Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 5

Request for comment - PLO "spokesman"
Statement of question Some editors wish to include a statement that the subject of this article, Rashid Khalidi, is believed / accused / described by some contemporary sources as a former "PLO spokesman" or a former "director" of the PLO's news agency. Others object to this designation.

Relevant policies
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:WELLKNOWN
 * WP:WEIGHT
 * WP:RS
 * WP:V
 * WP:NPOV

Statement by Wikidemon
The Khalidi article in some ways represents a perfect storm of Wikipedia BLP/NPOV issues - the intersection of anti-Obama smears and the Arab / Israeli conflict. Khalidi has been the subject of edit wars, dispute, and occasional article protection and editor blocking, all over the issue of whether he is a Palestinian Liberation Organization operative or not.

Khalidi is an American university professor who has drawn significant controversy and criticism for his statements in support of Palestinian side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and, some would say, his ties to the PLO. There have been campus protests, speeches have been canceled, he is a frequent target of criticism (particularly in the blogosphere), and more recently he became a last-minute part of the Republican Party's "Obama palls around with terrorists" smear in the United States presidential election, 2008.

The tenuous logic for the campaign smear goes like this: If you think this overstates the smear, just google it. You'll find gems like these (that's the dignified side of the smear - you should see the blogs).
 * Obama is too close to Khalidi (though it is covered up by the liberal media, e.g. the Los Angeles Times refusing to release a tape)
 * Khalidi is a former PLO agent (though it is denied and whitewashed by the liberal media)
 * PLO is/was a terrorist organization (assumed)
 * therefore, Obama is close to terrorists.

The problem with connecting the dots here on Wikipedia is that we do not have sufficient sourcing to say that Khalidi ever worked for the PLO. Editors pursuing this issue for weeks and months have found several reliable sources that describe him as such, primarily as an attribution in an interview. There are other reliable sources that say flat out that this is not true. Khalidi himself denies it. Further, there are many hundreds and probably thousands of reliable sources that mention Khalidi, and describe who he is and his bio/history without mentioning that he was a PLO spokesman. To find the few stray sources that say he was you have to dig pretty hard. Under the circumstances there is simply not enough sourcing to say authoritatively in the encyclopedia that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman, something most in favor of the material acknowledge. Instead they want what they describe as a compromise statement that "several" sources believe / state that he was a PLO spokesman but others disagree. The problem with this is several fold.
 * First, per WP:WEIGHT we report only significant minority views. A statement about a former affiliation supported by several sources out of thousands is not significant.
 * Second, in that we are reporting an apparent contradiction / dispute among sources, there has been no secondary sourcing that the distinction about whether or not he was a PLO operative is really a dispute. We are making an on-Wikipedia controversy out of an aspect of the story that nobody can show is a controversy off Wikipedia.
 * Third, calling him a "spokesman" is potentially misleading. The word implies to the reader that Khalidi was a formal employee or contractor, an agent with a professional duty to loyally state what the organization wants him to state rather than his personal opinion.  However, some sources using that word (and some denying that it applies) suggest that Khalidi was in fact an intermediary or supporter, and that his statements in support of the PLO were therefore his own opinion or made of his own volition.  Informally, one can still use the word "spokesman" (or as National Review says, "mouthpiece"), but whether those words apply or not becomes a semantic technicality, not a question of what he actually said or did.  A reader assumes incorrectly that "spokesman" means "agent", when the source was merely saying "supporter".
 * Fourth, the whole host of BLP / POV / COATRACK policies and guidelines. We cannot call a person a terrorist without impeccable sourcing.  PLO is generally considered a terrorist organization in the West - their record of terrorist acts is beyond question, for example the Munich massacre, the Coastal Road massacre, Avivim school bus massacre, a bunch of airplane hijackings, etc.  Any employee of PLO during the period is by agency theory a terrorist operative.  There is clearly not enough sourcing to actually say Khalidi was a former terrorist.  By BLP, we also should not say that some have accused him of being a terrorist but he denies it.  That would only be valid if he were a well known figure and those accusations were notable - as pointed out above, there is no sourcing at all to say that the claim he was a PLO agent has any notability.

If this RFC continues others will no doubt fill this out with sources and arguments. However, it looks like a very simple BLP case of weak sourcing used to call someone a terrorist. We cannot do that. We can report what we do know and can source solidly, but not that kind of smear. Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pace Wikidemon, there are plenty of sources. The Los Angeles Times the New York Times Pacifica News Service, and a scholarly book that Wikidemon likes to ignore Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, by Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. It is persuasive because these are two very distinguished historians. It is persuasive because of its moderate, scholarly tone; because it discusses the importance of the PLO period for the development of Khalidi's career and intellectual understanding of the region, and because it is specific and matter of fact. Khalidi is described as : an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". You can easily find it by typing four terms : Rashid Khalidi Ilan Troen into google books. p. 72. In my opinion, this source alone would be sufficient for inclusion in the article - although, I hasten to add that I believe the contemporary newspaper articles should be included to enable readers to examine the evidence.  There are also lots of intermperate blogs and op-ed pieces.  Who cares.  Wikipedis deals in evidence, not opinion columns.  We have reliable sources to a significant part of this man's career.Historicist (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Another source demonstrating that, pace Wikidemon, Khalidi's work for the PLO has been discussed as a matter of fact by reliable sources for a long time. From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. Historicist (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * May I ask for some civility lest this discussion break down too? There is nothing I "like to ignore".  I acknowledge above that there are several reliable sources (you seem to have come up with a total of four) but argue that they are of insufficient weight next to the sources that directly contradict them and the hundreds or thousands that simply do not include the PLO as part of his resume.  Kindly do not misrepresent my contributions or try to make this personal - if you care to formulate an argument why not stick to that?  Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of curiosity, which four are you counting? And, why does ti matter that many articles do not mention the PLO connection?Historicist (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * The number four has been mentioned various times in the above discussion - I'll save the recount for this discussion and see how many turn up. The reason it matters is to assess WP:WEIGHT.  If a thousand articles contain either a bio or profile of a man, and only four mention a fact that is disputed, that tells us that the fact is either: (1) not generally known or accepted, (2) not considered significant, or both.  If 99% or more of off-Wiki reliable secondary sources do not see fit to say he is a former PLO spokesman we should take that as an indication that there is a reason we should not either, basing articles as we do on secondary sources. Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you accept Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, by Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007 should not be accepted as a source?Historicist (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * You neglect the Hassan Diab possibility. In Diab's case, articles written before this month did not mention a PFLP connection.  Then new evidence turned up.  Now that he is under arrest for blowing up a Paris synagogue with people inside, articles mention the connection.   I bring the example to demonstrate that new evidence surfaces.  It happens.  And it explains why new articles say things that older articles do not.Historicist (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * The Lassner / Troen book is one of the reliable sources that, collectively are not of sufficient weight to overcome the sources to the contrary. There is no new evidence here, only a new smear campaign in connection with the US election that, due to all the attention and articles written, turned up some new stray sources to add to the old stray sources.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I take it that you accept all seven sources listed below (#'s 1,2, 2a, 3,4 and schlolarly #'s 1, & 2)?Historicist (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Please don't infer to me any statement I do not make; I am not approaching this discussion as a rhetorical debate. If I respond to those sources I will.Wikidemon (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Timing a significant issue omitted by Wikidemon in the summary above is the timing of the emergence of the evidence. It was natural for journalists mentioning Khalidi any time before November 2006 to not describe him as connected with the PLO.  this is because the connection was made primarily by pratisan sources citing, as the sole evidence of such a connection, a single NY Times piece by Thaomas Friedman.  The other contemporary c=sources noted below in Evidence, were only rediscovered in the heat of the finan days of the campaign.    In the post-campaign coverage, the Los Angeles Times decribed Khalidi as “a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.”  The rediscovery of these old articles makes the fact that newspapers up until October 2008 often failed to mention Khalidi's PLO ties, irrelevant.Historicist (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Yes, I certainly do omit making absurd, speculative arguments like that. No new evidence has emerged.  Even if it had the argument is still specious.  The reason the journalists covered it was that the McCain campaign was making accusations, and the reason the campaign was associating Obama with terrorism at the end was that they were growing increasingly desperate in the face of a near certain defeat.  It makes no sense to talk about Los Angeles times articles and published books being "rediscovered".  It also makes no sense to say that if the experts had  known of small mentions in secondary sources they would have changed their minds.  Experts are supposed to base their opinions on real research and primary documents, not by reading LA Times articles.  These sources were in the libraries the whole time, and on google books for heaven's sake.  To posit that the reason nobody in a position to know called Khalidi a PLO operative until the last days of the election was because they had not read the LA Times archive flies in the face of our verifiability policy.  It is more or less acknowledging that the claim is unverified, but saying that it would have been verified if the sources had only known the WP:TRUTH.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Evidence

 * For people coming new to this page, the undisputed facts are that Khalidi was at the American University of Beirut in the late 70’s and early 80’s, and that he geve media interviews.


 * Here are the sources:

There are four (there are now five) contemporary news reports that quote him as speaking on behalf of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Khalidi has only once answered a reporter’s question on this matter (as far as I can ascertain.)   At least one interview has been broadcast in which he has refuses to answer a reporter’s question about whether he did or did not work for the PLO.  On one occasion,   answered by email.  It is a carefully-worded  evasion, sometimes cited as a denial in this discussion and elsewhere:   "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."


 * Source # 1. “The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for the left-wing Pacifica Radio in Berkeley, California Pacifica described him as: "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa," "PLO spokesperson Rashid Khalidi," "Rashid Khalidi, official spokesperson for the PLO," "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut," "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa."


 * Source #2: “Lebanon War Hurts Palestinian Cause," Joe Alex Morris Jr., Los Angeles Times September 5, 1976 Los Angeles Times cited Khalidi as a “a PLO spokesman" in 1976.


 * Source #2 a.) In 2008 the Los Angeles Times confirmed its 1976 coverage by describing Khalidi as, “a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.” McCain, Palin demand L.A. Times release Obama video, By James Rainey, October 30, 2008, Los Angeles Times.


 * Source #3: “Palestinians, People in Crisis, Are Scattered and Divided; The Palestinians First-of a Series,” New York Times, February 19, 1978, Sunday, Page 1, James M. Markham - New York Times noted that Khalidi “works for the PLO,” in 1978.


 * Source # 4 “Ultimate Goals of the Attack are Assessed Differently from the Two Sides,” News Analysis, Thomas Friedman, New York times, June 9, 1982, In 1982 the New York Times described Khalidi as “a director of the Palestinian press agency,  Wafa.Historicist (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=671334742&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1228232198&clientId=15403)Historicist (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Source # 5 "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by DOYLE McMANUS. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 20, 1984. p. A10 (1 page) “according to Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO official” (here's the link, but ProQuest Historical Newspapers may not be available from every computer:

By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM Special to The New York Times. New York Times Jun 11, 1979. p. A3 ) describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and the last (in German) identifies him as a professor.
 * I have now carefully searched both Proquest Historical Newspapers and News Google Archive, as well as the archive of the New York Times to discover how journalists identified Khalidi in his Lebanon period (pre-1983). I searched under both Khalidi and Khalidy. In addtion to the five articles described above, I can discover only four news articles that mention his name pre-1983.  He was, after all, a young, obscure professor at the time, albeit located in a hot region.  One mention (in Spanish) is a mere citation of something he published that does not describe Khalidi. One describes him as "historian at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut" one ("P.L.O., Shaken by Egypt-Israel Treaty, Seeks to Force U.S. to Accept Its Status; Threat to an Independent State Threat to American Interests Final Reserves of the P.L.O. Islamic Emphasis Is Tactical


 * In summary, of the seven pre-1983 articles that describe Khalidi, one calls him "close to Al Fatah," four describe him as a PLO spokesman or official, and two as a scholar.   It seems likely to me that all seven are accurate, and tha professor and PLO spokesman were the two aspects of his career at this time.  Historically, many national movements have been led or assisted by historians who were simultaneously politicians, some historians even became presidents of the nations they led to statehood.


 * Then, in 1984, after Khalidi returned to the States. The Los Angeles Times described him as a "former PLO official."   Subsequent articles describe him as a professor, Arab or Palestinian or Palestinian-American scholar or professor, and as "close to the PLO.


 * summary It seems very plain to me that in his youth Khalidi acted as and described himself as a PLO spokesman or official. This long a list of  distinguished journalists cannot have gotten this wrong. He then came home and, except fo rthe Madrid conference, spoke as an expert on the PLO, not as an official spokesman on behalf of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. I can't find any in the pre-campaign period mention the PLO connection in order to deny it.
 * There are a number of later sources that predate the campaign, like this:


 * During the campaign, many, many pundits weighed in on both sides with assertions pro and con, few cited sources.


 * Scholarly sources:


 * Scholarly source # 1 Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, by Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.  This is an important source  because Troen and Lassner are two very distinguished scholars. It is persuasive because of its moderate, scholarly tone; because it discusses the importance of the PLO period for the development of Khalidi's career and intellectual understanding of the region, and because it is specific and matter of fact. Khalidi is described as : “an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". You can easily find it by typing four terms : Rashid Khalidi Ilan Troen into google books. p. 72.  and: "The son of a diplomat, Rashid Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)."


 * Scholarly source # 2 Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 78, 119, describe Khalidi as:"PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi," "former PLO spokesman."Historicist (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * Addendum. On how other journalists identified Khalidi in his Lebanon period.  The four contemporary sources cited above are among the very few in which Khalidi, who was a young, obscure professor at the time, was identified by name.   A search of  the  google news archive produced  precisely 4 hits for Rashid Khalidi pre 1983. One (in Spanish)  is a mere reference to his book. One describes him as "historian at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut" one as "a professor of political science who is close to Al Fatah" and the last  (in German) identified as a professor.   There are probably a few other articles out there that quote him by name, in addition to these.  But people have really combed the record on Khalidi, so there cannot be many.Historicist (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Wikipedia should not be in the business of making dubious claims, scandalous in nature, about living people, so the exercise in weighing "evidence" is pointless. Several things ought to be clear here: (1) Khalidi, an American professor, is a controversial figure for his statements sympathetic with the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (2) the McCain campaign tried to connect Khalidi with PLO terrorism, and Obama with Khalidi, in the last days of its failed presidential bid; (3) Several reliable sources (which we can discuss) say that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO; (4) Other reliable sources directly say that Khlalidi was not a spokesman for the PLO (e.g. this Washington Post "fact checker" article that concludes the accusation is "a case of guilt by association gone haywire."); (5) Khalidi denies that he was ever a spokesman (see the above Washington Post piece); and (6) Most sources describing Khalidi or his history do not state that he was a PLO spokesman, nor do they refute the claim, nor do they mention the issue as being a controversy.

Obviously we cannot say that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman. The sources are in conflict. Some say yes, some say no, and most are silent. It is also useless to report that he was called a PLO spokesman. There is simply not enough WP:WEIGHT to these scandalous claims to make it worthwhile. By analogy, suppose we have a thousand articles about Abraham Lincoln, of which four say he is was a bed wetter as a child, four refute that he was a bed wetter, and 992 do not reach the issue. Not only can we not fairly report that Lincoln wet his bed, we should not even discuss that there were a range of opinions on it because clearly, it is not a significant enough issue for most of the sources to note. In Khalidi's case the accusation is a lot more serious, that he was an employee of a terrorist organization, and he is alive so we have WP:BLP to contend with. One cannot say that his being a PLO spokesman is well-sourced, not if the sources are in conflict. That only several sources mention the issue at all means it is not a notable controversy or opinion about him.

In fact, few if any of the sources suggest that he formally an agent of the PLO, as the word "spokesman" implies. Per the Washington Post article, they appear to be making a semantic distinction - that Khalidi often spoke informally with the PLO. When he was a professor in Beirut he was an intermediary, conveying messages between his PLO contacts and people who would not or could not meet them. The Post says that calling that activity a spokesman or not may be a semantic distinction, not a real distinction as to what Khalidi did or did not do. Under the circumstances, using the word "spokesman" is misleading because it suggests he was a PLO agent when he was not. It is unnecessary and, frankly, a big POV waste of time for Wikipedia to delve into this detail and try to take sides. We should stick to what we know and can source, and not get into whether we can describe it in a way that sounds scandalous.

- Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that sources published before November 5 fail to identify Khalidi as a spokesman for the PLO is easily explained. There was only one source available to a reporter of ordinary diligence, the old Thomas Friedman interview.  The other three contemporary sources on the youthful activities of this then-obscure academic are very reliable but were very har to find until dug out by presumptive anti-Obaman activists.  They were not discovered by the Washington Post Fact Checker because: The 1978 New York Times article spelled Khalidi  Khalidy.  The LA Times online archive only goes back to 1985.   My news google search did not produce the old LA Times or Radio Pacifica articles.  Nor  could not find them just now by searching Rashid  Khalidi site:pacifica.org   or Rashid khalidi site:LATimes.org.   This really is new information.Historicist (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

What did the republican party say about Khalidi?
Wikidemon refers to the Republican Party's "Obama palls around with terrorists" smear. The wikipedia article itself merely says that the Republican Party said that he had an anti-Israel foreign policy. Can you clarify whether you meant that the Republican Party itself explicitly said that Khalidi was a terrorist? Andjam (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt the party itself ever made such a statement publicly. Very little is explicit in the world of campaign smears, which is why they work.  The party (other than a few local chapters) never said Obama is a Muslim, for example, yet convinced 10% of the population to believe it.  In the last election the party never came out and made the swiftboat claim directly that Kerry lied about his military heroism, it just encouraged and coordinated its supporters in doing the same.  This is the same thing.  Party and campaign sympathizers, you might consider them proxies, did explicitly say that Khalidi was a terrorist.  Just google Khalidi with "terrorist" and you will see a lot of this.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the "Obama is a Muslim" meme had a life of its own during the primaries (and had a similar percentage believing back then) rather than being a RNC creation. I wasn't terribly interested in the Swiftboat thing, but if you read Farhad Manjoo's book "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society", he argues that it had a life of its own as well (and he regards the claims made by the group as untrue, so he's no supporter of it). If you're interested in avoiding unverified claims, maybe you should do the same yourself? Also, are you willing to accept that Historicist is not out to get Obama? Andjam (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. And please, before the zingy retorts, keep in mind the difference between a biographical article, and a talk page discussion about the nature of sources.  The Washington Post article I just cited, incidentally, notes that McCain directly called Khalidi a "spokesman" for the PLO.  It is those who want to say that in an article, not those who oppose it on grounds that it is a campaign smear, who need to prove their case.Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What did Khalidi say about Khalidi?
"I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/khalidi.htm Asked about his Beriut period in 2005, Khalidi did not pretend to have been devoting his time exclusively to scholarship. He described PLO positions with the word "we" in published interviews. He demanded no correction from the newspapers that described him as a spokesman. Are we to bbelieve that an obscure young academic who grew up in Brooklyn was unaware that the New York Times was describing him as a PLO spokesman?


 * Anyone denying Khalidi’s position in the PLO must encounter the Radiio Pacifica interview, which took place at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut.  Are we to believe that the PLO loaned their offices out to visiting radio crews?  Khalidi's wife, Mona, freely admits to working as a translator for Wafa at that time.   Is it possible that so many highly regarded journalists were wrong about Khalidi’s position as a PLO spokesman?

•	"Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa" (7:34)


 * "PLO spokesperson Rashid Khalidi" (11:45)


 * "Rashid Khalidi, official spokesperson for the PLO" (21:00)

•	* "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa" (32:51)
 * "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut" (29:57)*


 * Spokesman for the PLO is what Khalidi called himself when speaking with reporters in Beruit as a young man.Historicist (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * There's no support for the claim that Khalidi called himself a PLO spokesman. Quite the opposite, he denies it.  This is very obscure evidence to try to impugn the guy, in the face of an outright denial that he was a PLO spokesman.  Again, Wikipedia is not a forum for making original arguments based on evidence, and the evidence is extremely slight and indirect.Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the maximal claim here? That Khalidi worked for WAFA in the 1970s? I don't understand why people keep talking about this in such sensationalist terms. Even if this "charge" is true, I don't in any way see it as a negative charge, nor would most people around the world, ie, he is "accused" of working for the news agency of a recognized, widely supported national movement with a seat in the UN, which later even its bitter enemies accepted as a legitimate representative and made diplomatic treaties with. I'm sorry if this is offtopic, but I am seeing both sides of this debate apparently take the position that if these old newspaper attributions were accurate, Khalidi has something to apologize for. It's bizarre. Do the same standards, I wonder, apply to biographies of Jewish-American academics who have worked for the Israeli government or army? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The fact that Khalidi worked for the PLO news agency Wafa as a spokesman is a matter of fact, not to be sensationalized.Historicist (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * The problem is that we cannot reliably source that he was a PLO employee, and it seems unlikely to be true. The PLO does not have a seat at the UN, and was considered a terrorist organization by the US and Israel until 1991.  Again in 2004 the US Congress delcared it a terrorist organization.  In the 1970s, the time Khalidi was accused of working for them, they were blowing up school busses, massacring schoolchildren, hijacking airplanes, killing Olympic athletes, etc.  You may dispute that this makes them terrorists, but your opinion and my opinion of them does not matter.  Objectively it is a disparaging allegation in the United States, where he lives and teaches.  The claims made by the McCain campaign and their proxies were that he was a terrorist, that he worked for terrorists, that he was a terrorist apologist, and.  McCain calling him a "spokesman", when he apparently was not, was part of that smear campaign against Obama.  If he were found to have been an employee of the PLO, he would likely be unemployable as an academic in the US.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The PLO was a UN observer since 1974 (A/RES/3237) and participated under the name "Palestine" since 1988 (A/RES/43/177.) Nobody here is citing personal opinions, but rather a strong consensus of international opinion, which has supported the Palestinian national liberation movement consistently since the 1970s. (Simply review the UNGA resolution voting records endorsing them; it's almost invariably Israel and the United States against, Australia and Latin America abstaining, and everybody else for.) I frankly have no idea if it is true in a U.S. academic context that having worked for the PLO's news agency in Lebanon in the 1970s would be considered equivalent to blowing up kids, etc. Especially since most of the attacks of that sort were carried out by the Rejectionist Front, which broke away from the PLO over its willingness to negotiate, and also in view of the comparison with Jewish-American academics who worked for Israeli gov't bodies at the same time, when Israeli "counter-terror" killed several civilians for each Israli civilian killed by PLO "terror."
 * Anyway, Historicist has presented several sources (most very low-quality, the book is the best) which identify Khalidi as speaking in some at least quasi-official capacity for the PLO. That in itself is not enough to justify mentioning in his bio - not by a long shot. However, it did become a third- or fourth-rate election controversy, briefly, leading to at least a little bit of mainstream media coverage, and that is worthy of mention.
 * Can anybody explain to me what specific language is contested? Or are people still saying there should be no mention of this whatsoever? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands does devote a paragraph to this "minor issue" - see Rashid Khalidi. I believe what is being proposed is to add a statement that some believe he was a PLO spokesman during the late 1970s but that he denies it and that other sources contradict it.  In the past the material was put in the article with a long analysis of the claims, counterclaims, and sources.  I considered the claims themselves to be a BLP violation and the point / counterpoint approach to providing the claims and their denials to give undue weight to the subject, so I trimmed it back considerably to its present version.
 * It is undisputed that Khalidi was a full time teacher at the American University of Beirut during the period so if he was a PLO agent he was moonlighting. Standing on its own we do not have sufficient sources to say it is true.  The fact that there is a disagreement of sources is too trivial to mention.  Sources don't always agree.  But in the context of the election it was used as a misleading attack on Obama.  This is all very clear from material readily available.  It is not terribly pertinent whether or not the smear would score points outside America - for BLP and Weight reasons the context is important.  It is fair to note in the article, and easy to source, that Khalidi was the subject of an attempt to smear Obama by portraying Khalidi as a PLO sympathizer.  However, the part of that pertaining to Khalidi supposedly being a "spokesman" for the PLO was not a significant part of the smear campaign because it had little substance and had been debunked.Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think an intelligent reading of the sources leads one to say it has been debunked conclusively. IE, there is no evidence that he carried an official PLO membership card (if such a thing exists) let alone was a "terrorist." There are a number of sources, though, which do suggest that at the very least he did moonlight in some kind of unofficial capacity for the PLO's press agency. There are a lot of sources which clearly contradict the "membership card" theory, convincingly enough that it can be considered an extreme-minority view, but not so many that contradict the "unofficially official" theory. I don't think it's wise to come to any conclusions ourselves, and I don't think that an extended summary of he-says-she-says is wise either. I do think that something like, "Some news reports from the 1970s quoted Khalidi as a spokesman for the PLO-affiliated news agency WAFA, an issue which briefly became controversial when it was used by the 2008 McCain presidential campaign to impugn Khalidi's former U of Chicago colleague Barrack Obama." One or two sentences, no inflammatory or leading language. Ok? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 08:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was debunked; I do not mean to say it was debunked conclusively or successfully. McCain's camp was under fire for misleading campaign statements.  After the mainstream press in America labeled the McCain/Palin allegations about Khalidi and Ayers questionable they pulled back from making direct claims and resorted to innuendo.  In principle, I agree, but not about the word "spokesman."  The point is that "spokesman" implies an official relationship unless it is qualified as "possibly quasi...", "semi...", "informal...", etc..  A paid / official spokesperson is an agent and that implies loyalty and duty to the principal.  Saying that some thought Khalidi informally spoke for, intermediated, etc., is fine.  So we could say that "Some news reports from the 1970s said that Khalidi spoke for the PLO-affiliated....".  But the specific word "spokesman" implies something beyond what can be sourced.Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * the "debunking" was debunked by Kramer and Lippman. While we may be discussing the technicalities of these sources vis-a-vis BLP and RS on wikipedia, it cannot be denied that in truth, the evidence exists that he was acting for, and on behalf of, the PLO. Whether he pulled a paycheck is another story (and irrelevant for that matter) . -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and Placement

 * We appear to be nearing a consensus (see Eleland's last comment) that this belongs in the article. Obviously Wikidemon objects.  However, as has been pointed out several times by several people, to omit the information on Khalidi's ties with the PLO is to violate Wikipedia neutrality by deliberate omission of well-sourced information.


