Not only a professor at Chicago, but the founder of an imoortant Arab organization and involved in many of the Arab community organizations.  That community gave a dinner in his honor.  There is an obvious assumption that Khalidi was dgood with everything that was said because, after all, this is a man who is exquisitely careful of his reputation.  If he had wanted to disassociate himself from what was said, he had every opportunity to do so.  I'm sure you have been witness to such events.  Or maybe even had to stand at the podium and say, "Thank you all for your kind words, I appreciate them all, even thoush Mr So and so and I disagree sometimes on the issues, I know tha the and I both have the best interests of this ocmmunity at heart." the script is there.  Everyone knows the drill.  When you are the honoree, if you don't want something a colleague or admirer said to come back and bite you, that's what you say, and they can't pin it on you.  Fail to say that, and you are accepting the political sentiments expressed.  The LA Times says they have the tape.  If Khalidi had said something like that that evening, they would not have run the quotes bald.  Whig historian (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian


 * You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions - about Khalidi's motivations, about what's on the tape, about LAT motivations - which I don't think the evidence warrants. But to take a step back, whether or not Khalidi did disassociate, could, or should have disassociated himself from these comments, why is it notable that they were made?    I mean, really, who cares?  Are you saying it would not be notable if we knew that Khalidi had publicly disassociated himself?  It doesn't seem to me to matter either way, and until a reliable source says it does, the comments shouldn't be in the article.  The LAT, by the way, pretty clearly thinks the comments are notable because Obama was at the dinner.  If they're going to be added to any article, why not Obama's?  I invite you: Early life and career of Barack Obama
 * Kalkin (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with DKalkin. These are minor things picked out of an article because they could be seen as controversial.  I don't think that's a good way to construct biographies of living people.  See WP:BLP for more on the extent Wikipedia takes special care in such articles.  There could be material from the LA Times article to add, although I don't think the day it comes out is a good time to do that, but if so it needs to be presented neutrally, like everything in the article. Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rashid Khalidi is a notable public figure aside form any connection with Barak Obama (who I voted for, by the way). Khalidi's political associations are of interest.  The Los Angeles Times has reported specific and interesting information about his associations and commitments.  Coming form such a reputable source (the LA Times) they belong in this article. Whig historian (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
 * Whig, I think we could revise the material to say something about attention that has come due to the Obama connection. We basically have this, though it could be changed.  To pick out the most controversial sounding part of the article and simply add it here, however, isn't the way to do it.  Also, please consider working something out on the talk page before repeatedly reverting it into the article, particularly as this is a biography of a living person.  The fact that other new accounts arrive to assist adds to the problem.  Wikipedia is very protective of such articles, and if it continues I'll have to ask for an administrator to intervene. Mackan79 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me preface my remarks by stating that my edits to this page do indicate that I could not be considered a supporter of Mr. Khalidi or his politics. However, the main points of the PLO connection are already brought via the Washington Post article. The LA times article is written from the perspective that Palestinian/Arab leaders believe that Obama, notwithstanding his stated support for Israel, is potentially a better ally for them due to his past relationships with people such as Khalidi. The presence of some unnamed poem reader at a farewell dinner, while personally disturbing, does not tell us anything new. To state that that creates a connection with th ePLO is original research and unacceptable. To say that it indicates Khalidi's feelings about Israel and its continued existence or lack thereof is unnecessary; the article makes his stance clear earlier, and, regardless, there are better sources.