 * The question thus becomes where to put the information and how to phrase it. I suggest that we discuss placement first, then wording, since wording may depend in part on context.


 * Withinn the Public Life section, the options are:
 * 1.) in the opening paragraph of Public Life, which has the effece of minimizing the importance of this aspect of Khalidi's career
 * 2.) in the campaign section, which gives the impression that this is merely a campaign issue
 * 3.) in a sub-section headed something like PLO connectionsHistoricist (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * I support putting the information in a succinct sub-section of Public Life to be headed headed PLO connection that would include both Khalidi's service as a PLO spokesman in Beirut and the sentence already in the article regarding his role at the Madrid conference. My reason is that an ongoing role as a spokesman for the PLO over the course of several years in Beirut, a role that was renewed at Madrid (where the New York Times discribed Khalidi as "speak(ing) openly for the P.L.O.," is plainly a significant aspect of the man's career.  Historicist (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

There's no such consensus. All three proposals not only include the BLP vio we've been talking about in the first place, but by adding PLO headings or attempting to portray it as a career event would blow out of all proportion the occasional stray attribution, poorly sourced except as a American campaign smear, that Khalidi is a PLO "spokesman". This just started a few days ago, over an American holiday. Give it some time. Trying to conclude an RfC prematurely is not going to help. Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record: I support the position that the undeniable information that Khalidi had a distinct relationship with the PLO should be in the article. However, I believe it must be phrased in such a way that does not imply that Khalidi himself was anything other than a civilian who worked with the organization. His own writings should be the judge of whether he sympathizes with their methods, or only their goals, but to deny that there was a relationship to me goes against all of the information, books, newspaper articles, etc., brought above. The fact that it was quiescent for a time does not mean that information is not notable. A well-respected and renown scholar of Palestinian culture and history who had access to, and a relationship with, the workings of one of the most prominent Palestinian militant/terrorist/separatist organizations, is, in my opinion, ipso facto notable. -- Avi (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "ipso facto" notability in Wikipedia, and the matter of which political points need to be made and which do not is precisely the reason we have WP:WEIGHT. Nevertheless, you will note that I am not objecting to discussing Khalidi's proximity to the PLO or the controversy that causes in the United States.  Rather, I am specifically objecting to calling him a "spokesman" or anything else we cannot properly source.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, perhaps I did not express myself as clearly as I would have wanted to. I believe we all agree that Khalidi passes Notability (people). As such, the only reasons I can think of to leave out information from the article would be WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE. WP:BLP is satisfied by reliable sourcing, and in this case, as I pointed out in the archives, even primary sources should be sufficient, although we do have reliable secondary sources as well. WP:UNDUE should be satisfied by the mere fact that a well-respected scholar of Palestinian history and culture having a relationship with the best known Palestinian (insert whatever adjective here) group, the PLO, is in and of itself significant, and as WP:UNDUES says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.". In this case, bringing the fact that there was this relationship of Khalidi working with, if not for, Wafa, and being seen as the scholar with the best ties, relationships, and thus insights, into the PLO, is a significant fact in his stature as a scholar of Palestinian culture, history, and geo-political philosophy. That is what I menat when I said "ipso facto". You are correct in that the concept of notability does not apply to facts in a persons life, it applies to the person in toto. I believe that we should work on the best way to accurately phrase the relationship that simultaneously does not work to impugn Khalidi, yet does not hide the fact that the relationship existed. Let the reader decide on their own if Khalidi is to be lauded or excoriated for the relationship, or if it changes their opinion at all. -- Avi (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are talking past one another. I am not challenging that the nature of Khalidi's interactions with the PLO, and his views about the matter, should be presented in the article.  That should be done fairly and as neutrally as possible, with an emphasis on what the relationship is rather than undue attention to what we call it.  So far so good.  The problem is with insisting on applying the designation that he was a "spokesman", something the sources do not support.  That is a BLP problem because the designation is demonstrably disparaging to an American readership, for whom it suggests that he is a proxy of terrorists.  That is the context under which the claim arose - by applying the label in a misleading way bloggers, columnists, and McCain's party and campaign all made Khalidi an unwitting tool of a smear campaign against Obama.  I agree, say who Khalidi was and what he actually did.  But don't call that being a "spokesman" because that is not neutral under the circumstances, not supported by the sources, and misleading to the leader because it invites the reader to jump to an inaccurate conclusion.  The weight issue is that while his proximity to the PLO is important, the "spokesman" designation and any dispute or controversy over it, are not given much attention by the sources.  It appears almost exclusively in blogs, editorials, random Internet chatter, and very occasionally, in pronouncements of Obama's opponents. If the matter of calling him a "spokesman", as opposed to an intermediary, helper, supporter, etc., were of sufficient importance to cover in the encyclopedia it would have been picked up by now in a sufficient number of reliable secondary sources to establish weight.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add that the new proposal, below, is exactly what I'm talking about not doing. Claiming that he was "reportedly" an employee of the PLO is original research, pejorative to an American reader, and incorrect, as to what the majority of sources reported he was doing.  Plus there is no sourcing to establish that the report and denials have any weight as a biographically important matter.  The paragraph does nothing to actually say what he did in Beirut or how he interacted with the PLO, it focuses 100% of the attention on the seemingly untrue allegation that he was an employee/spokesman.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As documented above, the majority of sources discovered so far dating from between 1976 and 1983 that cite Khalidi describe him as a PLO spokesman or official.Historicist (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * The vast majority of sources do not describe Khalidi as a PLO spokesman. I doubt they even do for the period you choose to use, but it is not worth counting sources for a specific period because that demonstrates nothing.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording: December 1, 2008
'''Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. In 2004 Khalidi dismissed the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, 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.”'''Historicist (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * No. Poorly sourced, misleading, undue weight, BLP vio.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Revised proposed wording Between 1976 and 1983 Khalidi taught at universities in Beirut, Lebanon. During this period, Khalidi reportedly also worked for the PLO.  In 2004 Khalidi dismissed the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, 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.”Historicist (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * That does not address any of the concerns. Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the following as a rough attempt, and I'd request Historicist add the appropriate sources where necessary:

It can be fleshed out, if necessary, with both the rebuttal of any official relationship and the "semantics" phrase from the FactChecker. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm good with this. Historicist (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * The first two sentences are okay in principle, although we would have to find secondary sourcing for "known throughout journalistic circles" and "was often used". The third sentence starting "Whether..." does not appear to be sourceable from the edits I have seen.  For weight concerns you would have to find sourcing that shows that the debate about whether he was or was not an "official representative" exists and is a significant enough debate to cover here.  Otherwise we are still faced with the same BLP issue.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The "factChecker" piece is sufficient, IIRC, and it is secondary. -- Avi (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That article does not say there was any legitimate debate on the subject; it says there was a campaign smear. From that article one could source a statment like ''During the US Presidential Election of 2008 the McCain campaign advanced a questionable claim that Khalidi was a "PLO spokesman" in what it called "a case of guilt by association gone haywire."  However, in other BLP situations we have faced the question of whether it is appropriate to describe in their bio article their use as an attempted guilt by association smear, and we tend to be very cautious about that.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other ways to phrase this. 160.39.35.12 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * And we could add "... with most not reporting any such affiliation ..." That gets over the problem of unfaithfulness to the source, but do we have a citation for the claim that reliable sources differ or is this WP:OR?  Reliable sources differ on all kinds of things, but we normally do not report the difference.  There has to be some reason to give it weight.  If the reason is that there is some supposed controversy over his alleged employment by the PLO that's circular.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon. The fact that dozens of right-of-center publications (relying on the old thomas Friedman story) used the phrase "spokesman for the PLO" while dozens of left-of-center publications denounced it as a falsehood constitutes a public debate.  On your second point, of course most articles that mentioned Khalidi before the campaign failed to mention that he was a PLO spokesman.  This is because of what I have called the  Hassan Diab reason, i.e. reporters don't write that someone was affiliated with the PLO before evidence surfaces that he was affiliated with the PLO.  The lack of mention proves nothing beyond the fact that Khalidi's PLO affiliation is a newly proven fact.  It would be misleading to discuss these superseeded articles in the article as though they proved something.Historicist (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * You are suggesting then that we cover the partisan claims and counterclaims, as opposed to the reliable sources? The slings and rebuttals of attack politics belong if anywhere in an article about the election, not a biography of the unwitting subject.  Moreover, even there we would need reliable secondary sourcing on the subject of it being a partisan debate, not trawling the blogs to survey and analyze what they say.  Your proposed reason for dismissing all the sources after a certain time, but before the election, makes no sense.  Reliable sources are reliable sources, and scant few make the stray claim you are promoting, that Khalidi was a PLO operative.  There is zero new evidence on the subject, only a new political attack as part of the election.  After repeated challenges on this you have failed to produce anything.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is my modest suggestion:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 December 2008


 * If we remove the first sentence, this sounds sufficient enough to me based on the facts we have. What do others think? Khoikhoi 08:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we have a source to say that "many journalists" turned to him as an "unofficial...PLO spokesman" and that "many journalists" turned to him as an "official PLO spokesman?" I don't think I've seen that sourced.  Keep in mind each is a compound statement - first, that it's true, and second that it's why journalists turned to him, each of which would have to be sourced to someone other than the journalist who is making the attribution.  As an analogy, if you were to say "many people buy Tide Detergent for its ability to remove wine stains from even the most delicate silk without damaging the fabric" you would have to source (independent of the purchaser making the claim about his own purchase decision) both that this is a property of the product and also that this is why people buy it.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking in again, I agree with this. The first sentence is clearly not good, but even the second should say something more like "many journalists used Khalidi as a Palestinian source for information on the conflict."  Perhaps this is where a sentence could be inserted to the effect that Khalidi was on occasion cited as an official or unofficial representative of the PLO, although he has stated that he had no position with the PLO.  I should be clear that I say this without examining the sources for this second claim, though, but simply from having seen that he is widely recognized to have been a Palestinian source, whereas the claim that he represented the PLO is much more narrow (at least before the recent presidential election).  I'm just looking in briefly, so I'm not sure if that helps. Mackan79 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A Problem of Fact  This latest proposed wording is a glaring violation of NPOV.  We have four period sources citing Khalidi as an official of the PLO in the period, plus the Washington Post correspondent in the Middle East from the Beirut period, plus books by some of the most distinguished academic historians of the period all confirming that he was a PLO official.  We have NO period sources denying the connection.  NONE  We do not have a single academic book denying that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO.  Nor does Khalidi request one of the little one-line corrections that the New York Times routinely gives.  Tell me, if the New York Times described you as a PLO official Twice and you were not a PLO official, and your entire family and everyone you went to school with was in New York City reading the N Y Times, wouldn't you ask for a correction?  All that we have is Khaldi's dismissal of the charge, twenty years after the fact.   And several  opinion columns written at the height of a political campaign during which as many opinion pieces were written asserting that he did indeed work for PLO.  The only journalist to revisit the issue after Election Day, ron Kampeas, admitted that Khalidi was indeed PLO and apologized to his readers (while still waxing indignant over the McCain campaign's behavior.)   You simply cannot accept Khalidi's post facto denial as more valid than the fact that the Radio Pacifica interview which took place in PLO headquarters in Beirut and identified Khalidi four separate times as a PLO official.  For the sentence you have proposed to be accurate, we would have to propose that an organization as intense as the PLO in Beirut in the 70's allowed a professor who did not work for them to sit in their Beirut headquarters and call himself a PLO official.  It boggles the mind.Historicist (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I would be satisfied with RavPapa's wording, and I also could agree to removing the word "closely" from the first sentence. However, I agree with Historicist that removing it completely is a violation of WP:NPOV by suppressing reliably and verifiably sourced facts, about the subject of an article, which are important in understanding the very nature of what makes the subject notable: namely, his understanding and scholarship of Palestinian culture, history, and socio-political theory. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is as yet unsourced. Unless we can source that 1) he was an official PLO spokesman, 2) many journalists turned to him because he was an official spokesman, 3) he was an unofficial PLO spokesman, and 4) many journalists turned to him because he was an unofficial spokesman, and 5) he was "associated" with the PLO (associated is an ambiguous word, incidentally) we have no business making such things up.  If you claim that its presence or non presence is a POV issue, than including POV material we cannot source is a POV violation.  As I have said from the beginning, I have no objection to a sourced statement that he had contacts/interactions with the PLO that made him controversial, only adding a dubious claim that he was a PLO spokesman.  The repeated speculative argument about why some of the conflicting sources are more accurate than other conflicting sources on the point is not helpful - we can reason through it all we want but the sources conflict and most of them do not say he was a PLO spokesman.Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming we cannot source it (we do not have adequate sourcing as yet so I doubt it is out there), what we can source is something like this:


 * The most logical place for this to go is where some of this material already sits, in the "public life" heading. Making a heading out of it gives it undue weight or slants it.  It is simply part of the chronological overview of his career.  Incidentally, we already have a section on his being a "minor issue" in the 2008 presidential campaign, and that section is not objectionable. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A new fact
Here is the Los Angeles Times in 1985 describing Khalidi as "a former PLO official" "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by DOYLE McMANUS. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 20, 1984. p. A10 (1 page) “according to Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO official” (here's the link, but ProQuest Historical Newspapers may not be available from every computer: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=671334742&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1228232198&clientId=15403)Historicist (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Evidence

 * Please read the Evidence discussion at the top of this page before commenting on this discussion.

By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM Special to The New York Times. New York Times Jun 11, 1979. p. A3 ) describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and the last (in German) identifies him as a professor.
 * I have now carefully searched both Proquest Historical Newspapers and News Google Archive, as well as the archive of the New York Times to discover how journalists identified Khalidi in his Lebanon period (pre-1983). I searched under both Khalidi and Khalidy. In addtion to the five articles described above, I can discover only four news articles that mention his name pre-1983.  He was, after all, a young, obscure professor at the time, albeit located in a hot region.  One mention (in Spanish) is a mere citation of something he published that does not describe Khalidi. One describes him as "historian at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut" one ("P.L.O., Shaken by Egypt-Israel Treaty, Seeks to Force U.S. to Accept Its Status; Threat to an Independent State Threat to American Interests Final Reserves of the P.L.O. Islamic Emphasis Is Tactical


 * In summary, of the seven pre-1983 articles that describe Khalidi, one calls him "close to Al Fatah," four describe him as a PLO spokesman or official, and two as a scholar.   It seems likely to me that all seven are accurate, and tha professor and PLO spokesman were the two aspects of his career at this time.  Historically, many national movements have been led or assisted by historians who were simultaneously politicians, some historians even became presidents of the nations they led to statehood.


 * Then, in 1984, after Khalidi returned to the States. The Los Angeles Times described him as a "former PLO official."   Subsequent articles describe him as a professor, Arab or Palestinian or Palestinian-American scholar or professor, and as "close to the PLO.


 * summary It seems very plain to me that in his youth Khalidi acted as and described himself as a PLO spokesman or official. This long a list of  distinguished journalists cannot have gotten this wrong. He then came home and, except fo rthe Madrid conference, spoke as an expert on the PLO, not as an official spokesman on behalf of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * Okay, so you have found one more article that says he was a PLO spokesman, two that do not, and one that does not describe him at all. More of the same.  The statement about how he spoke or described himself is speculation.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not speculation. When you are interviewed by a newspaper and well before you are miked up for a radio or TV interview you are asked how you prefer to be identified.  sometimes this is a negotiation, the reporter may need a briefer descrition than the one you or your university would prefer.  Sometimes the reporter will say something like, "Can we just say Columbia University instead of the School of International and Publis Affairs at Columbia University."   When the reporter or, more likely, his editor, gets it wrong, the newspaper routinely and without a lot of fuss prints a correction.  Khalidi could have easily gotten one.  In writing on this page I attempt to confine my remarks to matters about which I have some knowledge.  I believe that everyone should.Historicist (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * The statement how he described himself is in the Washington Post article, IIRC, which is not speculation at all, Wikidemon. Historicist has brought ample, if not beyond ample, sourcing for his relationship. We do not need to use the word "spokesman" but we may say, based on all the citations, that Khalidi was used as a source, was known for being a source (see the description of him in the review of his book on the NYT), and denies any official relationship, notwithstanding a multitude of references to him as such in reliable sources. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "spokesman" is specifically what I am objecting to. He was obviously used as a source, but to imply that "many" turned to him as a "spokesman" is unsourced.  We have a grand total of five contemporary sources that by direct reference (i.e. original anaysis of newspaper articles used as primary sources as to the contents of the article) call him a spokesman, but calling five "many" is not even good original analysis and there is no evidence as to why they turned to him.  Journalists only occasionally say what their motivation is to interview a subject.  Sometimes it is because they are always good for a quote, sometimes they are good to explain things, sometimes there are press conferences.  Who knows?  I have looked through a Washingon Post piece and do not see how Khalidi describes himself.  Perhaps youc an point me to something.
 * Incidentally, Historicist, as we all know from the quote proposed for inclusion Khalidi says directly that he did not bother checking or correcting his attributions, so your argument requires disregarding his words in favor of speculation about how newspapers work. It is a logical argument about an interaction that could have happened but did not between newspapers, editors, their sources, and the readership covering civil unrest in Beirut 1978.  Even if someone has personal knowledge of how journalists in that time and place were operating, we cannot reasonably conclude that the omission of a retraction proves that something is true.  Newspapers are utterly full of factual errors, something that continues to this day.  Very few are corrected.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Washington Times, Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Confused about the sides here
There is a lot of bandying about in this discussion of NPOV, but I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what the sides are. It seems that people who oppose mentioning a Khalidi-PLO connection think that such a connection is bad, and it somehow delegitimizes him. Are these the proPalestinians or the antiPalestinians? On the other hand, those favoring mentioning the connection - who are they? Are they interested in discrediting him? It doesn't seem to me to be such a terrible thing to have been associated with the PLO; after all, the PLO is now the leader of a nascent state, has been recognized by the UN as a legitimate national representative for more than 30 years, and one of its leaders held the Nobel peace prize. I doubt very much that Khalidi himself would feel dishonored by having his name associated with that organization. Anyway, I sent him an email to ask him; maybe he will make a comment on this page.

No, the issue is not one of POV, but rather a simple determination of the facts. I refrain from making a comment about that, beyond my suggestion for wording. I am just pointing out that accusations of POV seem irrelevant to this discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some facts just are. And it is perfectly possible to be pro-Palestinian, to wish for a functional Palestinian state with a transparant democratic government and human rights, while at the same time believing that academic biographies ought to be accurate.Historicist (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Yes, it is a simple factual question, but getting the facts wrong introduces a serious BLP problem because it disparages Khalidi. I have objected specifically to the poorly-sourced claim that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO, and am concerned about the tenacity with which some are pushing that claim.  As an objective matter the designation carries a tremendous amount of off-Wikipedia POV baggage.  Our personal opinions about Palestinians and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not an issue here.  Whether we are fine with the PLO or consider them terrorists for murdering hundreds of civilians, many Americans adamantly abhor the PLO.  There are persistent campaigns to have Khalidi fired from his position and to block him from making speeches, out of a perception that he is a sympathizer.  If you buy that the PLO is a legitimate organization, organizations are entitled to have spokespeople.  But we cannot fairly claim that Khalidi had that role as a PLO employee.  That claim was used as a smear campaign at the highest levels of the 2008 US presidential election.  One thing I agree with historicist about is that it is not terribly useful to pose this question as a "pro" and "anti" Palestinian debate.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording: December 2, 2008
Historicist (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * I would not object to that. Wikidemon (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have posted it, as agree, with consolidated footnotes.Historicist (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Wow, that was fast! :)  Let's see if others will sound in with support so that you can point to this discussion if anyone asks.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin Kramer on Khalidi
While updating the refs I came across this: http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm.

As an aside, this is considered a reliable source for Kramer's own opinion, as per Verifiability: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.…Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Martin Kramer is an established expert, whose works on the Middle East have been published in reliable third-party publications, and if used, of this data would only be used to bring the opinion of an expert on the Middle East about Khalidi. Being that it is the expert's opinion supported, that is first-party not third party, as long as it is properly labeled in the article.

Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that we bring Joseph Massad's opinion of Kramer in Kramer's article. See Martin Kramer. -- Avi (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see no distinction between citing Joseph Massad on Martin Kramer's page and citing Martin Kramer on Rashid Khalidi's page.Historicist (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * The differnece between Kramer's page and Khalidi's page is stunning. Kramer's page has no discussion of his academic work.  It is almost exclusively conposed of criticism of him.  In contrast, Khalidi's page has almost none of the well sourced, adademic articles and books that severly criticise his scholarship as biased and even dishonest.  The articles about the organizations he has chaired, such as the American committee on Jerusalem, are equally unobjective.Historicist (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Well, there needs to be a lot of work done on Martin Kramer, then. Regardless, I think that Kramer's opinion of Khalidi is appropriate to be brought here, as is Massad's of Kramer brought there. -- Avi (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have supplied Kramer's opinions, as well as the fact that Ron Kampeas, who originally defended Khalidi, and made very similar arguments to people on this page, has himself conceded that Kramer is correct. In the interests of neutrality, I brought Kampeas's point afterwards that notwithstanding Khalidi's denial of fact, people should give more weight to Khalidi's recent statements and not past associations.

Once again, it should be noted that the sources brought do pass WP:RS as they are supporting the opinions of the people writing them, who are experts in their own right, and whose opinions' on Khalidi are germane. -- Avi (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Thomas Lippman, the former Washington Post Middle East bureau chief, is on record saying that "Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict." This is not some "right-wing crazy Israeli blogger", this is a 30-year veteran reporter, and the fact that he too conflicts with Khalidi's denial is both fascinating and important. -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of recent edits
This is specifically geared to Wikidemon, G-Dett, and Khoikhoi. From our discussions on this page, I understood the reservations against using the sources originally brought to be based primarily on the following:
 * 1) They were "primary" sources.
 * 2) They used the term "spokesman" and how can you prove a negative.
 * 3) The controversy was being stirred by non-expert bloggers.

I believe very strongly that the sources I found and the edits I made this evening address all of those issues.
 * 1) The article now uses Martin Kramer's collection and analysis of the sources, not our own. This is the classic definition of a secondary source. We are reporting Kramer's opinion, the opinion of a renown scholar specializing in Middle Eastern and Islamist subjects, on Khalidi's past and recent denial.
 * 2) That argument was originally given by Ron Kampeas as well, and brought in the article too. Kampeas later agrees with Kramer that the evidence is, as Kampeas puts it, "irrefutable". Further, the article never calls Khalidi a PLO spokesman. It says that Kramer, Kampeas, and Lippman either believe or outright call him a spokesman. Therein lies the important difference. The fact that three experts on the Middle East and its journalism all agree that Khalidi's denial is troublesome and does not match the facts and evidence as they bring it, is something that is important enough to be discussed in the article, presented as expert secondary-source opinion, not absolute fact.
 * 3) These are not right-wing bloggers or pot-stirrers. These are world-renown experts in their fields. This is one of the best known American scholars of Islam and the Middle East; this is a 30 year veteran journalist, author of multiple books about the Middle East, and former Middle East bereau chief for the Washington Post; this is one of the journalists who spent multiple attempts trying to counter Kramer's arguments until such point as he had to concede to the facts.

Also, to foster and promote the neutrality of the piece, I brought Kampeas's point about giving more weight to Khalidi's recent public statements than to his past, although, I must say, on a personal level, Kramer's analysis of Khalidi's statements in Arabic juxtaposed with those of his in English, are interesting. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you have to say why you believe the new sources are a BLP violation instead of blanket edit warring. I have given you a detailed explanation above. Please have the courtesy to respond with logical arguments instead of edit-warring reversions. -- Avi (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? That is highly improper.  You seem to be an experienced editor.  Surely you are aware of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EW, and WP:BLP.  Per BLP I am not required to give a reason before reverting BLP vios.  You proposed an edit that you should have known is unacceptable and utterly outside the range of any consensus discussions we have had.  Per BRD I am allowed to simply say I disagree with your proposed edit, so please take it to the talk page before inserting, and you should not re-insert.  However, I was typing one up while you were leaving warnings on my talk page, accusing me falsely of edit warring, and then edit warring yourself.  I will finish composing that, but this aggressiveness is rather discouraging.  Will you please discuss this matter instead of edit warring in your proposed language? I have asked you if you will self-revert this; otherwise I will. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I explained, I believe that the edits conformed to every issue that you, G-Dett, and Khoikhoi have raised. At a certain point, your actions begin to more resemble WP:IDONTLIKEIT than WP:BLP, and that is disconcerting. -- Avi (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you tone it down five notches, retract the bogus AN/I report you just filed, and do it like you are supposed to. Stop accusing me of edit warring, whitewashing, POV, and all that other nonsense.  We had a just agreed on a consensus version, as you certainly know because you were participating in the discussion.  You obviously disagree with what seemed to be the consensus.   It would have been helpful if you had said something earlier rather than letting us arrive at a consensus you disagreed with, then adding material that anyone would know is outside the range we had all been discussing.  You are proposing a considerable amount of material that at first look is very negative about the living person who is the subject of the article, to wit a section that Khalidi was a PLO operative then lied about it, together with third parties giving their opinion on why he lied.  We haven't even had time to read it properly and check the sources.  Please do this the normal way.  Explain the material you propose and give others a chance to agree, disagree, question, propose alternatives, etc.    03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have struck out reference to you in particular in the ANI report. Furthermore, the sad thing is, I did NOT work on this before this afternoon. Once Historicists version went into the article, I started updated the citations, as I often do. Check the article's history, it is all there. When looking for the Kramer information, I cam across all of this. I am amazed at how much good information there is that was not brought, and bringing only a small portion of it, after maybe a total of two or three hours of work, shows me how well-founded and well-grounded this controversy and the information is! -- Avi (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, then please be patient while we work through it. I haven't even had a chance to read all the sources (but those I have read do not look entirely promising).  Also, are we doing this as an ANI request for administrative intervention or are we participating in a consensus discussion?  Please sort that one out because I don't want to deal with two tracks at once.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
For the sake of others who may not have had a chance to see the edits, I have removed them, for now, from the article, for discussion here. -- Avi (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with the PLO
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut." Rashid Khalidi on the Middle East: A Conversation, Logos, Fall 2005 ; “The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for the left-wing Pacifica Radio in Berkeley, California . According to Pacifica, Khalidi was “interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut"  Pacifica  described him as: "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa," "PLO spokesperson Rashid Khalidi," "Rashid Khalidi, official spokesperson for the PLO," "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut," "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa."; Lebanon War Hurts Palestinian Cause," Joe Alex Morris Jr., Los Angeles Times September 5, 1976 Los Angeles Times cited Khalidi as a “a PLO spokesman;” “Palestinians, People in Crisis, Are Scattered and Divided; The Palestinians First-of a Series,” New York Times, February 19, 1978, Sunday, Page 1, James M. Markham describes Khalidias someone who  “works for the PLO;”  “Ultimate Goals of the Attack are Assessed Differently from the Two Sides,” News Analysis, Thomas Friedman, New York times, June 9, 1982, describes Khalidi as “a director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa;  "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Feb 20, 1984. p. A10, “according to Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO official;”  “McCain, Palin demand L.A. Times release Obama video,”  James Rainey, October 30, 2008, Los Angeles Times, describing Khalidi as, “a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.” In 2004, Khalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO,  saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, Khalidi served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.

Khalidi's denial of any official relationship with the PLO became a matter of discussion among scholars and journalists who specialized in the Middle East. Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency originally defended Khalidi from the claims of his being an official PLO spokesman.

However, Dr. Martin Kramer, the twentieth century Islamist intellectual and political history scholar, contested Khalidi's denial of any official role, and called into askance those who have testified "to Khalidi's bona fides without doing due diligence." Kramer concludes based on print and radio sources that to him there is no question that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut.

The Washington Post published a letter by Thomas Lippman, its veteran Middle East news correspondent and former Middle East bureau chief, which stated that Khalidi was "indeed 'a PLO spokesman,'" and suggesting that journalists need to "check the clips."

Eventually, Kampeas conceded that Kramer's evidence and analysis is "irrefutable" and that he too believes that Khalidi was, in the past, a spokesman for the PLO. Kampeas goes on to state, however, that while it may be regrettable that Khalidi has denied past truths, it must be seen that Khalidi's advocacy of a two-state solution, his calling attacks on civilians "war crimes," and his denunciations of anti-Semitism are important in understanding why he has denied his past association with the PLO.