The fact that the article is one day old is irrelevant; au contraire it is current and in a reliable source. But no one, whether we agree or disagree with them, should be subject to cherry-picked attempt to paint them in the worst possible light. There is enough attributable to Khalidi himself, or to discussions about him, that obviate the need for picking out a sentence or two. I did add the article as another source for Palestinian connections vis-a-vis acting as an adviser during negotiations. I also removed the Berman quote, as the "wildly distorting" statements were not in relation to the depictions of Khalidi, but to the depictions of OBAMA as a Palestinian sympathizer, etc. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the careful look, Avi, I think your version is good. As you hint, the problem is we sometimes tend to construct articles just by adding a line here or there, which can be fine in some articles, but when it's a BLP the effect can be very poor.  I think it's reasonable to insist not just that material be sourced, but that it be presented neutrally in context.  I do think we should also hesitate to immediately publish offhand statements of fact which may well be contested and/or corrected, but it may well be that other aspects are the real issue.  If a statement has been out there for some time and nobody has corrected it, though, I'd be less resistant to including it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current version is acceptable. I don't like the passive-voice in the description of the accusations, but better wording doesn't immediately come to mind.  (The Washington Times has accused him of several things, and the LAT of one of them, but the LAT mentions it in passing so "accusation" is a weird phrase, so it's complicated...) Kalkin (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Obama
An editor has recently deleted sourced material on notable material elaborating on the relationship of Khalidi to Obama, claiming it was redundant. I would like to assume good faith of the deletion, but the fact is that the material was more specific and different from the brief mention of Obama in the PLO connections. Also the material deserves a separate section from the PLO section, since the point of the material is not to discuss Obama's connection to PLO but to discuss the Khalidi/Obama relationship. This material should be restored, but rather than have an edit war, perhaps others could comment besides myself and the deleting editor. Best regards. Cuvette (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As the editor who deleted the material, I agree we should get a third point of view, but I'll explain a bit more. This was the removed section:


 * Khalidi's relationship to Obama has come under increased interest due to the U.S. Presidential Primary races of 2008. Obama made one of the presentations at a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of Khalidi leaving the Los Angeles Area. The dinner was a celebration of the Los Angeles area Palestian community. Obama's remarks alluded to the numerous dinners that he had at the home of the Khalidis.


 * The section just above contains the following paragraph:


 * The claim received renewed attention in 2008 when it was raised due to a reported friendship between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Khalidi's family when Khalidi taught at the University of Chicago. Articles by Aaron Klein and John Bachelor, writers respectively for conservative outlets World Net Daily and Human Events, were referenced by rival political campaigns and reprinted in wider-circulation media.


 * The removed section contained three citations to the same Peter Wallsten Los Angeles Times article which is cited in the section on Khalidi's alleged PLO connections. It had no new sources and the only new information was the fact that the "reported friendship" apparently consisted in a number of dinners.  This is not necessary information.  It also contains an error - Khalidi & Obama knew each other in Chicago, not LA.  The friendship is notable only in the context of it being used to smear Obama by associating him with Khalidi and Khalidi with "terrorism" - otherwise we have no reason to believe the relationship is anywhere near important enough to either of the men to include it in their biographies. Kalkin (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin Kramer
In general, blogs are not considered reliable sources, that is true. However, there are exceptions. The known blog of a recognized expert in a field is usually considered reliable, at least vis-a-vis that expert's opinion. See Verifiability. However, after further searching, at least as of current, we do not allow any self-published sources in actual biography articles as per above and BLP so I am going to self-revert. -- Avi (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "NYSunRoR" :

Klein article
Regarding this edit, a number of issues centering around Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. First, the article states only that Khalidi "reportedly" represented the PLO, which is a rather important qualification. Second, the article would need to be established as a reliable source for this type of claim about a living individual. Third, contentious material doesn't just get added to the introductory paragraph, and in fact this issue is discussed later in the article. Please address these points if it's believed that the article should be included, considering particularly the care Wikipedia takes with biographies of living people. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, The Jewish Press is considered a reliable and verifable source, similar to Al Jazeerah and The New York Post, so from the BLP perspective, the JP article should be sufficient, although placement in the lede may be inappropriate. Also, John Batchelor is a well-known political commentator, and while I'm not certain he can be a should be considered a reliable source for a statement of fact, he certainly is one for a statement of his opinion, which is relevant to the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I wasn't intending to exclude the article in whole (I've yet to read it). This was added to the lede, though, and converted into a statement of fact something that the article qualified.  It could be added as another cite for the discussion we have, I suppose. Mackan79 (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)