 * I think this section has perhaps a little too much detail, and it over-states the role of individual actors like Kramer. That said it cannot reasonably be considered a BLP violation in my view and this has to proceed from a standpoint of normal editorial disputes, without anybody wielding BLP like a club. There is a genuine controversy here, albeit a minor and obscure one, and WP should report on it. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Khalidi has denied past truths" sourced to an opinion piece on a blog? Do I have to quote chapter and verse from WP:BLP?  Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, I specifically addressed this above. This is one of those rare cases where blogs are acceptable. This is Dr. Martin Kramer's blog being used to support Dr. Martin Kramer's opinion on the issue. I explain it in more detail above, but long-standing consensus (as written in the Self-published sourced section of WP:V) specifically allows this. -- Avi (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with the applicable policies. This is from WP:BLP, not WP:V.  Saying that a poorly sourced disparaging opinion is just somebody's opinion does not remove it from BLP territory.  "Tom Cruise is a brainwhacked fish-snopper [cite to Bill O'Reilly's Fox News blog]" has the same BLP issues as "Bill O'Reilly says that Tom Cruise is a brainwhacked fish-snopper [cite to Bill O'Reilly's Fox News blog]". Wikidemon (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I address that above as well. Your analogy is flawed. This is not "someone" saying Tom Cruise is a wackjob. These are world-renown, world respected experts in their fields, at least Kramer and Lippman are, the field of Middle Eastern Islamist thought and journalism, both of whom have 30+ years of experience, Lippman having dealt directly with Khalidi, and Kramer, having performed what amounts to a research project in his very area of expertise! -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then insert Milton Friedman for Bill O'Reilly. The analogy is to explain it to you, not to argue for why BLP is the way it is.  Editorial opinions are not reliable sources.  Attributing a disparaging editorial about a living person to its source does not remove it from BLP territory.  Neither renown nor years on the job make an editorial accusing someone of being a liar into something other than an editorial accusing someone of being a liar.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Kramer has compiled incontrovertible evidence and has made a very strong case that Khalidi lied. We do not call Khalidi a liar, we say that Kramer is convinced that the truth is not how Khalidi described it. You are misunderstanding BLP. We are allowed to bring well-sourced disparaging opinions, go look at how Joseph Massad is brought in the Martin Kramer article. G-d is not calling anyone a liar, all we have is people's opinion. In this area, Martin Kramer is significantly MORE trustworthy and reliable than some no-name NYT writer. If there is strong evidence that Khalidi lied about his past, for goodness sakes, that is critical to the article. Our job is not to make people look bad or look good; it is to build a reliable encyclopedia without undue weight to any one side of an issue. For a respected academic and scholar of Palestinian culture to have other equally if not MORE respected scholars have accused of being less-than-accurate about his past relationship with the pre-eminent Palestinian militant/separatist/terrorist group, that is something that cannot be left out of the article if properly sourced, and it most definitely is. BLP is not an excuse to bowdlerize. -- Avi (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know BLP just fine, thank you. Your admiration for Kramer is noted but he is a political partisan and Republican party operative.  A partisan writes an editorial on his blog in an election year accusing a professor of lying about his past.  We do not repeat editorials by professors accusing each other of lying, and we don't repeat election year accusations of lying.  How many people did the campaigns and the parties accuse of lying this year in campaign material, blogs, and editorials?  Should we edit each of their articles to note that people have accused them of lying?  Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ron Kampeas Thomas Lippman and Martin Kramer are all serious men and reliable sources. Martin Kramer has a degree of expertise in the intricacies of the political history of the region that I suspect no one participating in this discussion can pretend to (escept, of course, in our own respective areas of professional expertise.)  Lippman and Kampeas have covered the region as professional journalists for years.  Both their familiarity with the politics of the region and their knowledge of journalism - i.e., they can judge how likely a journalist was to make an error in describing someone as a spokesman - make their opimions valuable.  I believe that the material Avi added should be included.  But perhaps Avi would be willing to edit for brevity, or move some of the language into the footnotes so that this section does not grow out of proportion on the page.Historicist (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Wikidemon's analysis
It is going to take some time to go through this and I am not free to spend the rest of the evening (in America) doing it. But I'll get started on the first few parts. Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC) }}. "However" is a conjunction to be avoided on stylistic and POV grounds - it sets up a conflict between two sources without verifying that they are in conflict. It seems argumentative. The source does not state that Kramer is a "twentieth century Islamist intellectual and political history scholar". An attribution used with a Wikilink need not be any longer than necessary to identify him but should be neutral. Presumably there are sources that could be used that could fairly describe him. There is an article on Martin Kramer that suggests that in addition to his academic credentials he is a political partisan with strong, controversial opinions. His partisanship and controversial nature are relevant to the question of the validity, neutrality, and relevance of his opinion. Summary: claim is unsupported by source; other sources suggest the claim is incomplete. }}. "Eventually" is WP:SYNTH of comparing two different sources and commenting on their relationship. "Conceded" is unsourced, and it is non-neutral. If material is includable it could be introduced neutrally. Summary: unsourced opinion. In toto, every single part of the proposed addition has problems with POV, relevance, weight, BLP violations, and/or incorrectly supporting the sources. If we cut out all the impermissable statements there is nothing to report. It is a coatrack as well, accusing Khalidi not only of being a PLO operative but also lying about it. It repeats the language of the claim, PLO spokesman, eight times, which is gratuitous. Going into such detail about what three individuals believe, based on their editorials and opinions, is completely undue for weight. None of this material adds to the first paragraph, which was in process of a consensus agreement.
 * 1) "Khalidi's denial of any official relationship with the PLO" sourced to . Although sourceable, this is redundant with the paragraph above.  By repeating this it calls undue attention to the fact that he is denying an accusation.  If there were something to state we should do it without the repetition.
 * 2) *Rebuttal: This is being brought to source that Kampeas originally defended Khalidi (n.b. with similar arguments to yours) and then was forced to concede that Kramer was correct and Khalidi likely did misrepresent himself. Thus it is not redundant. -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) **Yes, you are doing an analysis of an editorial column over time in order to write an exposition of how the author's opinion is changed - original research/analsysis on written material as a primary source. The redundancy (which would only be at issue if the material were acceptable at all) is that your proposal repeats eight times the phrase that Khalidi is a PLO spokesman.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I'll skip the first paragraph and the sources there - that was the proposed consensus language that would be included if there were a consensus (in the absence of a compromise on the subject I cannot say I endorse it but that is a discussion for elsewhere). Summary: not agreed to except as a stand-alone consensus version per above discussion.
 * 5) *No need for rebuttal as no claim was made. Summary: Irrelevant as respects appropriateness of above version of PLO relationship discussion. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) "became a matter of discussion among scholars and journalists who specialized in the Middle East" sourced to the same. However, the source does not state that it was a "matter of discussion", that it was discussed among scholars, or that it was discussed among journalists.  So it does not provide secondary sourcing regarding weight or verifiability.  Additionally, the source is an opinion piece by Ron Kampeas on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news blog.  The author and the publication may (or may not) be regarded as partisan, although they both have indicia of reliability, and there is nothing wrong per se with news blogs by staff journalists as sources.  The main issue is that it is written as an opinion / analysis piece, which limits reliability as to anything other than that the writer has that opinion.  Summary:this statement is not supported by the source.
 * 7) *Rebuttal:The above should be sourced to Kramer's piece where he step-by-step both discusses, and then deconstructs, Kampeas's defenses. Kampeas wrote mor than one piece, responding each time Kramer did, until he finally agreed. I am more than happy bringing all of those pieces. Summary: Sources exist and will be brought -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) **There's no point. The source is unreliable.   What a partisan blogger says about an editorialist is not material fit for the encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) ***There is every point to take seriously the published opinion on a highly regarded journalist like Ron Kampeas on the webpage of a respected news agency.Historicist (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * 10) "Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency originally defended Khalidi from the claims of his being an official PLO spokesman." sourced to the same.  It is verifiable by primary source that RK of JTA said that Khalidi was not a PLO spokesman.  However, "originally defended" is not in the source - it is an original opinion / analysis of what the source says, and is loaded because defending someone against something implies that there is a bona fide charge against them, that the charge if true is disparaging, and that they have to be defended from it. In fact, the source does not mention "claims" but rather mentions that the McCain campaign is making that a campaign charge.  There is a further repetition (the third time) of the "official PLO spokesman", giving yet more undue emphasis on a statement generally perceived as negative to the subject of hte article.  Summary: the claim is verifiable by primary source, the language is POV and would have to be modified to avoid undue emphasis, and weight is unsourced. (why is it notable that Ron Kampeas has an opinion on the matter?  That is not explained)
 * 11) *Rebuttal: "Originally defended" is a synopsis of what actually happened. If you prefer, we can say "On October 30, 2008 Ron Kampeas wrote that there is no way to prove the term "spokesman" and that subsequently on November 3, he agreed that you can prove that Khalidi was a spokesman. Furthermore, what makes Kampeas so important vis-a-vis this controversy, is that he is a person who publicly made many arguments against the use of the term, and then agreed that it is correct and proper to call Khalidi a spokesman. This way we do not have to use the term "defend"; any reasonable reader will see that immediately anyway. As for the claim of primary sourcing see Talk:Rashid Khalidi. Summary: Claim is supported by reliable secondary sources, Wikidemon seems to have misunderstood the applicable policy here. The language can be adjusted to become more neutral. -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) **Rephrasing this would only be useful if the material were includable, but it is not. Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) "However, Dr. Martin Kramer, the twentieth century Islamist intellectual and political history scholar" sourced to {{{{cite web
 * url        = http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm
 * title      = Khalidi of the PLO
 * accessdate = 2008-12-02
 * last       = Kramer
 * first      = Martin
 * authorlink = Martin Kramer
 * date       = October 30, 2008
 * 1) *Rebuttal: We can remove the term "However" if you like. Kramer's being a "twentieth century Islamist intellectual and political history scholar" can be sourced to the sources used in Martin Kramer. Of course, it cannot be sourced directly to the article. The reason for bringing that sentence is to show the relevance and importance of Kramer here. I would agree that a wikilink to the Kramer article should be sufficient to show this, and that the brief description of him is unnecessary, unless spurious arguments as to his relevance arise. As an aside, Wikidemon, isn't it interesting to note that if you applied the same decision-making process to the Kramer article as to this one, there would be no indications of partisanship there [[image:face-grin.svg|25px]]? Summary: Wikilink is sufficient to show relevance. Kramer's analysis is scholarly and complete, and his partisanship, just as Khalidi's, is irrelevant to the discussion of Khalidi's possible misrepresentation of his past. -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) **No, it is not interesting, and your insinuation that I am hypocritical is out of line. Earlier I pointed out that trumpeting the author's credentials to try to buttress reliability of a source is not appropriate.  In the latter case that is not what the material was doing so I did not make that comment.  But it applies to all attributions - they should be for the point of identification and relevancy, not to argue a case.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) "contested Khalidi's denial of any official role" - there is no source to say that Kramer contested Khalidi's denial. This is original analysis of the primary source.  It does appear from the source that Kramer is disputing Khalidi's statement, in fairly aggressive, argumentative manner.  "Contested" is an odd word because that suggests some legitimacy or formal process.  It is merely an informally written editorial arguing a point.  "official role" is repeated here for the fourth time, adding undue weight.  Weight is not established by primary sourcing.  summary: claim is verifiable via primary source, but described in non-neutral way.  Weight is not established.
 * 4) *Rebuttal: See Talk:Rashid Khalidi. Kramer's conclusion is considered a secondary source according to wikipedia policy, and Wikidemon seems to have misunderstood the applicable policy here. "Contested" was used to be less aggressive. I am fine with bringing Kramer's own words such as: "It puts to rest the debate over whether Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut. He most definitely was." or "He's much too elusive for any passing journalist to pin down. Rashid Khalidi becomes what people wish him to be." or "Poor Ron—reduced to contortions to uphold the truth-telling credibility of Rashid Khalidi, of all people. He joins a long list of the credulous (including well-meaning journalists, rabbis, deans, etc.) who haven't figured out that Khalidi says one thing here, and another thing there." We are allowed to summarize a source, and an accurate summary is "Kramer believes Khalidi lied". In the interests of presenting things neutrally, I believe that "Kramer contested Khalidi's denial of any official role" is acceptable, but we can use the more pointed comments in the article if you wish. ''Summary: Claim is supported by secondary sources (as per above and below). "official role" is exactly what Khalidi was denying (see the Washington Times article) and what Kramer was proving, and so it is not undue, but the focus of the controversy. -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) **It's used as a primary source, as explained. Beyond the unreliable source / BLP problem, which applies to the whole paragraph, Tthe WP:WEIGHT is the big issue with this particular snippet.  Why should we care what Kramer has to say about Khalidi?  There is no sourcing to say that Kramer's blog is an important subject relevant to Khalidi's life.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) "and called into askance those who have testified, to Khalidi's bona fides without doing due diligence.,". Again, this is original analysis of a primary source, and phrased non-neutrally.  "Called into askance" is a colloquialism and I do not wish to speculate about its overtones.  "Criticized" would be more apt, in that Kramer says negative, somewhat caustic things about Kampeas, a fellow mideast commentator.  It is a bit of a tirade on a subject that has nothing to do with the subject of the article, namely a colleague of Kramer's, not of Khalidi's.  Further, Kramer's use of the plural ("those") when directing his criticism at a single person is a rhetorical device, one that we should not adopt.  No weight is established - why should we care what Kramer thinks of Kampeas?  summary: claim is verifiable via primary source, but described non-neutrally, irrelevant, and weight is not established.
 * 7) *Rebuttal: I am fine with replacing "called into askance" with "criticized". It has everything to do with this article, as the controversy about Khalidi's past is about Khalidi, and the analysis and conclusions of both men are about Khalidi. This is what a secondary source is, Wikidemon. Once again, please see Talk:Rashid Khalidi for an explanation as to your misapplication of that policy. We care what Kramer thinks about ALL PEOPLE who "testif[ied] to Khalidi's bona fides without doing due diligence" of which Kampeas is one example, and a good one at that, for after analysis, he conceded to Kramer. Summary:Claims are verified by secondary sources, description can be tweaked but is accurate, and weight is self-explanatory (even if people don't like it. -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) **It's used as a primary source as explained. Don't accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT - you are not going to convince anyone of anything that way.  There is zero weight or relevance in an article about Khalidi to Kramer sniping at Kampeas.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) "Kramer concludes based on print and radio sources that to him there is no question that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut." Kramer's conclusion is original anaysis of a primary source.  "Concludes" is not entirely neutral.  It is more of an argument than a conclusion - it is an editorial piece and Kramer is advocating an opinion.  "based on print and radio sources" is original analysis of the primary source that is incomplete, and not necessarily relevant (why does it matter what his sources are?).  In addition to using the sources he argues by analogy, from personal experience, by hyperbole, mockery, assertion, etc.  Claiming that the conclusion (or argument, if you will) is based on radio and print sources is bolstering it in unwarranted fashion.  "that there is no question" is irrelevant.  The question is whether Khalidi was a spokesman, not whether there is a question or not - particularly if this is an argument, one arguing that something is true is the same as arguing there is no question it is true.  It looks like a non-neutral rhetorical flourish.  "Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut".  That is verifiable as his opinion by analysis of the primary source.  However, this is the fifth repetition of the claim, adding yet further to the undue weight.  Weight for the entire statement is not provided.  Why do we care that Kramer, seemingly a political partisan, wrote an editorial that made a claim?  summary: claim is verifiable in part, unverifiable original anaysis in part.  wording is non-neutral and contains irrelevant material.  weight is not established.
 * 10) *Rebuttal: Once again, Wikidemon is demonstrating a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia means by primary and secondary sources. Please see Talk:Rashid Khalidi. The conclusion is brought is exactly whet we mean by using secondary sources. The reason for bringing "print and radio" is to synopsize the multiple pieces of evidence brought. I think it would be undo weight to bring each piece of evidence and its corresponding analysis by Kramer. Stating that the evidence is multi-medial is sufficient. Even if Wikidemon were to argue that we need each piece, I would counter with WP:UNDUE, but to not describe them at all is not appropriate. The phrase "that there is no question" is based on Kramer's own wording. "Kramer believes that the evidence is clear that Khalidi was an official spokesman, notwithstanding Khalidi's denial". But the emphasis of Kramer's opinion is important to rebut arguments (such as Kampeas's initial, and later rejected argument) that the nature of the relationship was impossible to prove. Summary: Claim is verifiable in total. Wording can be tweaked, as long as Kramer's argument is not artificially weakened. I do not see any irrelevant material, only uncomfortable material, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse for censorship. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) **It is used as a primary source. Please do not comment on my level of understanding, which is just fine.  This goes to the weight argument.  Why should anyone on Wikipedia care whether Kramer, a political blogger, thinks something is a question or not?  It's empty content.  But as an unreliable source for BLP, the whole thing is inappropriate.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) ***Calling Martin Kramer a political blogger is the equivalent of calling Khalidi an Arabist rabble-rouser. Kramer has been in academia longer than Khalidi, has more degrees than Khalidi, has written more books than Khalidi, has received more academic honors than Khalidi, etc. You may wish to compare their respective careers, for your own edification. -- Avi (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) ****Not relevant. He writes a self-published partisan political blog.  Thus he is a blogger.  When in doubt is established by second party sources commenting on things, not by our being impressed by someone's career credentials.  Nobody's PhD or faculty appointment conveys automatic notability to what they say.  Certainly not to the point where just because they put something on their blog it's fair game to say "so-and-so said this on his blog".Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) *****Please see Talk:Rashid Khalidi The blog of a world renown scholar does not fail WP:RS just because it is a blog. But both you and I are repeating ourselves at this point. One of us has an improper understanding of the appropriate policies that needs clarification. I think you are incorrect, you think I am. We will need to get more outside opinions for this. -- Avi (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) The Washington Post published a letter by Thomas Lippman sourced to {{cite web
 * url        = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/31/AR2008103103603_3.html
 * title      = Some Closing Thoughts
 * accessdate = 2008-12-02
 * last       = Lippman
 * first      = Thomas
 * authorlink = Thomas Lippman
 * date       = November 1, 2008
 * publisher  = Washington Post
 * pages      = A14}} Sourced to primary source.  Verifiable that the Post published a letter by Lippman.  Weight not established (why is it notable or relevant to Khalidi's life that the Post published a letter?  conclusion: verifiable but no weight established.
 * 1) *Rebuttal: Thomas Lippman was the Washington Post Middle East News bureau chief and a 30 year veteran reporter. He was responding to an earlier Washington Post piece that was discussing the Khalidi denial. He said that he personally is confirming that Khalidi was an official spokesman, was a "stop" on the journalistic rounds, and was criticizing the paper for not "checking the clips" before making erroneous claims. His position as head of the Middle East desk, and "man on the scene" is self-explanatory, and thus there is no undue weight. Summary: Claim is reliably sourced to Washington Post, belongs to one of its employees, and has direct bearing on Khalidi's position. If this is not relevant, I do not know what is. -- Avi (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) **Unreliable sources like this cannot be used in a BLP. He is writing a letter to the editor.  It is not a work of the Washington Post, it is a work of the writer.  Why should we care whether one person writing a letter to a paper is worth noting?  You have to find secondary sourcing for this sort of thing.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) its veteran Middle East news correspondent and former Middle East bureau chief. No source, but sourcing could be found.   However, it is puffery and misleading to claim Lippman is the Post's veteran correspondent. He no longer works for the Post.  summary: uncited but verifiable; wording would need change; weight depends on weight of rest of sentence.
 * 4) *Rebuttal: If you wish, we can bring the sources from Thomas Lippman. It is not puffery, but goes to show why this claim is both reliable (Post dealing with someone who worked for them for 30 years) and germane (Lippman was the man on the scene, if not in charge, during the time Khalidi was acting as the PLO spokesman). It is accurate to say that Lippman is a veteran reporter for the Post, although I am happy tweaking the sentence to read " its former veteran Middle East news correspondent and Middle East bureau chief., having the "former" cover both. Summary Citations can be brought, move "former" to cover both, weight is necessary to show why this is not some wacko claim. -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) ***As discussed above, it's not encyclopedic to buttress the reliability of sources by praising their professional credentias in the article. It can't be used as a secondary source because it is not reliable per BLP.  To use it as a primary source you would have to explain why a single letter to the editor is relevant to anything.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) which stated that Khalidi was "indeed 'a PLO spokesman,'" . Verifiable that quote is part of article.  Weight not established.  This is the sixth repetition of the PLO spokesman claim, giving undue weight to that claim.  summary: verifiable but wording problems, weight depends on weight of rest of sentence
 * 7) *Rebuttal: These are Lippman's own words, and their weight is important because the controversy is directly about the officialness of the relationship and the nature of Khalidi's being a spokesman. Summary:Wording is appropriate as it reflects the very nature of the controversy. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) **Wording is a coatrack (one of eight repetitions of the claim int he proposed material). This explains why the editor thinks it is important, but weight should be sourceable and not a matter of assertion.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) and suggesting that journalists need to "check the clips.". Verifiable that quote is part of article.  "suggesting" is original analysis and misleading / imprecise.  It is clearly not a suggestion on how journalists should practice their profession - it is a mild, and slightly humorous, chiding.  It is a color detail but not relevant that Lippman chides his fellow journalists.  Weight is not established, and seems unlikely.  summary: verifiable but irrelevant.
 * 10) *Rebuttal: It is Lippman's method of "criticizing" all of the journalists who did not investigate the facts before making what appear to be unsupportable assumptions. Summary:Relevant, as relates to controversy as a whole and quotations are usually a good thing as they prevent ambiguity. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) **Lippman's critique of other journalists is not relevant to Khalidi's life.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) "Eventually, Kampeas conceded" sourced to: {{cite web
 * url        = http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2008/11/03/1000727/so-busted
 * title      = So busted!
 * accessdate = 2008-12-02
 * last       = Kampeas
 * first      = Ron
 * authorlink = Ron Kampeas
 * date       = November 3, 2008
 * publisher  = Jewish Telegraphic Agency
 * 1) *Rebuttal: WP:SYNTH states: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." The only synthesis here is to note that November 3, 2008 comes after October 30, 2008. We can replaced conceded with "changed his mind" if you wish, but the fact that it was not just an agreement ab initio, but a successful convincing of someone who disagreed earlier, and wrote publicly to that effect, is important. Summary: Date comparison is not synthesis and the fact that Kampeas changed his mind is also important. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) ***The synthesis is that Kampeas changed his mind, as a concession. If there's nothing to that it doesn't bear saying.  If there's something to it, it's synthesis. Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) "that Kramer's evidence and analysis is 'irrefutable'." - We can verify by original analysis by reading this as a primary source that Kampeas states that Kramer's "evidence" is "irrefutable". However, there is no weight established and no reason given to suggest that Kampeas' opinion of the refutability of Kramers' evidence is worth noting.  He is simply praising a blog written by a colleague and saying he agrees.  summary: claim is not fully supported; original analysis that is irrelevant to article.
 * 4) *Rebuttal: Once again, see Talk:Rashid Khalidi. Kampeas's initial conclusion and subsequent redaction are in secondary sources. Agreeing to "irrefutability" is important, because Kampeas had argued multiple times prior that there was no way to prove this, so that total concession to Kramer is striking, and important in properly understanding Khalidi's denial. He is not praising the blog, Kampeas is conceding to the analysis and thereby agreeing that Khalidi misrepresented the truth, as Kampeas writes later on in the piece. Summary:Claim fully supported, this is the faithful non-OR representation of an outside expert's analysis and conclusions, the very bedrock upon which wikipedia articles are based! -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) **It's used as a primary source, as explained. Kampeas changing his mind about something is not relevant to Khalidi's life, and there is no demonstration of weight.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) "and that he too believes that Khalidi was, in the past, a spokesman for the PLO." It is sourceable that Kampeas agrees with the claim now.  The source does not discuss directly what Kampeas believes, and the subjective belief of authors is rarely relevant or reliably sourced to their own articles.  However, the weight is not established.  No reason is proposed why it is notable that Kampeas believes it.  Further, this repeats for a seventh time the charge, giving undue weight.  summary: the point is verifiable but it is phrased poorly, in non-neutral language.  weight is not established.
 * 7) *Rebuttal: It is appropriate, and important, because of the intensity of Kampeas's original defenses of Khalidi, defenses used by editors of this article at times, by the way, and how they were deconstructed and proven inadequate by Kramer's analysis. As explained in Talk:Rashid Khalidi, the conclusions of person B about event/person A is not primary but secondary. The charge is important because that is the central point of the controversy. Noone argues Khalidi spoke to journalists about the PLO, the question was always did he do so as a PLO official, or some informed bystander. Summary: Phrasing can be tweaked slightly, but Kampeas's agreement that Khalidi misrepresented himself is critical. Weight is established and actually self-understood, even if not comfortable for Dr. Khalidi. -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) **That's all syntheisis, on an irrelevant subject (Kampeas' subjective opinion of Khalidi). There is no weight to that.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) "Kampeas goes on to state, however, that". Unencyclopedic exposition
 * 10) *Rebuttal: What is non-encyclopædic about this? Would you prefer "Further on in his piece, Kampeas writes that…"? Summary: No support for claim of non-encyclopædicness, substitute wording requested. -- Avi (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) **It gets to the problem of the whole thing being an exposition of various unreliable sources' opinions. It's essay/commentary style about the sources, not encyclopedic style about the subject.  That's insurmountable because the sources themselves aren't reliable per BLP.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) "while it may be regrettable that". Unencyclopedic.  Kampeas' opinion about what is and is not regrettable is not relevant to Khalidi's life.
 * 13) *Comment: I think it relevant showing the extent that Kampeas believes that Khaldid lied, but this is not as critical as those above, and can be rephrased in my opinion. ''Summary: Less critical; It is important to show Kampeas now believes Khalidi misrepresented the facts, but that may successfully described earlier in the piece. -- Avi (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) **As discussed, Kampeas' changing opinion is not pertinent to Khalidi's bio.Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) "Khalidi has denied past truths,". Denying past truths is lying, which under BLP is a disparaging statement about a person that needs strong sourcing.  This is not supported by source.  What Kampeas states is "regrettable" is that Khalidi "distanced" himself from the PLO and denied past "associations" with the PLO.  The rewording of the source makes a considerable difference, and turns a mild ambiguous statement into a direct accusation of lying.  Further, as a source this is an opinion piece, which is not reliable for BLP purposes.  That the piece is entitled "so busted", begins with an account of being home, eating dinner, is written in an informal chatty tone, etc., suggests it is not even a seriously structured argument.  Per WP:V it is reliable to the opinion of the author.  However, that opinion is either irrelevant (something is regrettable), incorrectly reported (that Khalidi is lying when it is actually that Khalidi is denying an association), or defamatory (Khalidi is lying).  Per BLP, repeating defamatory opinions is impermissible.  Stating that they are people's opinions does not rehabilitate them.  Further, no weight is given to why Kampeas' opinion about Khalidi is notable.  ''summary: not supported by source, source is unreliable, disparagement is a BLP violation, no weight given for relevance)
 * 16) *Rebuttal: The sentence from Kampeas's concession is: Similarly, I don't know what drove Khalidi to distance himself from the PLO and even to deny any past association . I think it's regrettable that he does. The regrettable goes on the denying the past association, in other words, the lying. We have strong sourcing that Kampeas believes it regrettable that Khalidi denied past associations with the PLO, which is exactly what is needed under WP:BLP. This is no more an "opinion" piece than Khalidi's own initial denial was an "opinion" piece. This is a concession, published on a reliable website Jewish Telegraphic Agency, about the admission by Kampeas that he now agrees with Kramer that Khalidi incorrectly distanced himself from his past, which is regrettable. As explained in Talk:Rashid Khalidi, this is not even considered a blog under wikipedia, although even if it were, it is considered reliable. The fact that Kampeas titled his piece in a humorous way is irrelevant. It is not our position as wikipedia editors to comment on authorship styles, but to ensure that the sources meet the requirements, which this does. Properly attributed to Kampeas, this is permissible under BLP, and necessary in understanding the controversy. Summary: Claim supported by reliable source, and therefore not a BLP violation, notwithstanding that Wikidemon doesnt like it. Improper censorship is as much an NPOV violation as anything, and misrepresenting reliably sourced expert opinion for the sake of rehabilitating someone's image is unacceptable. -- Avi (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) **Kampeas' beliefs and emotions about things are not pretinent to an article about Khalidi. Discussing the source as a concession is using it as a primary source, as explained.  The entire piece is not written in authoritative tone.  It is an editorial, and using editorials to accuse living subjects of lying is a BLPVIO.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) it must be seen that Khalidi's advocacy of a two-state solution, his calling attacks on civilians "war crimes," and his denunciations of anti-Semitism are important in understanding why he has denied his past association with the PLO." Inasmuch as this is a rationalization given for a BLP violation it is not worth delving into this.  It is not relevant to the article.  However, this does have similar problems with reliability, weight, relevance, and BLP.
 * 19) *Comment: I am fine with removing this last piece about Kampeas's opinion as to the relative weights one should use to judge Khalidi's past actions in light of his more recent statements. Summary: I agree that this last piece is not as germane and would not contest its removal. -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposed consensus version, without this edit, already contains the sentence "Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". It also states that the matter became an issue in the US presidential election, which is the context for all these blog sources. If we distill all of these additional paragraphs down to their encyclopedic core, it amounts to a simple statement that "Three individuals argued that Khalidi was a former PLO spokesman: a partisan political operative on his blog, a bureau correspondent of a Jewish paper on his editorial column, and a former correspondent via a letter to the editor." The simple response, other than pointing out this is a BLP vio, is so what? There is no reason given why the reader should care why yet three more unreliable sources out of hundreds of voices in the Obama/McCain presidential race, made this claim. This is a non-starter for this reason. I cannot see how the proposed material could be included in any shape, or rewritten to be worth including. Again, the consensus version is just fine. Wikidemon (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrap-up comments:To steal a stylistic format from Wikidemon, in toto, I have demonstrated how the major problems Wikidemon was raising are all basically due to his musunderstanding of the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how the sources brought here are relevant, germane, reliable, verifiable, and appropriate for the article. I agree that there may be ways to better word certain phrases, and that the last Kampeas piece can be excised, but any remaining arguments by Wikidemon seem to fall into the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is never acceptable. We have expert opinions about this controversy regarding Dr. Khalidi's denial of his past, and censoring this information by improperly applying WP:BLP to attempt to rehabilitate the image of the article's subject is a violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, repeated removals of information that is not a BLP violation under the false pretenses of BLP is an example of disruptive editing. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, Rather than working to remove pertinent material from reliabel sources, it would be better to counter these sources with reliable scholars or journalists who have examined the recently surfaced evidence and concluded that it is false. I have seen no such articles, and I have looked, but some may emerge.  New facts may also emerge.  For that matter, Khalidi could answer these charges as he last did in 2004 and his new statement would be very worth including.Historicist (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * I have read USER:Wikidemon's comments carefully and simply cannot agree. Ron Kampeas Thomas Lippman and Martin Kramer are all highly reliable sources.  I see every reason why their asessments of Khalidi's relationship with the PLO should be included, and none why not except length.Historicist (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Letters to the editor, op-ed pieces in newspapers, and self-published partissan political blogs are not reliable, and the latter is explicitly prohibited by WP:BLP. Citing blogs and editorials to claim that Khalidi is a PLO operative is a non-starter.  So is an extended exposition of a back-and-forth between a blog and an editorial column on what they think of the matter. This is not a close case.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful, honorable people like Ron Kampeas evaluate new evidence and sometimes change their opinion in the light of new evidence. In argument #4 under  Sources, Wikidemon's analysis Historicist (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Possible misunderstandings of wikipedia policy
When discussing what I believe Wikidemon's misunderstandings and misapplications of wikipedia policy above, I will likely need to make mention of the same issues over and again, so for the interests of brevity I will bring them here and reference them.

Reliability of blogs
I have explained this multiple times here, but I shall do so again. There are times, albeit infrequently, when blogs are considered reliable sources. Wiki policy reads: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. - Verifiability Firstly, Ron Kampeas's work is published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, it is not self published. Furthermore, it is not even considered a blog per Wiki guidelines. As the policy says: "Some newspapers host interactive 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." - BLP. Also, both Kampeas and Martin Kramer are "established experts" in the "relevant fields" who each have copiously published previously in reliable sources. Therefore, these two "blogs" specifically are acceptable sources for this article.
 * Per WP:BLP: Never use self-published ... blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Kramer writes in his self-published political partisan blog, which of late he has devoted in part to attacking Khalidi.  Lippman's material is a letter to the editor, also without any meaningful editorial control.  Kampeas is writing in an folksy, nonscholarly tone in an editorial.  None of these pass BLP for a severe disparagement of a living individual.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You left out important parts of the policy. One is:
 * This allows the use of both Kampeas (published by JTA) and Lippman, as long as it is attributed to Lippman, which it is. The fact that you do not like Kampeas's tone is irrelevant. As for Kramer, it is being used to describe Kramer's analysis, not Khalidi's relationship with the truth. Furthermore, Kramer's work is cited by Kampeas, and is thus covered by: For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP is both clear and absolute on that point. Self-published blogs, even by experts, are not good sources for the controversial positions they espouse.  Kramer's blog is a perfect example why.  In politics many of the partisans have distinguished careers as professors, scholars, lawyers, policymakers, thinkers, etc.  Yet they are caught up in the heat of smears and attack politics as much as anyone else, sometimes the thought leaders behind these strategies.  Editorials suffer the same lack of oversight that makes news pieces, scholarly works, etc., reliable sources.  I won't repeat the whole history of BLP that got the policy to that point.  Again, do not get personal.  I like Kampeas' tone.  It's disarming and friendly, and gives a nice personal touch.  Kampeas' editorial citing Kramer's criticism of Kampeas' defense of Khalidi?  Taking it farther and farther back from direct sourcing degrades the reliablility; it does not enhance it.  We have two blogger/columnists in an election year exchange with each other  - it does not validate them. Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources
Wikiepdia defines primary, secondary, and tertiary sources here: WP:OR. The operative definition here is that secondary sources are: 'accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Note that, per the wikipedia policies, for a writer to analyze primary sources and come to a conclusion is NOT' a primary source (otherwise, everything ever written that is not a direct copy of something else is a primary source). In this case Kramer and Kampeas making an analytic or synthetic claim about writings about Khalidi is a CLASSIC example of a secondary source, not a primary source. Examples of the relevant primary sources would be the Freidman article and the radio interview. Thus, in this case, the sources brought above (Kramer and Kampeas) are all examples of secondary sources and the conclusions brought therein are perfectly acceptable to wikipedia.
 * That's a common misunderstanding. I'll explain this - hopefully you can get this distinction.  When you use what a source says about an event removed from the source to verify a statement about the event, you are using it as a secondary source.  When you use a source to confirm a statement about the source and what it says, you are using it as a primary source.  So "Khalidi is a PLO spokesman." [cite Kampea]" is a secondary source.  "Kampea reversed his position on Khalidi" [cite Kampea] is a  primary source.Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your distinction, and yes, perhaps I was mistaken here. That would mean that "Kampea reversed his position on Khalidi" [cite Kramer] would be acceptable as a secondary source. -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Objecting endlessly
At the risk of violating the policy of assume good faith, I am driven to wonder whether all of the participants are acting in good faith. I am willing to be persuaded by evidence. In fact, for years I dismissed the idea that Khalidi ever actually spoke for the PLO. There were no sources. Then sources appeared, and I was persuaded. Attempting to edit this article has increased my conviction that he most certainly did so. Certainly no one in this argument has ever presented evidence to the contrary. Instead of evidence, users present objections. This discussion has now been going on for over a month. During that time copious sources have been brought and consensus has appeared to have been reached three times. Each time a user then violates the consensus by removing the agreed-upon material from the page. The strategy appears to be to keep objecting and objecting and objecting until those  who disagree with him get tired and go away. Over the period during which I have followed this. USER:79.181.230.41 USER: Andjam  USER:Jaakobou    USER:Glen Twenty  and USER:RonCram have argued for a  few days, then (apparently,) given up and gone away. Now we are back to square one, except that we have accumulated numerous, extremely reliable sources of all types. I begin to suspect thst the only real objection is WP:IDONTLIKEITHistoricist (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Tell me then, am I acting in good faith or not? I thought we had reached a consensus and were in process of implementing it.  If you think I am not acting in good faith, bring it up on AN/I and we can suspend this discussion while the administrators decide whether I am a legitimate editor who should be blocked or banned from this article, or not.   I am not going to do this on two tracks, three now - trying to negotiate a consensus, trying deal with new BLP violations that were never mentioned in the consensus discussion, and trying to defend myself against accusations of bad faith.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The section that is under consideration for addition to the article has some issues. If Wikidemon is willing to modify it according to his objections and present a version of it acceptable to him sometime tomorrow I think that would be reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to pull an all-nighter for work, unfortunately, but I plan on responding to wikidemons "issues" point by point in the near future. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The modification is that the proposed material in toto is stricken as unacceptable. It is all poorly sourced, original analysis, of undue weight, and/or a BLP violation.  It is basically a smear sourced to a blog, a letter to the editor, and a series of related editorials, posed as a discourse on what those non-reliable sources claim.  I have at present gone into exhaustive detail on the entire document, and feel the exercise was a waste of two hours of my life.  We have a consensus proposal, above, that I would not object to.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin Kramer has just turned up another reference from the mainstream press: a 1984 article in the Los Angeles Times that quotes Khalidi directly and identifies him as "a former PLO official." Here: http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_former_plo_official.htm

Consensus on Proposed wording of December 2, 2008

 * Yesterday, Dec. 2,  everyone  agreed to thewording and inclusion of this brief statement.  Today,  USER:Wikidemon reafirmed his agreement.   I am going to put it on the page, and treat the material suggested after this was agreed upon as material to be discussed.Historicist (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * User:Wikidemon's assent: the consensus version is just fine. Wikidemon (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that we have resolved this flap, can we remove the neutrality tag? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I approved a compromise. Compromises are not to be reneged on to try to gain more leverage.  If we do not have a consensus on what to say we should hold off until and unless there is one.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You approved of the text as I posted it.  Then USER:Avraham introduced new material to the article.  At that point you reiterated your approval of the consensus text of Dec. 2.  Avriham's proposed additions are a separate issue.  You cannot expect a consensus to apply to new material going forward.  Your reversion of text that you have agreed under consensus twice is disruptive to the process of consensus building.Historicist (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist.
 * We have no consensus. Avraham did not agree, and you seem to have reneged / withdrawn yours. I believe I am in the best position to say what I approve, and that is I can accept the version earlier proposed if it is the consensus version.Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal
Because the evidence brought by USER:Avraham is from reliable sources and is weighty and pertinent, we cannot simply ignore it without violating WP:POV On the other hand, as USER:Wikidemon has pointed out, it is important not to allow this section to grow out of proportion. I therefore propose a compromise similar to the compromise reached on the other sources. USER:Avraham could then include footnote for Kramer and Kampeas  that would include quotations.Historicist (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * That is unsourced. There is no new "evidence."  Please cut it out.  If you do not think we have consensus, please don't reinsert disputed material.  17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. The material that I reinserted was well-sourced and concensus had been reached on Dec. 2.  After the concensus was reached, USER:Avraham brought three new and extremely reliable scources that merit inclusion in the article as per this proposed compromise.Historicist (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * New evidence has been discovered several times over the course of the last month in the form of reliable articles from major newwspapers that had been languishing undiscovered in newspaper archives. A new Washington Post article was discovered just yesterday.Historicist (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * This proposal is being made because USER:Avraham brought three, new reliable sources to the article. these sources are new in the ordinary sense of the word, i.e., they were written whithin the last month.  They are significant, reliable, written by major experts, and pertinent to Rashid Khalidi's career.  My proposal is to shorten USER:Avraham's text so as not to give UNDUE weight.Historicist (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * No, there is no evidence. Please stop playing games.  Avraham did not accept or respect a consensus, and he brought nothing of any value to the article that could be used.  His proposal is a long-winded exposition of how three unreliable sources, a partisan blogger, an editorialist, and a letter to the editor call Khalidia a liar.  Why should that cause you to change your mind on a version you just approved?  Compromise does not mean agreeing to something then going back on it the next day.  This RfC is still open.  If you wish to retract your support of the the compromise version, take it out and we can continue here on the talk page.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I assume that all of us are willing to consider well-founded objections, so far the objection raised amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an apparent tactic of dragging out the debate until proponents a proposal fold their tents and cede the field. When I raised this above under the heading Objecting Endlessly - without accusing any individual of such behavior (there seemed to me to be two or three discussants who fit this description) - USER:Wikidemon took umbrage and appeared to concede that his behavior fits this description.  I repeat that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and endless, obstructionist repetition of the assertion that patently well-sourced material is unsourced is not acceptable Wikipedia behavior.Historicist (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * I have removed the material again pending a consensus on the matter. Please stop complaining about me.  You accused me of bad faith and I called you on it.  I am discussing this and not engaging in tactics.  Just because an issue you have pushed for some time does not gain acceptance does not mean others are being obstructionist.  They just disagree.  My behavior is fine, and my position is right.  I gave an extremely detailed phrase by phrase analysis of why every single piece of the new proposal is inappropriate per BLP, NPOV, WEIGHT, RS, V, etc.  If you want to discuss a proposal discuss a proposal.  If you want to complain about other editors' behavior, AN/I is that way but you will not get very far.Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your above comments, point-by-point, showing how I believe that you are (hopefully) misunderstanding Wikipedia policy in your incorrect application of BLP. I also agreed that certain sections would benefit from tweaking, shortening, or in one case, removal. But your continued claims of BLP indicate, to me, either an unintended misconception or deliberate apathy regarding the nature of our policies. Please take the time to review the particulars, and see why this case does not fall under the BLP rubric. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much of what you proposed flies utterly against BLP, as I have explained at length. Please do not personalize the matter.  I will assume that your interpretation of BLP, as wrong as it is, is in good faith.  I will grant that your ongoing misunderstanding of the matter, and refusal to accept it even after I explain it to you, is simple disagreement and not a sign of bad faith.  Please give me the same credit if you wish to have a productive discussion here.Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Commment: It seems that some progress has been made since my last visit to this discussion and that's a nice thing to see. On a general tone, BLP is misapplied here though there is room to give slightly less room to the "he is" perspective to make it closer in size to the "he isn't" perspective. Regardless of how the final version looks like, this content (he is and he isn't) needs to be in article since the 'he is' version is fairly mainstream and since the 'isn't' can be used to give a chance for 'rebuttal'. I would suggest starting with the 'is' and ending with the 'isn't' response and keeping it succinct in regards to the details of the claims. Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You (Jaakobou) just reinserted the paragraph on which we are seeking consensus without consensus, and added an unsourced statement linking Khalidi with the PLO. I have reverted that as a BLP vio.  I'm not going to edit war so I will not now remove the rest of the non-consensus material, but if people are going to break rank from discussing this on the RfC to try to force the material into the article by edit warring, the consensus process would seem to have broken down .  I urge people to not add disputed material to the article without consensus, and try to stick to an orderly discussion here on the talk page.Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC) refactoring to retract statements I made based on mistaken reading of Jaakobou's edit - Wikidemon (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus language
This is the language upon which consensus was reached. USER:Wikidemon has just posted altered language disingenuously claiming that it is consensus language. I am going to put up the consensus language. If Wikidemon or anyone else wants to change this, it ought to be discussed first.Historicist (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * I have reinstated the consensus language that Wikidemon has stipulated agreement to twice in place of the altered language that had been posted onthe page.Historicist (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * I was not disingenuous. You ought to consider retracting that.  I only agree to language if it is accepted as a consensus, not a baseline for further disparagement of Khalidi on the subject of a supposed PLO affiliation.  The heading, and the quotes of footnotes 25 and 26 (in the current version) are not part of the consensus.  I'm not going to engage you any further until you can start interacting in civil fashion.  Further, civility aside, you have to decide if we have a consensus version or not.  If you say there is a consensus on how to describe Khalidi's relationship with the PLO, we are done and there is no further discussion to be had on the matter.  If you are not happy with that language, you are free to withdraw your support in which case the disputed language should go and we can discuss further what should said in the article on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what's meant by "throughout his career"? The latest point discussed here is 15 years ago, in 1993, while the conflation of Wafa and the PLO remained unsupported last time I looked at this. Unless there is a secondary source that recently supports this statement about a connection "throughout his career," I'm quite sure it should not be there. Aside from that, all of the support I see added in Historicist's recent change looks like primary source based original research, when used in this way, and thus inappropriate, particularly in a WP:BLP. Am I missing something? I am going to undo the change for now as I'm quite sure the "throughout his career" language is unsupported and should not be there. (I also don't believe there was consensus; I saw Wikidemon contest the sentence, KhoiKhoi suggested removing it, and I agreed that it shouldn't be there). Mackan79 (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Lippman, Kramer and Kampeas material
I propose a civilized discussion of the  material now on the page with the well-sourced, pertinent material from Thomas Lippman Martin Kramer and Ron Kampeas introduced on Dec. 2 by USER:Avraham. I am in favor of posting this material and hope that Avraham will suggest wording.Historicist (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * No, rejected in toto. BLP vio, among other things.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, our contention is you are misapplying BLP, as described above at length. -- Avi (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm rock solid and have experience on this. What part of "Never use self-published ... blogs as a source for material about a living person" is unclear at BLP?  Further, this RfC seems to have broken down on process failure and incivility.  It is way too long to attract any more outside opinions, which is the point of an RfC.  Not much more to be gained here.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are rock solid in your continued assertions of our error, as we are of yours. Not to mention that Kampeas is not self published, and he references Kramer, so your "which part of..." point can be deemed irrelevant anyway.

I have asked for guidance at WT:BLP and at WT:RS. Let us see what fresh opinions say. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi denies association with PLO?
The article now says, "Khalidi has been, reportedly, affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) but has rejected the association." I find this surprising. When did Khalidi reject his association with the PLO? Do you have a source for this? I believe it is wrong. The best we have is the statement that he held no official position with the PLO.

On the face of it, I would say that this is a pretty severe BLP violation. Someone who was politically active in Beirut, who provided reporters with background briefings and who was described repeatedly as a PLO spokesman, who served as adviser to the PLO in 1991, and who, in all his writings, has publicly espoused support for the political policies and goals of the PLO - to say with no reference that I know of that that person rejects any association with the PLO seems a serious distortion of the facts. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is more precise than you're giving it credit. It says he has reportedly been "affiliated" with the PLO, and then that Khalidi has "rejected the association."  Presumably then it is this reporting of an "affiliation" with the PLO that he has rejected, not other potential types of associations (I've heard this referred to as elegant variation).  Of course "affiliated" is a rather broad word, but if he has been accused of an affiliation (he has) and he has rejected the alleged affiliation (he has) then that seems to be accurate based on the source.  As far as espousing support for the political policies and goals of the PLO in all of his writings, that simply isn't accurate. Mackan79 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When did he reject the affiliation? Do you have a source or citation? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly I had just read it in this piece in the Washington Times. I was just reading it again from Martin Kramer.  I suppose I had thought it was in other sources as well.  Mackan79 (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to this quote: "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."

That doesn't look to me to be anything like a blanket rejection of association with the PLO. It is merely a statement that in 1976 he was not employed by the PLO. In order to support the statement in the article, you need a quote something like this: "I have never had any association with the PLO." I have never seen a quote like that, nor does it seem plausible that Khalidi would ever want to say such a thing.

By misrepresenting Khalidi's relationship (ideological or formal) with the PLO (or by ignoring it completely), this article is exposing the Wikipedia to complaints, and perhaps even legal action, by Khalidi himself. Excuses like "when I said affiliation, I didn't mean association" don't cut it. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times piece precedes that quote, "Mr. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman." I don't know if that lacks additional support, but combined with the rest it is a type of denial.  But, one reason for using slightly generalized language is exactly so we are not creating conflicts where we're not sure they exist. Mackan79 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From 1976 through 1982 Khalidi is doucmented by major newspapers to have worked for or spoken for or been a director of the PLO news servoce. From 1983 through the early ninties there is a string of articles citing him as close to the PLO leadership and as a former PLO spokesman.  Madrid was 1991.  That's an associstion of about twenty years. At least one interview has been broadcast in which he refused to answer a reporter’s question about whether he did or did not work for the PLO. As for his denial, please read it carefully as a piece of writing, because it was written by e-mail, a method of choice when you want to word something very carefully.  Khalidi is a master of careful wording highly skilled in spinning for the press.    On the sole occasion that he gave something like a direct answer to this question,he wrote:  "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." It's not so much a denial as a dismissal.  Which is what clever oliticians do.  And "I am not not aware"?!?!?!?!  Is this plausiblle?  The man grew up in New York where his mother, extended family and schooolmates lived.  He was an obscure professor making his first appearance ina major newspaper. Is it possible that he was "unaware" that he was cited in the New York Times twice?  My Mom would have sent me the clips.Historicist (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * More to the point, to lead this section with Khalidi's denial is to give UNDUE weight to a denial that came more than 20 years after the publication in newspapers (the LA and NY Times) that routinely publish corrections of incorrect job titles.  Yes, Khalidi's response should be there.  Not, however, as the first sentenceHistoricist (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Keeping the lede simple and accurate:Khalidi has reportedly been affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).Historicist (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Perhaps an acceptable solution for everyone is to leave what is there now and add wording similar to the following sentence: This dismissal has been repudiated by various academics and journalists active during that time.[cite Kramer/Kampeas/Lippman] We don't have to bring names or details, but we need to have the fact that Khalidi's dismissal is considered inaccurate. Perhaps "repudiated" can be replaced, but "questioned" is too weak. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed language: Some academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO.with footnotes to Lippman, Kramer and Kampeas.Historicist (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * I would prefer "...mantain that despite/notwithstanding Khalidi's denial, he was affiliated..." The controversy is as much about his denial as it is about the affiliation itself. -- Avi (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Perhaps: Other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO despite Khalidi's denial. with  footnotes to Lippman, Kramer and Kampeas.Historicist (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * That sounds reasonable to me. -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I correct this would go on the end of the paragraph? Will respond in more detail below. Mackan79 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Following some changes, I think the current paragraph has at least two problems. First, even without "throughout this career," the sentence about "has been affiliated" fails to recognize that this is a historical debate, not one about anything he has done in the last one, two, or three decades. I see the L.A. Times piece cited by Kramer refers to him as a "former P.L.O. official" as of 24 years ago in 1984. Accordingly, I am quite uncomfortable with anything which fails to acknowledge that this is a historical debate (Kramer says the references fall between '76 and '84, although even in '84 it says "former"). Second, I'm concerned with the extent we are even presenting this as a back-and-forth debate, when as people are pointing out, it's not entirely clear what exactly is being responded to, or denied, and the sourcing seems to be predominantly primary sources or self-published.

I have not recently examined all of these sources as closely as some of you, but my impression is that if the first sentence is cleared up to acknowledge that this is a question of what he did while teaching in Beirut, the paragraph would be ok. As to the final sentence, I don't think it's correct to say that it was "notwithstanding his denial" for a few reasons, but I'd like to look at that a little more closely. Mackan79 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt
Here is a version which, I think, stays absolutely close to the facts:

Khalidi has not only been an observer; at different stages of his career he was actively involved in the politics of the Palestinian liberation movement. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. . At that time, several leading media, including the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times , and Pacifica Radio identified him as an official PLO spokesman, though Khalidi later denied he had any official role with the organization. "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source" he said in an interview with the Washington Times in 2004. "If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."

From 1991 to 1993, Khalidi was a member of the Palestinian delegation to negotiations between Palestinians, Israel and the United States in Madrid and in Washington.

As his academic career made increasing demands on his time, Khalidi said, his direct involvement in Palestinian politics has diminished. "I am a political being," he said in a recent speech, but "I can't do all those things [teaching, writing and lecturing] and be involved in politics."

If Khalidi was identified by the news media in the 1970's with the PLO, he has been increasingly critical of that organization. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing." He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." --Ravpapa (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a real improvement. the specificity and detail re: Khalidi's association will be useful to readers.  What I especislly like, however, is the expansion of his later career when he drew away form the PLO (albeit not the hope of eliminating Israel.) It is important to include both the evidence of the early affiliation with the PLO and to acknowledge the drawing away.  Without, however, over-emphasizing his 2004 denial.  USER:Ravpapa's text is good.  One caveat: the footnotes need to include both of the LA Times and both of the NY Times articles so that readers can judge the evidence for themselves.Historicist (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * Although a reasonable attempt to describe things accurately and neutrally the proposal has a number of problems. The first is a rather fundamental problem.  There is no secondary source for the statement that "several leading media identified Khalidi (etc)", which leads to a problem of weight and accuracy.  Regarding weight, why does it matter that several media said that or not, and why should we put it in the encyclopedia?  I think it is an interesting question regarding journalism and how journalists covered the matter, but not particularly relevant to Khalidi or his life.  Other people think the matter is very important because the journalists' pieces ended up becoming an issue thirty years later (to which I would respond that they are only an issue in a minor smear campaign and a small corner of the blog/pundit-sphere).  We are not talking here about the importance of his working for the PLO or not, but the importance of what "several leading media" do.  Covering the media reports out of all proportion to the importance of the media reports allows us to sneak in a statement that is otherwise not well sourced, that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman.  Second, the word "several" to stand for three (are there any more?) and the word "official" before "spokesman" seem to be incorrect.  "Official" is not in the sources, and at least one source tries to resolve the contradictory accounts by reference to the word "spokesman" being ambiguous and permitting a non-official representative to be called a spokesman.
 * If we get past the hurdle of reporting on news reports in a BIO, listing every single source inline (New York Times[2], The Los Angeles Times[3], and Pacifica Radio[4]) seems like overkill. We don't list all the sources that do not identify Khalidi as a spokesman, or the times if any that these sources describe Khalidi without describing him as a spokesman.  I do note that prefacing the sentence with "at the time" gets around the pointless argument about why it matters that sources at different times described him differently, allowing the reader to decide.
 * In the fifth sentence, "direct involvement" should read "involvement". In the sixth sentence, the introductory clause is semantically sloppy and not neutral "If Khalidi was identified by the news media in the 1970's with the PLO" - setting up an "Even if X was true .... nevertheless Y hapened ...." is an analytic style that is unenclyclopedic because it is in essay format, using Wikipedia for original analysis.  Remember that X is the thing we have not sourced as true, but rather sourced that three journalists as saying and the article's subject contesting.  Repeating it, even though not established, gives it undue weight.  The best thing to do is simply remove the introductory part and say that Khalidi became increasingly critical of the PLO.
 * Overall, the structure and tone are good so this could be a framework. However, I am wary of discussing compromise further here given that my last attempt to accept a compromise version was immediately used against me, and I am subject to repeated incivilities for participating in the discussion. Any version agreed to should be implemented only after taking care that it represents consensus among all the stakeholders, is final and complete, addresses questions of what goes in the heading if any and footnotes, and replaces in toto the material currently in the article (which at the moment has problems and should probably be removed pending the discussion).Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, Can you explain why you want to remove the sources from the footnotes?Historicist (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * In the present version, two long footnotes (25 and 26) shoehorn material that was objected to and is not part of the consensus proposal. It is a one-sided litany of quotes seemingly used to argue that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman.  The footnotes would probably be fine without all the quotes.Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly suggesting that consensus was reached on a proposal to post texw without footnotes?Historicist (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * That's a rhetorical question, and a compound one. Do you really want me to answer it? Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are aware that removing the footnotes will remove the ability of readers to examine the evidence. The quotations you object to, from the New York Times Los Angeles Times and Radio Pacifica are difficult to access because the old newspaper files require the use of an expensive subscription, a research (university) library, or a library with microfilm (which is a pain in the neck to use.)  You can get the Radio Pacifica interview on any good comuter, but you have to listen to the whole long pprogram.  This is not a case where we can take out the quotes and allow the inquiring reader to simply click through to the article.  And mine is not a rhetorical question.  I would truly like to hear your justification for removing interesting, well-sourced information from this article.Historicist (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Okay. The answer to the three parts of the question is yes, no, and no.  I am honest, I do not think a consensus was reached, and I am not proposing text without footnotes.  I believe that a litany of quotes stacked to show that Khalidi was a PLO "spokesman", which was not proposed as part of the consensus discussion, is a WEIGHT and COATRACK problem.  As to your next compound question, I have stated my justification in detail so I will not repeat it, I am not proposing to remove "interesting, well-sourced information" or anything ekse in what seems to be the stable pre edit war version of the article, but rather opposing the addition of material that violates of BLP, RS, WEIGHT, COATRACK, etc.,  If you are really soliciting information rather than debate, it would help if you could ask it straight without inserting argumentative premises into the question.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The question seems to be whether we should present the claimed PLO connection as a major point, or if the sourcing only supports our mentioning it incidentally. I tend to like this framework, but I'm still left thinking that a more disinterested summary would not illustrate his political involvements in Beirut by listing the news organizations at the time that connected him to the PLO. I think this is close to Wikidemon's point. E.g., it would seem to make more sense to illustrate his political involvement, if this is an important point, with facts presented by a secondary source that notes the issue. If we then add that he was reported to have been a spokesman for the PLO, then the context may be more natural and less contentious. I should say I surmise this is a new proposal, though, and I am not sure where exactly it goes and under what heading, each of which would seem to be important. Mackan79 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mackan, One of the great difficulties about addressing the Middle East on Wikipedia is that even-handed secondary sources are as scarce as ham sandwiches in Jerusalem. If we begin citing secondary and terciary sources, we could be here forever. Dragging arguments on past the patience of respected editors like Ravpapa only serves to tilt the playing field in favor of intensely politicized contributors.   It seems to me that the most evenhanded thing to do is to put up the most reliable sources we can find.  with good footnotes.  And keep the language neutral.Historicist (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * To me it's less an issue of politicization than it is of being especially cautious what we say in a BLP. As Wikidemon points out, we're not here to advance gossipy claims on blogs that don't go further.  I noticed that Martin Kramer disclaims interest in whether the issue is important to the Khalidi-Obama question (the context of the moment), but says he gets "riled up" when people address the issue without doing their "due diligence."  So he offers comments on the issue.  Does that make this a central issue for Khalidi's bio?  Considering we know that the whole connection is contentious, I see that as a reason to follow our guidelines conservatively, which incidentally I think were written exactly for this kind of situation if any.  If there aren't adequate sources, a shorter bio shouldn't be a problem. Mackan79 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanding on my point above, one issue we seem to be skipping is the connection with WAFA, rather than with the PLO. Some of these sources (primary, though they are), seem to refer to him as a spokesman for WAFA. Thomas Friedman referred to him as a director of WAFA, in the column that seems to be at the center of much of this. Has this been reconciled, whether these were considered the same thing, whether they were confused, whether he is thought to have been both, or something else? The proposed wordings here have been to say that he has been alleged to work for the PLO, but seem to ignore the statements that he worked for WAFA, or to treat the latter as evidence of the former when it is not clear to me that these are the same. Mackan79 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

==Wafa and the Plo+

Answering Mackan's question. The PLO in the late 1970’s early 80’s was not an organization with a large, formal infrastructure. It was a semi-underground Army of National Liberation employing tactics regarded by the International Community as terrorism. It had a fledgling press office called Wafa. The purpose was to broadcast radio (TV was beyond the capacity of the PLO at that phase) to Palestinians. There were competing media, especially in the Israeli-controlled West Bank where under Israeli control a lively free press existed in Arabic. The Communist party newspapers were in lively competition with the PLO controlled newspaper. Wafa was a weapon in this competition for the hearts and minds of Palestinians, (An interesting literature exists on the eradication of  the non-PLO Palestinian press after Oslo, it  involves smashing printing presses, kneecapping and murder.  Only the Muslim Brotherhood newspapers survived.  The Communist and centrist news papers did not.)   In Jordan, Wafa had to compete with Jordanian newspapers attempting to integrate Palestinian refugees into a new, Jordanian identity. In addition to its primary mission of promoting the PLO within the Palestinian population, Wafa had a secondary mission of getting the PLO perspective out to the world. It was, in other words, the Press Office of the PLO. This was not CNN. It was not even the  Voice of America which has a large degree of editorial independence and represents not the Republican or Democratic parties, but America. Wafa’s job was to get the PLO’s point of view out to the world, and to drown out the voices of the competing Communist, Islamist and moderate Palestinian national movements. It did not promote the messages of rival Palestinian groups. Nor the message of the Palestinian nation as a whole. The PLO’s message was the point of its existence. Wafa was the PLO’s press office. To say Wafa is to say PLO.Historicist (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see some sources which tend to support this perspective, but some who don't. The major problem is that all this gives me is your word on it, however, rather than the word of those like Thomas Friedman who connect him to Wafa.


 * This is part of the larger problem, however, that these are primary sources. That is exactly what leaves us having to reconcile these types of things, absent any secondary sources which would clarify the connection along with why it was important.  Instead we are left with these various statements, and only blogs and Wikipedians drawing conclusions based on them, cobbling it together into an entire section complete with contentious header.  To satisfy WP:NOR, especially in a WP:BLP, we need reliable sources connecting all of these points.  Mackan79 (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see now that Kampeas addresses this.
 * 4) This is less directed at the accusers and more at the reporters stationed in Lebanon in the late 1970s and early 1980s - I'm just curious, now that Khalidi's employment has been resolved: What was Wafa's role in the PLO apparatus? Khalidi is referred to as a spokesman for the PLO by virtue of his employment by the agency. Wafa was a mouthpiece, to be sure, but my experience is that news agencies in non-democracies generally parrot party lines, whereas spokesmen help shape it because of their proximity to the leadership. Interestingly, Khalidi's quoted statements aren't exactly spokesman-like (but then the PLO never really had its act entirely together): Spokesmen don't often proffer strategies to the enemy for "splitting us" nor do they suggest that their side kills for "no reason."

Accordingly, Kampeas actually appears to question the assessment of "PLO spokesman," saying that the PLO relation comes through his connection to Wafa, saying that he would think to work for the agency would have been different from being a direct spokesman, and that Khalidi's statements though not definitive are more consistent with working for the agency than being a spokesman. Of course this is still a blog (and the type of speculation one would expect to see on such), but when it is what's being offered that seems to throw a kink in things. Mackan79 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking stock
So far, if I have followed the recent discussions properly, the recent contributors to the discussion can be segregated as follows:
 * People who believe that the denial and subsequent controversy should be in the article in some fashion:
 * Avraham
 * Historicist
 * RavPapa
 * Eleland &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou
 * People who believe that the denial and subsequent controversy should not be in the article at all:
 * Wikidemon
 * People who are to be leaning that it should not appear:
 * Mackan79
 * Khoikhoi (has not commented on current version)
 * G-Dett (has not commented on current version)

Is the above accurate? -- Avi (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so. Although I am sure that people's positions are often finely nuanced.Historicist (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * You can take me off the list. I am dropping out of the discussion.  I can't understand Wikidemon's arguments.  Without understanding them, I can't possibly work toward a compromise. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Some arguments on this page are indeed Round, like a circle in a spiral Like a wheel within a wheel. Never ending or beginning, On an ever spinning wheel, Like a tunnel that you follow To a tunnel of it's own Down a hollow to a cavern Where the sun has never shone...Historicist (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

That does not change the fact that you believe some form of the information belongs in there. If anything, unless there are more people going to speak their minds, Wikidemon is in the minority here and a consensus that some form of the information belongs in the article is forming. How to best phrase it to ensure that we balance BLP with NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I begin to believe, and firmly hope, that we are, indeed, nearing consensus here. In that hope, here is a shot at a brief statement (to take into account the concern of USER:Wikidemon and others, including me, about UNDUE length giving  UNDUE emphasis.) With footnotes to Kramer, Kampeas and Lippman.  this will be a parallel solution to the statement of the PLO affiliation supported by footnoted sources about which consensus was reached above.Historicist (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * Short and to the point. -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not revert you, Historicist, but I would counsel waiting a bit more for more comment before putting that sentence in the article. even though I agree to it. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I take it out?Historicist (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * I think that taking it out and waiting another day or two for thoughts/suggestions would be a confidence building move on your part and a very good move for general collaborative spirit on this page and in future arguments. One-two days are not a big deal when trying to get at a version that will, hopefully, receive long term and wide consensus.
 * p.s. it might be better to rephrase a bit so the text will not have the word 'despite'... just a thought.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Poorly sourced, BLP vio, still has problems. However you try to phrase it, we cannot find a solid source for the proposition that other academics and journalists claim a PLO affiliation - it's all original research on primary sources.  A partisan blog, editorial in the Jewish press, plus a letter to the editor do not make for solid sourcing of a claim that, if true, would be so controversial.  It's also misleading because it makes it sound like Khalidi's lone denial versus the rest of world unanimously saying otherwise.  Another aspect of weight comes up, that there is not enough coverage of the issue of there being a dispute over Khalidi's supposed employment by the PLO to establish that the purported dispute is significant to Khalidi's bio.  Yes, please remove the entire thing and do not put disputed material into the article until and unless there is consensus on the matter.  There is no consensus now, and what you added is a clear BLP vio.Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Khalidi's lone denial. Problem is, at the moment, all we have is Khalidi's lone denial.  True, there is a list of assertions on each side, yes he did, no he didn't.  conclusion predictable according to the party's political commitments.  So far, however, no defenders of Khalidi have published analysis of the evidence, as Kramer and Kampeas have done.  Nor has an foreigh correspondent stepped forward as Lippman did but on the other side  to say that they interviewed Khalidi in Beirut and he was NOT a PLO spokesman.  If any do, they could be addes, Other journalists have defended....  However, I would oppose adding any of the endless series of articles that have simply asserted that Khalidi was or was not PLO but do not discuss sources and evidence.Historicist (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Heyo Wikidemon,
 * This is certainly not a BLP vio and I would urge you to try avoiding this argument here and sticking to more relevant concerns such as the notability issue. To repeat myself a bit, I've seen Ehud Yeari on Israeli television describe him as a PLO affiliate and this seems to make your argument about notability of the issue to be incorrect. I would appreciate if you were to suggest a compromise that agrees with the reliable sources.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted to let discussion run.Historicist (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressing Wikidemon's concern about whether Khalidi's PLO connection is a matter under public discussion. It does not require a crystal ball to know that the next time Khalidi is in the news, this will come back up.  After all, it has been recurring in the press since at least 2004.  Indeed, this just out: http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/457.Historicist (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The author, Cinnamon Stillwell, is certainly a partisan, and she is feeding off the same blog chatter we are. I don't dispute at all that Khalidi is a controversial figure and that protesters dog his various campus speeches.  That much is plain and should be covered appropriately in the article, but not by giving undue attention to a single claim made by a few of his opponents that is as yet marginal and unproven.  But what has made him controversial for so many years is his perceived partisanship on behalf of Palestinians, what Stillwell calls his "history of anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric", not the specific claim resurrected as a talking point for the American election that he was a "spokesman."  Covering the everpresent background of chatter that reverberates among political campaigns, political blogs, and conservative editorialists does not make for encyclopedic articles about people.  In conservapedia perhaps but not here.  If a public discussion of this arises and becomes notable, the major mainstream press will cover it in the news section, not their conservative columnist.Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, Are you suggesting adding Stillwell to this article? I certainly did not.  I brought it upp to establish that this is an ongoing controversy. I did so to answer your objection.  Please do not twist my words and play games.Historicist (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please cut it out with the uncivil sniping? Stick to the article, not the editors.  I've cautioned you several times on this.Wikidemon (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(Offtopic:) I believe that there was no malintent on either side here and it would be best to try and assume good faith rather than focus/suggest bad ones. H wanted to respond to the notability issue only and WD wanted to note that the used source was of a certain perspective and possibly not a wiki-reliable source. These two issues shouldn't draw a heated response on either side. Keep cool,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Addressing the concern some more:
 * Claims about Khalidi as an alleged PLO affiliate don't really need to be proven. What matters for wikipedia is that it has been notably reported by sources considered reliable for Wikipedia's purpose. The noatablility here is established once a general non-partisan mention of him by a middle eastern reporter and scholar includes the PLO affiliation claim. As such, I would urge fellow editors to work on a compromise phrasing that will satisfy 'undue' concerns but will comply with the WP:RS writing policy. If this issue is proven as false, however, I would certainly advocate giving a strong voice to the 'not PLO' perspective.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that a single reliable source talking about there being a controversy over whether or not he was a "spokesman" would prove that there is a controversy worth noting, but I have yet to see such a source. Reliability is only partly a matter of the author.  It also depends on the circumstances of the specific piece, and on the publication.Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you 100% here. Can you please clarify what portions of the 'PLO affiliate' issue you feel are worthy for mention and which you believe need further sourcing/looking into?
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As of yet, I have not seen any reliable secondary sourcing for the proposition that there are journalists or experts who accuse Khalidi of being a PLO affiliate / agent / spokesman. We can certainly find unreliable recent sources making a fuss of it, and we have the handful of contemporary news accounts that simply use the term, but no good sourcing for describing it as a controversy or dispute.  Without that we cannot satisfy weight concerns.  The kind of things that would satisfy weight concerns is a CNN, Time, Washington Post, etc. level article in the news section (not an editorial column) of the sort "Khalidi accused of PLO collaboration: old associations come back to haunt Mideast expert" or "Blog critics vociferous in denouncement of college professor".  We do not have that, we just have the blogs and critics themselves, no weight established, and Wikipedia making up for the fact that it does not get covered reliably.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that the paragraph in question refers to these reports as an accusation and/or a controversy. In fact, the PLO affiliation is not really an exceptional claim (accusation?) considering his general published perspectives. Regardless, I'm not suggesting he is or isn't but just that it seems, to me at least, that the objection is about a version that is not being pursued. Current version is simply "reportedly"+"supported by" and not "accused to be". Feel free to correct me/further explain though.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying he was a PLO spokesman is an accusation - that hardly needs arguing for anyone familiar with American politics or the recent election cycle. It is a disputed fact that, if accepted, would seriously hurt his career prospects and professional credibility.  We cannot say it is true for fear of defaming him.  We cannot per BLP and other policies and guidelines cover the fact that it is reported, believed, accused, argued, etc., to be true without solid sourcing to show that this is a real issue.  It is not fair to say he is "reportedly" a PLO spokesman based on our counting of 4-5 sources.  We could just as easily find 4-5 sources and say (insert famous person here) is reportedly a racist or drug abuser.  WP:HARM is a good essay on how all of this interacts with BLP.Wikidemon (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon clouds the discussion when he writes that it is "not fair to say he is 'reportedly' a PLO spokesman based on our counting of 4-5 sources," or that this is just the work of "blogs and critics," or that its only appearance in sources is as an "accusation." There is one source, deemed reliable by all standards, which has persisted in linking Khalidi to the PLO, and it is the Los Angeles Times.


 * On September 5, 1976, the LAT's Beirut reporter described Khalidi as "a PLO spokesman"--probably his first mention in a major US paper. On February 20, 1984, it directly quoted him and described him as "a former PLO official."


 * Years later, the LAT had a source presumably very close to Khalidi, from which it received the Khalidi farewell party video. This was the basis of the major piece on Obama's ties to Palestinian-Americans, which ran on April 10, 2008, which mentioned Khalidi in the lede, and which described him someone who, in the 1970s, "often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." Khalidi's identity was absolutely crucial to this story--this was not a passing mention. And the LAT was acting here as a secondary source, in relying upon past reporting (including its own).


 * In its October 30, 2008 article, regarding the demand by McCain and Palin that the LAT release the video, the LAT persisted in describing Khalidi as one "who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." This piece--a story in the LAT about the LAT in the midst of a political firestorm--was almost certainly vetted by a senior-most editor, and perhaps even by legal counsel. Given the context, this was a highly significant editorial call by the newspaper.


 * The LAT is not a partisan source against Obama, and indeed it endorsed him. Likewise, its editors withstood the demand (reinforced by angry demonstrators outside its offices) that it release the tape of Obama praising Khalidi. Yet it has persisted in linking Khalidi directly to the PLO, and stood fast against the many pro-Obama bloggers who in the days right before the election blithely dismissed the Khalidi-PLO connection as Republican campaign propaganda.


 * So the question is whether the LAT, in its news stories, is a reliable source, or is just a rumor mill without editorial control, whose reporters are just guessing even in stories that have profound implications for the LAT itself. Is there any question about this? Forget the blogs, Kampeas, Kramer, whatever. The LAT has consistently, over many years, and again recently identified Khalidi as someone who at one time spoke for the PLO--not as an accusation, but as a fact. Can this be simply dismissed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.226.212 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you missed the discussion. There are several reliable sources that describe Khalidi as a PLO spokesman.  There are a few that say he is not a spokesman, and vastly more that simply do not say anything about his being a spokesman.  Under the circumstances there is insufficient sourcing to say he is a spokesman, and the claim is likely either untrue or merely a semantic accident.  There is no reliable source as far as I know to say there is a dispute over his being a spokesman, or that there are reports he is a spokesman.  Any statement we make that he is "reportedly" as spokesman is original research consisting of Wikipedia editors mining newspapers as primary sources to summarize their content.  Although it is possible to characterize what these sources say, this is not the way articles are normally written and it does not demonstrate any WP:WEIGHT.Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That the claim is "either untrue or merely a semantic accident" is simple speculation, and assumes that both America's "newspaper of record" (the New York Times) and the Los Angeles Times have made repeated "accidents." That is not impossible, but is Wikipedia in the business of cherry-picking sources generally regarded as reliable, according to gut feelings of editors? Contra Wikidemon, there is no source on the level of the two Times's that explicitly says Khalidi was NOT a spokesman. The others, which give him an academic identification (most of them, post-Beirut), are irrelevant, as they quote Khalidi in his academic capacity. Weight is established by the LAT April article, in which Khalidi is a subject of the reporting, and not simply the source of a quote on another subject. That article is substantively different from all others that mention Khalidi, in that characterizing him is integral to the substance of the story. If there is a "semantic accident" there, then I challenge Wikidemon to add content to the LAT's Wikipedia entry, to the effect that this source is subject to "semantic accidents" on a repeated basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.226.212 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue with that or rehash the long discussion above regarding the sources - you're being argumentative not reading the sources correctly. As I said, some sources mention it as attribution, some say it is untrue, and the great great majority of sources do not report it at all.  You would have to hunt hard and cherry pick sources to piece together an argument that it is true and we are not in that business.Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway for making your position clear. You believe that Khalidi was not a PLO spokesman (it is "untrue"), and you believe that every reference to him as such is a case of a "semantic accident," whatever the source and however frequent. (What is a "semantic accident" anyway?) So there is no point in bringing additional arguments or sources of any kind. Good to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.226.212 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe what I say I believe, and it is there to read - misstating that for the sake of argument is unhelpful. The sources when considered in their entirety do not establish that he was a PLO spokesman, and all considering it may well be untrue.  The semantic issue ("spokesman" implying a formal relationship or not) is discussed in the Washington Post source, and this is also in the discussion above. Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you said it was "untrue," now you say "it may well be untrue," which means that it may also well be true, and that is something different. In any case, you are right: the sources in their entirety do not establish that he was a PLO spokesman. They do establish that seasoned journalists from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and Pacifica Radio all believed him to speak for the PLO, which is why they identified him as its spokesman, spokesperson, or someone who "worked for" the PLO, when they quoted him. How they came to that conclusion is something we don't know from the sources. Did they infer it? Did Khalidi tell them so? Did the PLO tell them so? We don't know, but we do know that he was considered by the mainstream media to be a spokesman, that's why they sought him out, and there is no evidence that he or the PLO did anything to correct the references. It was this that allowed the "spokesman" issue to surface quite forcefully in later years, and especially after Obama described him as a "respected scholar." And what does it take to make this a "bona fide controversy"? If Fox News sends a reporter with camera to your door, to ask you if you were ever a spokesman for the PLO, that is "bona fide." It is not necessary or possible for this entry to determine the truth or untruth of the claims and/or denials. But any biographical entry on Khalidi that fails to flag the issue has failed to serve the reader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.226.212 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agreeHistoricist (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, would you mind summarizing what you think should happen to the current section, "Relationship to the PLO"? My impression is that all of this could be included, much more briefly, in the section on the 2008 election. Potentially this could say that the Khalidi was said during the election to have been affiliated with the PLO while in Beirut between 1976 and 1983. That would seem more relevant than, for instance, the statement about Obama saying his commitment to Israel is unshakable. Not having followed all of this discussion, though, I am not certain what exactly you are contesting. Mackan79 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The current section has no consensus and should be removed. It is up to people proposing to add disputed content to justify it and gain consensus for it.  There has not been a good argument for including any claim that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO, and that misses the point of the controversy.  In a bio section it would make sense to describe Khalidi's supporting and being close to the PLO while teaching in Beirut, and either there or in a section about the US election to mention that this connection became the subject of an attack on Obama by the McCain/Palin campaign.  What I am specifically objecting to is the article characterizing him as a spokesman / employee / affiliate, or implying that there is a bona fide controversy over whether he was.  Also, the heading lends this undue weight, as does the laundry list of quotes in the footnote.Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, The New York Times the Los Angeles Times  Radio Pacifica  S. Ilan Troen  Thomas Friedman  Barry Rubin Jacob Lassner Ron Kampeas and Thomas Lippman all  maintain, in formal publication, that Khalidii was a PLO spokesman or official.  Your only argument appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We know you don't like it.  The thing is, it is a well-sourced fact.Historicist (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that seems close to how I read it as well. I assume others still disagree?  My question is primarily what supports turning this into its own section, as opposed to mentioning any reported affiliation in the larger contexts where reliable sources such as the L.A. Times have mentioned it.  Mackan79 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that myself, why some people are so adamant about branding Khalidi a "spokesman" as opposed to his broader interactions with the PLO, which are well known and sourceable as the real source of the controversy surrounding him. This business about him being a PLO spokesman is not generally known or accepted, and by the editors' arguments is not in the sources between the 1970s and the latest American election because it was only recently "discovered" by reading through old newspaper articles - whatever that can possibly mean.  It is all quite strained, and not an encyclopedic approach, to emphasize an obscure yet disparaging point like that while more or less ignoring the main issue.Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs to be a section because Khalidi's PLO affiliation is significant and not merely part of the election campaign. It  has been getting press attention in stories about Khalidi since at least 2004.  And it got one just this week.  It is not an issue confined to the election and should not be subsumed within a section on the election.  The election is over,  This issue is not.


 * Khalidi’s entire academic career has been as a student of Arab and Palestinian nationalism. His most widely-cited book if Palestinian Identity, a history of the Palestinian national movement.  It is, of course, ordinary and in no way improper for ardent nationalists like Khalidi to be historians of the movement of which they are part.  As is expected in studies of a contested national identity, Khalidi is often criticized by other historians of Palestinian nationalism for distortions of emphasis and fact in favor of the PLO over other Palestinian movements.  Because of this context, it is significant that Khalidi was working for the PLO in addition to studying the PLO.


 * As to whether this is an "accusation," as Wikidemon sees it, or a proud boast, surely that lies in the eyes of the beholder. This is true of all national liberation movements.   Accusing a gentleman of membership in the Sons of Liberty in, say, 1772 was a serious accusation in some circles.  In other circles it was a claim of honor.  Recall that some members of the British Parliament wore coats with blue lapels throughout the American War of Independence  to show solidarity with the American rebels.  I understand that Wikidemon believes that supporting the PLO is shameful.  By no means do all Americans or all American academics concur.


 * As to jeopardizing Khalidi’s career prospects, the man has tenure at Columbia.  His career is secure, thank you.


 * As to finding “4-5 sources and say (insert famous person here) is reportedly a racist or drug abuser” If the Los Angeles Times New York Times and Pacifica Radio  each reports such a thing in two stories spaced several years apart, as they each repeatedly  reported Khalidi’s position with the PLO, I would feel not merely comfortable but obliged to include that in a Wikipedia article.Historicist (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Historicist, can you please clarify the sourcing for this? What I am looking for is reliable sourcing to support the existence of this section as its own entity.  I understand why you find it relevant -- indeed I think we all understand the contentiousness of the issue -- but that is as much a reason to be cautious as it is for anything else.  What we need in short are reliable sources, showing that this is an issue beyond the election which justifies an entire section in Khalidi's bio.  Even on their blogs, Kramer and Kampeas disclaim the importance of the issue.  Lippman makes his point "in fairness to Sen. John McCain."  When even the blogs disclaim the importance of the issue to Khalidi, but we're turning it into an entire section in his bio, that is a problem. Mackan79 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, the issues here are not to understand why Khalidi did what he did, Kramer did what he did, and various wiki editors do what they do. The issue is is the information both sufficiently sourced and important enough to appear in the article, and the consensus is shaping up pretty clearly that both properties are fulfilled. The sentence as suggested above is properly sourced, it is not overly informative (no direct mention of any analysis) and it is important as it sheds light on Khalidi's earlier years. Again, the fact that you, I, or anyone may not LIKE it is completely irrelevant, it is the fact that there is NO BLP violation and BO Undue weight violation having the sentence, and there IS an NPOV violation keeping it out. -- Avi (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avi completely. And with 79.178.226.212.  Nice to be nearing a consensus on this.Historicist (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus, the discussion is ongoing, it (depending on phrasing) remains a BLP violation, and my objections are based on policy. Don't try to railroad this through.  Within the next day, probably sooner, I will answer (yet again - this is going in circles) the points raised above.  I do think the proposal, by not focusing on "spokesman", is close, so the distance is not all that great.  Perhaps we can agree on a wording without necessarily agreeing on the underlying arguments.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you are currently the only one involved in the discussion who does not want any of the information in the article, while there are multiple editors who agree that it should be in the article. A consensus does not mean unanimity, Wikidemon, and you are in the distinct minority. What makes this more of a consensus is that is has approval by editors from both sides of the P/I discussions. Furthermore, the current suggested sentence does take into account issues you have raised. At this point, it does appear that the consensus is that this is not a BLP violation, and that you are wrong about that, and that this should be in the article. If only one editor claims that there is no consensus, when multiple other discussion participants from multiple viewpoints agree that there is, there is a consensus. -- Avi (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By Historicist's account at the top of this section there are several editors who have disagreed. When there is substantial disagreement and a strong BLP concern (as some have voiced), it would be hasty to declare consensus.  And of course consensus does not matter where BLP is concerned.  BLP is not a matter of consensus.  But please hold on for a bit and I will formulate some thoughts.  As I said I think there may be a version not too different that works.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is forming that there is no BLP violation, Wikidemon. Nobody wants to have a BLP vio in this article, just as I am certain no one wants NPOV censorship either. Please read the top and see that of those who have been talking here recently, the majority believe that there is no BLP violation with the sentence suggested above: "Despite Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO." Even though "Despite" is accurate, we can use another construction such as: "In response to Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO."[cite Kramer, Kampeas, Lippman] Again, the consensus is forming that the prior is NOT a BLP violation, and that you are mistaken in your application of the policy. However, personally, I am willing to hold off and see what you can formulate, as while consensus does not require unanimity, unanimity is a nice thing to have. -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing such a consensus, in fact, I remain unsure what material exactly is up for discussion in order to make that determination. Based on what I have seen, the current "Relationship with the PLO" section violates WP:BLP, as the section is not supported by reliable sources and in compliance with WP:NOR.  I have just looked at the Lippman letter and the the Kampeas blog post, and I note that none of these are clearly reliable sources, all are in the context of the 2008 election, and both Kramer and Kampeas disclaim any statement as to the importance of the issue even within the 2008 election.  Turning that into this section of its own in Khalidi's bio is in my view a very significant problem, not addressed by the comments above.  I am waiting to see if there is additional support for this section, but otherwise I will remove it per WP:BLP as the policy requires.  As I said above, I could see this being added briefly to the section on the 2008 election, but as of yet I do not see any sourcing to support a section of its own on this point in this bio. Mackan79 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP violations are not a matter of consensus. The matter is quite simple.  We cannot use questionable sources for information about living people.  Letters to the editors, op-ed pieces, and partisan blogs are beneath the threshold for making disputed claims that are highly disparaging of a living person.  That is not negotiable.  There are several reliable sources that say Khalidi is a spokesman in process of attributing his quotes, but other reliable sources that refute it.  To respond to some other points, it should not be in the article at all so an entire section devoted to his alleged formal affiliation with the PLO is out of the question.  There is zero reliable sourcing as to there being a controversy of any weight here, only arguments by Wikipedia that it is important.  The material is clearly disparaging and harmful to Khalidi.  I have attempted to summarize some points on that, below.  If we cannot agree on this we may have no common basis to talk about this here.  Wikidemon (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section per WP:BLP, as there are several problems with it, and I see no consensus for including it. A read of WP:BLP shows it requires "strict" compliance with all content policies, a "high degree of sensitivity," and that biographies of living people be "written conservatively." Based on the discussion above, I think it is clear this material needs much stronger support, or needs to be treated significantly differently. Mackan79 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Harm
A fundamental point in this discussion is that should people conclude that Khalidi was formally affiliated with the PLO while he was teaching in Beirut in the 1970s, it is reasonably likely to hurt his career today as an American academic. This seems so obvious to one familiar American politics that it does not need saying, but some have expressed doubt or challenged the premise.

I describe, below, why it would WP:HARM Khalidi's career should people believe that he was an agent of the PLO. If we say it, and people believe what we say, it will harm Khalidi professionally. Harm is an essential element to both WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. We set a very high bar before printing statements we know will harm people.

As things stand Khalidi has already lost professional opportunities due to the controversy over his positions and statements relating to Palestine. As the article already reports, for example, his invitation to participate in a New York City teacher training program was revoked by the Chancellor of the New York Department of Education because he did not agree with statements Khalidi made critical of Israel. Various people then, as well as at the time of his appointment said that he was unsuitable as a Columbia professor. In another incident, "media pundits, elected officials, real estate developers and wealthy donors began demanding that Columbia dismiss" Khalidi (among others), and Columbia launched a formal investigation. His candidacy to chair a department at Princeton was opposed both within and outside the school because of his statements in support of Palestine and alleged anti-semitism. In none of these incidents was Khalidi's supposed professional association with the PLO raised because it was simply not an issue - people at the time were not making the claim. It was merely for his making statements in support of the Palestinians and against Israel.

Khalidi's supposedly being a "spokesman" for the PLO, an issue that surfaced in the 2008 US presidential campaign, was, objectively, used as a disparagement to smear Obama. McCain and Palin, as well as many conservative bloggers, repeated the term "spokesman" in statements designed to cast doubt on Obama's trustworthiness because he associated with a PLO "spokesman". The bloggers went a lot farther, of course, variously describing Khalidi as a "terorist spokesman", a terrorist himself, and so on.  One such blog explains why pinning Khalidi as a "spokesman" rather than merely a "sympathizer" is a "smoking gun".  As a mere sympathizer or supporter, Khalidi was merely voicing his own opinion. An official spokesman of a group America at the time to be terrorist (for understandable reasons - arms of the organization were blowing up buses, massacring children at schools, hijacking airplanes, etc), is doing more than praising the terrorism, he is aiding it. Because of the attacks on Obama, Khalidi had to "keep his head down".

McCain obviously thought that being a "spokesman" is so disparaging that even knowing such a person would hurt Obama's election chances. The charge hurts Khalidi in several other ways. First, there are repeated calls for Khalidi to be investiated or fired from Columbia. He has tenure there but tenured professors do get drummed out of institutions. The profession of being an academic implies more than keeping a tenured job at a university. It involves making speeches, participating in conferences, collaborating, researching, travel, publishing papers, and often (as int he case of Khalidi's unsuccessful application at Princeton), moving to more prestigious jobs. There is already pressure on every front against Khalidi. A belief that he was the agent of the PLO can only increase this pressure. Third, within academic the charge against Khalidi is that he puts politics before academics - he is an unabashed advocate. As the infamous Washington Times editorial claimed, as of 2004 he is still a "de facto" spokesman of Arafat, pursuing "spin" over scholarship.

It is hard to imagine that a conclusion Khaledi was a PLO agent would not hurt him in the US. We ought to accept this as a premise of the discussion and not try to deny the obvious.

- Wikidemon (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This cannot be the premise of the discussion. If there had been significant downside to the "spokesman" designation, it is reasonable to assume that Khalidi would have found an opportunity, sometime before the end of the 20th century, to deflate it, particularly as it recurred in leading newspapers. Khalidi's distancing from the PLO could just as easily have to do with revulsion at the PLO's corruption in the Beirut years (which he himself helped to expose, after the fact, in his book Under Siege); or the fact that he does not want to be overly identified with one faction within Palestinian politics, at a time when the PLO (and Fatah) are in decline. Or it may simply be that he doesn't want his scholarly work to be read in light of his political past. His reticence in the media blitz of October might also have been more an act of loyalty toward Obama than any move to protect himself--i.e., that there was more harm to be done to Obama by the information, than to Khalidi himself. But all this is speculation, and the plain fact is that Khalidi himself never asked for a correction of these repeated press references, which he presumably would have done had he believed them to be erroneous and seriously harmful to him. Wikidemon is asking us to be more zealous in protecting Khalidi's persona than Khalidi himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.236.172 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that does not compute. Khalidi denies the claim.  Please stick to the facts, not speculation.  I will not argue this elsewhere - the claim is clearly disparaging; Wikipedia requires us to follow WP:BLP on the subject.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon began the speculation (like the one about "semantic accidents"), and the only fact is that Khalidi did not contradict any of the supposedly "disparaging" references in America's top papers. Khalidi's silence speaks volumes; far from denying the LAT, NYT, and other reports, in 2004 he said that if he was misidentified, he was "not aware of it." Please stick to the facts; I will not argue this elsewhere. As for harm, let's not flatter ourselves: Khalidi has already been identified in the Los Angeles Times twice this year as a former PLO spokesman, and if that's disparaging, then nothing that appears in his Wikipedia entry could possibly surpass that. It would be a truly perverse world if people could lose tenure, jobs, and opportunities, because of the content of a Wikipedia entry. A little humility, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.228.153 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." LAT, April 10, 2008.


 * Khalidi "in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." LAT, October 30, 2008.


 * If someone wants a citation to deny Khalidi an opportunity, they're not going to fish here, where things change by the minute and in a click. They will go to the seriously authoritative LAT. If harm there is, then it's already been done. This particular line of discussion is therefore irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.228.153 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. Calling Khalidi a PLO spokesman is a disparaging statement.  It's a waste of time to argue otherwise.  I do not wish to engage in such an odd debate; it is a premise so obvious it should go without saying.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an obvious premise that Wikipedia cannot do harm by repeating information already retailed in highly regarded sources generally deemed far more reliable than Wikipedia. We might do harm if we elevated claims made exclusively by bloggers. But as amateurs, we cannot do harm by repeating facts as determined by the professional editorial judgment of the Los Angeles Times. However hard we might try, we cannot do harm to Khalidi by labeling him a PLO spokesman that has not been done already. So this is an entirely bogus line of discussion, and I propose we drop it and return to the substance of the evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.228.153 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we could do no harm there would be no WP:BLP policy. The claims, if believed, hurt Khalidi.  That is as far as we need to go on that here.  Their being well-sourced, true, or not, and whether anything in Wikipedia matters to anyone, is another step we can take elsewhere.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a WP:BLP policy to keep Wikipedia from elevating the unsubstantiated claims of bloggers, etc. Wikidemon writes: "BLP violations are not a matter of consensus. The matter is quite simple. We cannot use questionable sources for information about living people. Letters to the editors, op-ed pieces, and partisan blogs are beneath the threshold for making disputed claims that are highly disparaging of a living person. That is not negotiable." Excuse me, but the Los Angeles Times is not a questionable source. All across Wikipedia, it is cited as reliable. It has, twice this past year, reported in factual news stories that Khalidi spoke for, and was a spokesman for, the PLO in the 1970s. This is itself an indisputable fact. Let's stick to that fact.
 * You're refuting an argument I never made. Better to state your own point if you have one than to try to show me to be stupid.  Please sign your posts - four tildes ( ~ ) - Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done. I have shown that this discussion of harm is yet another red herring. If Wikipedia were to exclude from biographical entries, all reliably sourced material that might potentially be regarded by some unspecified persons as "disparaging," it would require massive rewriting of thousands of entries. Let's get back to the issue: the phrasing of the inclusion of the "spokesman" issue. Reminder: According to WP:v, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Khalidi, reportedly PLO spokesman, has passed that threshold, if only by virtue of the LAT this past seven months. Let's go back there; "harm" discussion is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.228.153 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed, sure. The material is harmful and as such requires impeccable sourcing per BLP.  We can talk about the implications in a different section.  Other than BLP AND WP:V, polices and guidelines that apply are NPOV, RS, WEIGHT, COATRACK, among others.  20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There's been an honest attempt to find a neutral and encyclopedic phrasing of a reasonably notable issue. Unless more sources appear that suggest this info to be false, then it would seem that the reportings are real and their removal falls within WP:TE. Claims that a 'PLO affiliate' association is equal to something sinister (e.g. major felony) is false and for what it's worth, there's certainly room to consider possible re-writes but wikipedia doesn't censor mainstream content on the basis of  'it sounds like an allegation'  (not a quote). I'm open to some form of dispute resolution on the matter though if we cannot find a policy based consensus. Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) tone down 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rejecting disputed content on WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, and WP:BLP grounds is not tendentious. Those who seek to add disputed content have the burden of sourcing and gaining consensus for it, not the other way around.  Nobody has ever brought up an IDONTLIKEIT issue.  The issue is BLP, WEIGHT, NPOV, RS, and COATRACK.  Those are fundamental.  "PLO spokesman" is clearly a strong disparagement.  That much is obviously true, objective, and sourceable.  Khalidi himself and various reliable sources say that it is not true (for example, a new one yesterday: .  There is insufficient sourcing to claim that he was a PLO spokesman, something quite possibly untrue, and no reliable sourcing at all to show that journalists reporting him as a spokesman is a notable issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Opened at .  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Based on the discussion to date, another editor and I have removed this sentence on BLP grounds, and it has been re-inserted twice. Please do not introduce content that has been disputed on BLP grounds as inadequately sourced material potentially harmful to a living biographical subject, or without consensus. Do not edit war, and please respect that we have an RfC in process on the subject. One of the editors reverting the material invited edits that would remove the BLP violation rather than a simple removal, so that is what I will do. I cannot represent that this has consensus but avoiding BLP violations is a more immediate concern than consensus. By normal process the material should stay out entirely until there is a consensus that does not violate BLP. Ongoing edit warring becomes a behavioral issue that could result in the breakdown of this RfC, the article being locked, and blocking of editors to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Please use the discussion process instead. Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing the header is an improvement, but the material still does not comply with WP:BLP. As has been pointed out above, the first sentence is unacceptable for failing to acknowledge that this is a historical issue, besides the fact that the sentence is completely unsourced.  The second sentence says he was "occasionally" cited, perhaps better than "often," but still original research on Wikipedia.  The third sentence places his service in Madrid under the topic of PLO connections, based on an article that makes no statements about Khalidi (besides misstating his university affiliation).  The fourth sentence adds Khalidi's denial, but seems to get it wrong based on the source presented, which says only that he has denied having served as a PLO spokesman.  It then adds simply that he says he was often cited without attribution, which adds nothing and only confuses the paragraph.  Per WP:BLP,  "We must get the article right," not add material and then work it out as we go.  For these reasons, and those below, I am going to remove the material and ask that consensus be reached before anyone reinserts similar material.  There are ways forward here (adding the material in the correct context, for one); they simply haven't yet been pursued.  Mackan79 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern about editor

 * There will never be a consensus, since Wikidemon believes that the "spokesman" identification is "untrue," and that distinguished journalists who have repeatedly made it, in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, have simply had unfortunate "semantic accidents." Of course, the LAT and the NYT are the reliable sources, not Wikipedia--we are well down on the reliability chain, barely above the bloggers, as this discussion suggests. The only reason it matters at all is that, in searches for Khalidi, the Google algorithm is unduly kind to Wikipedia. But anyone who searches "Khalidi" and "PLO" first up gets Kramer's summation of the evidence and the actual clips, so perhaps there is hope after all. I am leaving this discussion--for now. Enjoy yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.228.153 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a plea to follow RfC process and to avoid edit warring material challenged on BLP grounds. There are plenty of other sections to continue the actual RfC discussion.  But to clear up any misrepresentation of the basis of my BLP objection, as I have said the "spokesman" claim, which is demonstrably a disparagement in contemporary American politics, is not adequately sourced and is quite possibly untrue.  It is contradicted by other sources, denied by the subject, and omitted by the vast majority of sources.  Further, there is no reliable sourcing at all to give weight to the "PLO spokesman" issue as a bona fide disagreement among journalistic sources.  Making a section of it and stringing together hard-to-find sources is making an issue out of something that is not an issue.  The "semantic" nonsequitur also misrepresents my comments.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No misrepresentation. Direct quote from Wikidemon: "There is insufficient sourcing to say he is a spokesman, and the claim is likely either untrue or merely a semantic accident." The "semantic accident" thesis provided the lightest moment in this exchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.228.153 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are intentionally misrepresenting my position. That is disruptive.  Cut it out. And sign your posts.Wikidemon (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And the Los Angeles Times is a really "hard-to-find source," which is dropped on 815,723 doorsteps daily, and 1,173,096 on Sunday. (See LAT entry, Wikipedia.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.228.153 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This was a high-handed and unwarranted action. Note thet Wikidemon signed on to a consensus to post this material, and now removes it without discussion.  Macken also acts here in violation of a consensus reached with hard work over the course of several weeks.Historicist (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is completely untrue and does not merit a response here - taking it to editor's talk page for now. Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary of PLO spokesman issue and dispute
My summary understanding of the current issue is as follows:

1.) Under discussion is material which would discuss alleged connections between Khalidi and the PLO between 1976 and 1983 when Khalidi was teaching at the American University of Beirut. A recent version of the paragraph can be seen here.

2.) Support for recent versions of this material has come generally from two places: a.) news reports during the 1976 to 1983 period in what are recognized to be reliable sources, some of which refer to Khalidi as a PLO spokesman, and b.) recent commentary on the blogs of Martin Kramer and Ron Kampeas, and in one letter to the editor by Thomas Lippman, which discusses the issue.
 * You omit the two academic books. The one by S. Ilan Troen is particularly notable ofr its detailed discussion of the Khalidi's role in the PLO.  those who read only your summary will also miss the fact that Kahlidi gave itn interviews in the headquarters of the PLO in Beruit.  Imagine the PLO permitting someone to tstand in its offices and give lengthy interviews describing himself as a PLO spokesman and direction of the PLO news office.Historicist (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first part is true - the Troen book says (I would not say detailed) Khalidi was with the PLO. The rest of the argument is speculative.  We would need a direct source, not an original argument by Wikipedia editors that Khalidi did X so he must have been a PLO employee.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To get this out there, Troen says: "Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The experience exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage.  After leaving politics, his energies went into research and teaching, primarily at the University of Chicago where for some years he served as director of its prestigious Center for Middle East Studies."  It continues to detail his academic career through the Madrid conference, and then discusses his scholarship for several pages.  I am not clear what would be Historicist's second book.  As to where he was interviewed, I do not believe that allows us to draw conclusions, but even so it leaves many questions unanswered.  Did he work for Wafa, directly for the PLO, was he a spokesman, something else, was there a formal relationship or an informal relationship?  Those are all issues to resolve before characterizing his activities during the time as "PLO spokesman," even if one accepts a relationship. Mackan79 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sources, 1 or more reliable sources each say: (1) he was a "spokesman"; (2) he was a "director"; (3) he was an "official"; (4) he was not a spokesman; and mostly (5) nothing at all on the subject. We do not have anything to go on to resolve these contradictory sources, and we should not speculate.  I think the safest formulation is to simply say something comparable to "In the 1970s and 80s, Khalidi was politically active in Beirut.  He was occasionally cited by newspapers as a source of information from the Palestine Liberation Organization,[cited to any reliable sources from the time, but without laundry list of quotations] and described by several later sources as having a connection with the organization."[cited to any sources that do not violate BLP, again without laundry list of quotations."  That avoids drawing conclusions or contradicting any of the sources.  The "occasionally" (or "several") caveat, which is more than generous to the amount of sourcing there is, is necessary to avoid the implication that it is a universal or uncontested attribution.  We can then give Khalidi's account: "Khalidi denies that he had an official position with the PLO,[cite to secondary sources saying this] saying he was often cited without attribution as a "well-informed Palestinian source."[cite source]  We should omit any argumentation from primary sources after that.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

3.) The material is disputed as sourced under WP:BLP, which requires strict compliance with Wikipedia's content policies among other things. The first category of sources is disputed under WP:NOR as primary sources that do not establish the significance of any connection that they make.  Moreover, while some of these refer to him as a PLO spokesman, others of these sources refer to him as "director of Wafa" or as spokesman for Wafa.  Accordingly, there is not "consensus" among these sources in referring to him as a PLO spokesman.  Wikidemon, I and potentially others have argued that to assemble these nevertheless into a paragraph discussing his alleged connection to the PLO is a contentious use of original research which violates WP:BLP.
 * Khalidi is a pulbic fugure. Well-sosurced informaton about public figures does not violate WP:BPLHistoricist (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a correct formulation of BLP, and the information is not well sourced.Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On these early newspaper sources, I believe the issue is WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH rather than WP:Reliable. This is the point I attempted to make above. Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The second category of sources is disputed first because they are not reliable sources (two blogs and a letter to the editor), and second because even they do not suggest a significance of this issue to Khalidi's career. Kramer, writing on his blog, says that he will "leave it to others to determine whether or not it matters (or matters enough) to the Khalidi-Obama connection." Lippman prefaces his comments by offering them "in fairness to Sen. John McCain...."  Kampeas first prefaces his comments by saying "[i]t's still not clear to me what the significance is of Khalidi's PLO past and how it refracts on his friendship with Barack Obama...."  After saying that Kramer has established a connection to the PLO, Kampeas then goes on to question that the relationship in fact was as "spokesman" for the PLO, saying that "Khalidi is referred to as a spokesman for the PLO by virtue of his employment by [Wafa]," and then questioning whether the relationship was in fact as spokesman or rather as a representative of Wafa.
 * Kampeas Lippman and Kramer are public experts in this field, speaking as experts. That makes their blogs reliable sources for statements of fact and opinion they make in their area of expertise.Historicist (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A letter to the editor, a self-published partisan political blog, and an opinion piece are not reliable sources. Self-published blogs are specifically and explicitly forbidden by BLP.  I do not see why we have to keep rehashing this.  Nobody gets a free ticket into Wikipedia just for having a PhD or a good resume.  These individuals are not experts in sniping at other scholars, which is what they are doing. They are operating far afield of any scholarly endeavor, and these pieces are not scholarly in tone, approach, or forum.  Kramer in particular is engaging in low-level mud-slinging.  Reviewing his blog he has been attacking Khalidi for years, at least since 2004. Wikidemon (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is where you are wrong, yat again, Wikidemon. Kampeas is NOT a blog, and Lippman's letter was published in a reliable source, and Lippman is a reliable figure. Kramer is quoted in Kampeas, so even if we leave Kramer itself out, we may reference it through Kampeas. You are deliberately misstating the sources here, and it is incorrect. Why are you not as up-in-arms about the MEI blurb about Khalidi? That is as self-published as Kampeas? Why are you not up-in-arms about the Marc Perelman source, isn't that an opinion piece? My point is that the pieces broughthere are just as authoritative and reliable as any other in the article, and having them misrepresented is not going to hide the information, Wikidemon. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However, Kampeas also suggests that the "spokesman" description may be incorrect, even as he agrees that there was a relationship. If we are relying on Kampeas (it seems odd to me that the post would be considered a reliable source, but I have not closely compared it to the policy), then we need to be careful that we are relaying what he says. Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

4.) Those who have contested these paragraphs under WP:BLP have acknowledged that the connection was notable in the context of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, a topic which is already given a section.  I have noted that Kramer, Lippman and Kampeas all discuss the issue in that context, and at least three editors including myself have suggested that this is where any discussion should go, although any such discussion would still need to satisfy WP:Undue and WP:BLP.


 * This is not an election issue. There are news articles in reliable newspapers and in books (all cited above} about Khalidi's relationship with the PLO that go back years.Historicist (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is not notable as an election issue it is not notable at all. We cannot show that he was a PLO spokesman, and there is no sourcing that any dispute over whether he was or not has anything to do with Khalidi's life.  What is sourceable is that he was a controversial figure for his views on Israel and Palestine.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am only talking about sources we have which establish any notability of this issue (the issue should be discussed in the context in which it is notable). So far, those uniformly discuss it in the context of the election.  None of the early ones that I have seen make this into an issue, unless we are relying on Troen who presents it in a very positive light.  That is what I mean when I say this should be placed in the context of the election, since that is the context in which each of the supporting secondary sources discusses it (Kramer, Kampeas and Lippman).  There are other issues with those sources, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the status so far as I can see, and I invite others to show where this is incorrect. Until that is shown or these issues are resolved, however, I intend to follow WP:BLP and remove offending material accordingly, and ask that others be very careful in what they replace prior to this discussion being resolved. Mackan79 (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One way to add this would be to state in the section on the 2008 election: "In a speech, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin contended that Obama had 'spent a lot of time' with Khalidi, whom she characterized as a 'former PLO spokesman.' Khalidi said that he would not respond at the time, although he had previously denied having spoken for the PLO in the seven years while he taught in Beirut."  This would be sourced to the CNN article here, and could be added here directly before "Obama called his own...." Mackan79 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously misleading, in suggesting that Palin just made it up. Palin was pushing for the release of a videotape of Obama speaking at a farewell dinner for Khalidi, which had come into possession of the Los Angeles Times. The LAT, in reporting its acquiring of the tape and the tape's content on April 30, had written this: "In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." This is the origin of the Palin characterization. McCain/Palin and the LAT differed over whether the LAT should release the tape, but not over who Khalidi had been. When the LAT, on October 30, 2008, reported the McCain/Palin demand for the release of the tape, it again reported that Khalidi "in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." So the original source of the "PLO spokesman" thing was not Palin, in a partisan context; it was the LAT, in its news reporting. The reference to the 2008 elections should include the LAT reporting as the source of the "PLO spokesman" issue. (While Palin/McCain and the LAT were in agreement, it was the pro-Obama blogosphere that tried to undermine the "PLO spokesman" designation, fearful lest the tape be released, and eager to mitigate any possible damage. Denial of the "PLO spokesman" designation was a partisan exercise.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.236.94 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, the "PLO spokesman" thing got so little traction for McCain/Palin--most Americans think the PLO are the good guys versus Hamas--that McCain had to push it and make the neo-Nazi analogy, which was a smear. Still, this shows that "former PLO" is no longer sufficient to discredit someone in America, and it should be dealt with matter-of-factly here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.236.94 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To suggest Palin made it up was not my intention, but is there a way to improve on that? The language I suggested was made to fit the existing paragraph, so it would be as follows:
 * Consequent to publication by the Los Angeles Times of an article about Obama's attendance at a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, their relationship became a minor issue in the campaign.[27] Some opponents of Barack Obama claimed that the relationship between Obama and Khalidi was evidence that Obama would not maintain a pro-Israel foreign policy if elected.[27] In a speech, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin contended that Obama had 'spent a lot of time' with Khalidi, whom she characterized as a 'former PLO spokesman.' Khalidi said that he would not respond at the time, although he had previously denied having spoken for the PLO in the seven years while he taught in Beirut.  Obama called his own commitment to Israel "unshakeable."[28] Opponents of Republican candidate John McCain pointed out that he had served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) during the 1990s which provided grants worth $500,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies for the purpose of polling the views of the Palestinian people. The Center was co-founded by Khalidi.[29]

Clearly this is an outline, and I think most would assume that when a vice presidential candidate is saying something, probably there is related discussion below that level. One could add another sentence about the PLO, but in truth my impression is that most of this discussion was not about Khalidi being a PLO spokesman, but more on the general assumption that Khalidi was a radical, about how well he and Obama knew each other, and if maybe McCain did not have a connection as well. As such, an additional sentence here would seem to me gratuitous. If that means adding another section, then I think we are back to the question of how that can be done appropriately in keeping with WP:BLP. Mackan79 (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I was dropping out of this discussion, but I feel it behooves me to correct one misconception that has been dogging us since the beginning. A newspaper article is not a primary source - it is a secondary source. The primary sources in this case are Khalidi himself, and the PLO or WAFA.

Wikipedia policy on this matter is perfectly clear. I quote:


 * Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.


 * Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable source.

and later,


 * Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

It could be argued that Kampeas and Kramer are tertiary sources, as they, at least to some extent, rely on the same news articles that we have quoted in this discussion, and are therefore inadmissible, or at least of less value.

In any case, reliance on newspaper accounts (secondary sources) cannot be construed as original research, and is precisely the course of action recommended by the policy in this case. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the L.A. Times likely qualifies as a secondary source here, when it says that Khalidi "spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." However, the early sources, describing him in various different ways without any discussion as to the relationship, are in my view correctly considered primary sources in this context.  As I believe the policy clarifies, the question remains how these sources are used, and whether one is citing the source for the point it makes, or assembling points from numerous sources in order to construct a thesis of one's own.  In this case, to make an entire section on this in Khalidi's bio, I think it should be clear that we need more than some sources which attribute to him in this way.  Mackan79 (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove well sourced text wholesale from the article. If you think it needs clarification or revision please do so. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not responsive. I have proposed adding replacement text to another section, but I am placing it here first for discussion.  If you have read WP:BLP, you will have seen that it is quite clear in endorsing this type of pro-actively cautious approach.  Mackan79 (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Using an LA Times article to say that Obama is a PLO spokesman is a secondary source. Using the article to source a statement about what the LA Times said, or the LA Times official position, is primary sourcing.  It lends verifiability within reason, but does not establish weight.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an LA Times story that says Obama is a PLO spokesman? If the article sources aren't well reflected in the text, revise the text. The LA Times is a good source. If you don't like what they have to say, find a good source that contradicts them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of liking or not, but verifiying claims by adequate sourcing. There are contradictory sources, if you read the discussion.Wikidemon (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When is there not contradictory sourcing on controversial topics? First it's a BLP violation now there are "contradictory sources"? Fix what needs fixing. Let's keep the line moving. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixes and explanations are all laid out in the discussion, above.Wikidemon (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you referring to this proposed text "Consequent to publication by the Los Angeles Times of an article about Obama's attendance at a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, their relationship became a minor issue in the campaign.[27] Some opponents of Barack Obama claimed that the relationship between Obama and Khalidi was evidence that Obama would not maintain a pro-Israel foreign policy if elected.[27] In a speech, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin contended that Obama had 'spent a lot of time' with Khalidi, whom she characterized as a 'former PLO spokesman.' Khalidi said that he would not respond at the time, although he had previously denied having spoken for the PLO in the seven years while he taught in Beirut. Obama called his own commitment to Israel "unshakeable."[28] Opponents of Republican candidate John McCain pointed out that he had served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) during the 1990s which provided grants worth $500,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies for the purpose of polling the views of the Palestinian people. The Center was co-founded by Khalidi.[29] "?
 * The purpose of this RfC is to discuss whether and how to present the subject of a claim that Khalidi was a spokesman / agent / affiliate / director / etc., of the PLO. That is one proposal for addressing the information in a neutral way and without a BLP violation.  Wikidemon (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The version that keeps getting deleted from the article is a far superior version: more neutral, better sourced, more encyclopedic, and more clearly written. If that version needs clarification or revision please do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Child of Midnight, Thank you for bringing objectivity to this highly politicized discussion.Historicist (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'election is over, this is about Khalidi

 * Some people appear to have become aware of Khalidi and of his relationship with the PLO only in conjunction with the recent election campaign.  Khalidi is an importnat figure.  His career should not be subsumed in discussion of an election in which he was not involved.Historicist (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Khalidi is an historian of Palestinian nationalism. He is a public figure because he is among the leading spokesmen ofr the Palestinian cause in English.  The question of whether he was a spokesman for the PLO press office in Beruit in the late 70's and early 80's is relevent to hes career.Historicist (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The question, indeed, if answered in the affirmative would likely harm his career. However, we cannot answer it in the affirmative because the sources conflict and he denies it, and we do not have sourcing that establishes that any controversy over this is notable.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Own section
Khalidi has written that the establishment of the state of Israel resulted in "the uprooting of the world's oldest and most secure Jewish communities, which had found in the Arab lands a tolerance that, albeit imperfect, was nonexistent in the often genocidal, Jew-hating Christian West." Regarding the proposed two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Khalidi has written that "the now universally applauded two-state solution faces the juggernaut of Israel's actions in the occupied territories over more than forty years, actions that have been expressly designed to make its realization in any meaningful form impossible." However, Khalidi also noted that "there are also flaws in the alternatives, grouped under the rubric of the one-state solution".

In the 1970s and 80s, Khalidi was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by newspapers as a Palestine Liberation Organization source. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut." Rashid Khalidi on the Middle East: A Conversation, Logos, Fall 2005 ; “The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for the left-wing Pacifica Radio in Berkeley, California . According to Pacifica, Khalidi was “interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut" Pacifica described him as: "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa," "PLO spokesperson Rashid Khalidi," "Rashid Khalidi, official spokesperson for the PLO," "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut," "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa."; 	+	Lebanon War Hurts Palestinian Cause," Joe Alex Morris Jr., Los Angeles Times September 5, 1976 Los Angeles Times cited Khalidi as a “a PLO spokesman;” “Palestinians, People in Crisis, Are Scattered and Divided; The Palestinians First-of a Series,” New York Times, February 19, 1978, Sunday, Page 1, James M. Markham +	describes Khalidias someone who “works for the PLO;” “Ultimate Goals of the Attack are Assessed Differently from the Two Sides,” News Analysis, Thomas Friedman, New York times, June 9, 1982, describes Khalidi as “a director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa; "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Feb 20, 1984. p. A10, “according to Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO official;” “McCain, Palin demand L.A. Times release Obama video,” James Rainey, October 30, 2008, Los Angeles Times, describing Khalidi as, “a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.” In 2004, Khalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying he was often cited without attribution as a "well-informed Palestinian source." In response to Khalidi's denial, various scholars and journalists active at the time, such as the Washington Post's Thomas Lippman, maintain that Khalidi had an official role.

From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.

Regarding American support for Israel, Khalidi stated in an interview that "every other single place on the face of the earth is in support of the Palestinians, yet all of them together aren't a hill of beans compared to the United States and Israel, because the United States and Israel can basically do anything they please. They are the world superpower, they are the regional superpower."

A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. For example, in a speech given to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Khalidi said that “[k]illing civilians is a war crime. It’s a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They’re civilians, they’re unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance.” The Sun editorial argued that by failing to distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, Khalidi implies that all Palestinians have this right to resist, which it argued was incorrect under international law. In an interview discussing this editorial, Khalidi objected to this characterization as incorrect and taken out of the context of his statements on international law.

Khalidi has described discussions of Arab restitution for property confiscated from Jewish refugees forced to flee Middle Eastern and North African countries after the creation of Israel as “insidious”, "because the advocates of Jewish refugees are not working to get those legitimate assets back but are in fact trying to cancel out the debt of Israel toward Palestinian refugees."

Khalidi opposes the Iraq War and has said that “we owe reparations to the Iraqi people.” References

OK, Mackan, it is no longer its own section, but under views on P/I issue, where I thought it always belonged anyway. Opinions are attributed to ensure clarity (Khalidi and Lippman) and to prevent BLP issues of the article appearing to make a comment (see WT:BLP), and the sources are reliable as the Kampeas piece is NOT considered a blog as per WP:SELFPUB as it is published by the JTA, and the Lippman letter is published by the organization he worked for for 30 years, so it is reliably Lippman, who is germane to the subject. What issues would you have now, other than what I believe is Wikidemon's persistence in misunderstanding the BLP policy here? -- Avi (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent compromise solution, meeets all Wikipedia policies and all reasonable objections.Historicist (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A letter to the editor is not reliable - it has no hallmarks of reliability. The only judgment a paper has made is that it has published it.  Kampeas is an opinion piece, which is also not reliable.  Please stop insulting me, by the way.  How many times do I have to ask?  You're not engendering compromise or collaboration that way.Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I will wait a while, as a courtesy, to hear Mackan's et al.s thoughts. However, this is not a BLP violation and continued reverts claiming "BLP" violation without express descriptions as to exactly which parts of the policy are being violated, in light of the numerous explanations above, will be reverted and disruptive editing will be addressed. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a BLP. Do not revert BLP violations, and please do not make threats.  Also, please respect that we are in an RfC, and that consensus is needed for disputed edits.  That is very disruptive to process, and it tends to inflame.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself pointed out above, IIRC, the RfC is not bringing any new editors other than those going around in circles here. Secondly, there are no threats, just indications that dispute resolution will be followed if disruptive edits continue. Thirdly, you have yet to demonstrate why the non-self-published Kampeas and Kramer are inappropriate, other than your calling them "blogs". Where is it shown that letters to the editor are inappropriate if the letter writer is an established expert and the publishing authority is a reliable source? -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to shut down the RfC as no consensus, fine, but with no consensus the material stays out. Again, stop making threats.  I need not explain why the above is a threat.  You have already filed one bogus AN/I report on me to try to edit war this material into the encyclopedia, please don't pull that again.  I also do not need to explain why a self-published blog is inapplicable for BLP, the prohibition is explicit and the reasoning is given at WP:BLP.  Opinion pieces are also generally regarded as unreliable to support the views expressed, and a letter to the editor is somewhere between an opinion piece and a self-published blog for reliability.  People are not sources; individual writings by people, in specific publications, are sources.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are acceptable if made by experts and attributed as such. See Joseph Massad's piece against Martin Kramer in Kramer's article here: Martin Kramer, or is there a valid reason why you think the two are different? Same with letters to the editor, if published in a reliable source by an expert. So, you may not have to explain why a self-published blog is not acceptable, but being that we are not discussing self-published blogs here, your continued raising of red herrings only serves to confuse the issue. Please discuss the sources brought, not sources that are not brought. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Blp applies to Lippman and Kampeas. They are not "readers," they are professionals, and so WP:BLP specifically ALLOWS them both. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That section applies to the Kampeas piece, not the Lippman letter or the Kramer blog. It does not say that such material must be included - it is a requirement that applies if an opinion is of enough reliability and weight that is otherwise suitable to be included.  We certainly do not allow every opinion voiced in an editorial or op-ed. Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It applies to the Lippman letter as well. Lippman's letter is an opinion of an expert and professional with direct knowledge of the situation published in a reliable source. As for the weight, if Khalidi's denial is relevant, so should the denial of that denial be relevant. I understand that there are those who wish not to have any mention of the relationship, the denial, and the subsequent controversy in the article. The issue is that as Khalidi is a respected and notable Palestinian scholar with distinct views about the Palestine/Israel issue, any reliable information about a relationship with the PLO is relevant. Which this is. -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Avi is correct on this. The Lippman letter is reliable as  published evidence of Lippman's opinion.Historicist (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Absent a BLP concern the Lippman letter sources that Lippman said the things in his letter but does not establish weight as to why it matters. All the arguments about why it matters are Wikipedians' opinions - no reliable sourcing as to weight.  Regarding BLP, the section on sourcing gives a general admonition not to use sources of dubious value but it does not specifically treat letters to the editor.  It is not that granular and trying to do textual analysis on BLP is reading tea leaves.  The sentence on "posts left by readers" relates to blogs and discussion/comment forums on news sites, not letters to the editor.   It is an unwarranted stretch to say that the sentence on publishing "the opinions of a professional" relates generally to any (retired) member of a profession.  There is no underlying principle behind drawing that line.  It is obviously meant to pertain to op-ed pieces and editorials, people in a professional relationship with the paper in question.  Further, it does not require those sources to be included or say that they are automatically free of BLP concerns, only that if they are used they must be attributed as opinions.  In substance, a letter to the editor stating the writer's opinion or recollection has most of the hallmarks of a public comment (no editorial control, no quality control, no fact-checking, no professional or other accountability by or to the publisher) but a single hallmark of an opinion piece (the paper decides whether or not to print it - but the selection criteria very widely and are often opaque).  Like an editorial a letter to the editor does not inherently demonstrate its own significance - unless there is a reliable secondary source commenting on the letter, claiming that it is relevant or has any weight is a matter of Wikipedia editors' opinions.  Overall a letter to the editor is simply not a high quality source.  The only difference between a letter to the editor and a self-published piece is that a newspaper decided to print it.  Newspapers print many letters; it is not an endorsement of reliability.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lippman was the Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post for three decades. He is not exactly retired, he works for a think tank where the expertise he gained in his years as a journalist is higley valued.  His testimony on the middle east, and, in particular, on individuals whom he interviewed in Beirut is certainly a reliable source.Historicist (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What I fail to understand is why you think Khalidi is more likely to report his own status accurately than Lippman is? If, as you claimed above, working for the PLO is the moral equivelant of being a "racist"  your assertion, not mine, why would Khalidi admit it.  My point and my quesiton is, if working for the PLO was as reprehensible as you seem to feel, why take the man's word when he dismisses the charge?  Khalidi is a politician, is it not possible that he he has an interest in shading the truth?  I accept that Khalidi 's dismissal of this connection belongs in the article.  I simply fial to understand why you consider it MORE valid thatn Lippman's testimony that he knew Khalidi in Beiruit as a PLO  spokesman.Historicist (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The rhetorical questions are unanswerable because they are based on an untrue premise about what I said and believe (accuracy, racists). It is not the point of this article to weight the circumstances to decide if we can argue that Khalidi was lying.  We are supposed to be presenting well-founded, relevant material of appropriate weight.  BLP and a host of other policies and guidelines limit our ability to use questionable sources to impugn Khalidi; they do not limit our ability to use Khalidi's claims about himself.  In a discussion elsewhere I suggest a way that we summarize neutrally the intersection of what any (reliable, non-BLP violating) sources have to say about Khalidi during the period, then report what Khalidi has said about it.  That makes sense and is balanced.  Saying "A says X about Khalidi, Khalidi denies it, yet unreliable sources offer their opinions that Khalidi is not telling the truth" goes too far.Wikidemon (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks Avi and others for waiting, as I think is appropriate under the circumstances. I must say that these sources are still being used contentiously, however, in a way that does not show the sensitivity required under WP:BLP. There may be a disagreement here about WP:BLP; however, I am confident enough that if we pursue dispute resolution, the answer will not be that we have been overly cautious in resolving this issue correctly, but if anything the opposite, that no contentious and potentially damaging material should be (or have been) in the article until it is thoroughly ironed out into something fair, accurate, and completely supported by reliable sources. I think we are potentially still making progress, however.

In any case, this proposal improves certain issues, but not others. Possibly the primary problem is that this is not material on Khalidi's views, and has not been presented as such by reliable sources. The ways I have seen it presented are: 1. as biographical material, or 2. as an election issue. This is especially distracting when Khalidi's denial is introduced, still in a section on his views, throwing a large wrench (and a lot of contentiousness) into the explanation of Khalidi's views on the conflict. That is an issue under WP:BLP, as anyone who reads the first few sentences of the policy will realize. I think there are other problems, including the sourcing and the specific wording, but it seems to me the first step is figuring out where to put this. The section on his views on the conflict, at least based on this proposal, does not seem to me an acceptable solution, particularly when its inclusion in the context of the election is much better supported.

For one additional thought, re Historicist and some others: of course it may well be that this issue outlasts the recent election and discussion related to it. I would personally be surprised if Khalidi does not at some point address this, considering the extent he was thrust into the election. However, the fact as of yet is that this was part of the election, which already has a section here. Making more of it at this point, as if we are able to speak knowledgeably about this aspect of his career based solely on the sources we have, but not even yet any response from Khalidi, strikes me as quite a poorly supported approach to this issue. Mackan79 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Looking over the past week or two of edits, I am somewhat disappointed in myself that I let frustration get in theway of civility at times, and made statements I now regret, especially to Wikidemon. I need to step back from the article and take a deep breath. I am not changing my opinions about anything (including the proper applications of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV) but I should have phrased things better. My apologies to all. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is kind.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another problem altogether
The third paragraph of Rashid_Khalidi is seriously flawed. The second sentence - the quote by Khalidi - is presented as support for the first sentence ("A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation.") However, the quote is on an unrelated topic. In the quote, Khalidi distinguishes between combatants and noncombatants. But the next sentence ("The Sun editorial argued that by failing to distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants...") says the exact opposite.

Someone familiar with the editorial needs to fix this. The editorial is no longer on line. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, here is the material you want.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:X01euB_aMlYJ:www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6067+rashid+Khalidi+%22international+law%22+New+York+Sun+site:campus-watch.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
 * Addressing an accusation that he had endorsed the killing of Israeli soldiers as legitimate "resistance" to occupation, he said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate. I didn't endorse killing Israeli soldiers. These people will take anything out of context. Anyone who knows me knows the last thing I am is extreme. I've called suicide bombings a war crime. I'm a ferocious critic of Arafat."

Right of Resistance?

by New York Sun Staff Editorial New York Sun March 14, 2005

http://www.nysun.com/article/10510

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 Print 	Send 	RSS

One of the more positive developments related to the controversy over Middle Eastern studies at Columbia University is that professors who teach in the field no longer enjoy immunity from criticism. Without checks and balances or, as Columbia law school dean David Schizer put it, when controversial opinions are "encrusted as orthodoxy," professors are given license to misrepresent contested or weak ideas as undisputed fact. Such a state of affairs at Columbia helps to explain why the director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, Rashid Khalidi, has felt free to misstate international law as relates to the killing of Israeli soldiers.

On at least four occasions, Mr. Khalidi has publicly stated that Palestinians have the legal right under international law to resist Israel's occupation. In a June 7, 2002 speech he delivered before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Mr. Khalidi said: "Killing civilians is a war crime. It's a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They're civilians, they're unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance." The following year he was quoted as saying, "Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it. But resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law."

Queried for an October 23, 2003, article in the Sun reporting that Israel's education minister had lodged a formal protest with Columbia over the Khalidi remarks, Mr. Khalidi responded by saying in an e-mail to the Sun that it is "disgraceful that a minister in a government that commits similar war crimes against civilians on a far greater scale - with complete impunity and without the slightest remorse - should have the gall to protest my reported comments on legitimate resistance to an unlawful and violent occupation now in its 37th year." To the New York Times, in an article that appeared on February 28, 2005, Mr. Khalidi said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate."

The time is overdue to challenge Mr. Khalidi's statements in respect of international law. Going by his 2002 speech quoted above, Mr. Khalidi is arguing that Israeli soldiers serving in the West Bank are belligerent combatants and thus legitimate targets of violence. The key question that Mr. Khalidi omits is who is entitled to attack the soldiers under international law, or, in other words, under the Geneva and Hague conventions and the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and binding treaties. Mr. Khalidi doesn't distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, which suggests that in Mr. Khalidi's view all Palestinians have the right of "resistance."

According to the Geneva conventions, however, only lawful combatants are given permission to kill other combatants in the course of armed conflict. Or as Nicholas Kittrie, a university professor at American University law school, says, "If you are not a law belligerent, you are not given that license to kill anybody." Who is a lawful combatant? It turns out that in international law - we speak of Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention - the particulars are spelled out, including carrying arms openly and having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. The "resistance" carried out by the Palestinians against Israeli soldiers flagrantly violates those conditions. A suicide bomber who blows up soldiers at a checkpoint does not qualify. Or, as Alan Baker, legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, put it in a report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "There is no such right of resistance to occupation in international law."

If it weren't for a Columbia law professor, George Fletcher, who last month challenged Mr. Khalidi to a debate, one might have assumed that either everyone at Columbia either agreed with Mr. Khalidi or simply did not care that he was wrong. President Bollinger has rattled on about the fine points of First Amendment law, but his employee is running around misrepresenting the particulars of international law. It seems that if it concerns the murder of Israeli soldiers, Mr. Bollinger is not going to confront the head of his Middle East Institute. It is the great tragedy of the situation at Columbia, which has become a college at which the authorities seem indifferent to the substance of the arguments made by those who teach the students.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 (the campus-watch archive is propably the best place to search for articles on academics speaking about the Middle East)````


 * Ravpapa, Thank you for fixing that. It makes the article far more accurateHistoricist (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my edit summary, it's Palestinian combatants vs. non-combatants that they say he fails to distinguish between, not Israeli. That is why they quote him making the latter distinction, but then criticize him for not making the former. Mackan79 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mackan79, I am a bit surprised that you feel that a formal protest by the Israeli government is of less importance than an editorial in a now-defunct local New York Jewish newspaper, or that a quote that clearly states Khalidi's position on resistance is less worthy of inclusion than an ambiguous quote, from which it is impossible to know if Khalidi is referring to the Israelis or the Palestinians. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't exactly the reason. The statement about a "formal protest" that you included seems to come from the same defunct paper, but my problem was mainly with Khalidi's response that you quoted, in place of his substantive comments.  You removed his extensive clarification of his comments, and instead simply took a rather inflammatory and questionable quote criticizing the foreign minister, again from the same paper.  Also, the New York Sun quote is explicit in criticizing him for failing to distinguish between Palestinian combatants and non-combatants.  This was the substantive criticism, so I think it makes sense to include it. Mackan79 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)