Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 6

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 gave media interviews.


 * 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." [2]

There are six contemporary news reports that cite him as speaking on behalf of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist


 * Source # 1. “The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for the left-wing Pacifica Radio in Berkeley, California [6] 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 [7].


 * 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, describes Khalidi as "Rashid Khalidy, an American-educated Palestinian who teaches political science as the American Universityof Beirut and also works for the PLO," http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=FB0617F83A5A11728DDDA00994DA405B888BF1D3


 * 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


 * 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: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 # 6 June 2, 1981 Christian Science Monitor  "Palestinians show self-restraint on Lebanese fighting, Syrian missiles," By Elaine Carey,   Dr. Khalidi also argued that the PLO's standing among Arabs in the Israeli-occupied areas has grown significantly. "Quite apart from the politics of it, we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians 'on the inside' in different ways. We can render them services, often through our compatriots in the West, that King Hussein, for example, could never match. We've never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing," he said.  Here Khalidi speaks of the PLO as  "we", but the CSM describes him as Rashid Khalidi of the Institute of Palestinian Studies.  http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0602/060249.html


 * Source # 7 Anthony Lewis (echoing a New York Times article) wrote  "Rashid Khalidy, a Palestinian who teaches at the American University in Beirut and also works for the P.L.O.,"  Looking at Reality, by: Anthony Lewis, March - April  1978, The Link - Volume 11, Issue 1, published by Americans for Middle East Understanding http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?aid=483&iid=205&pg=1


 * pre-1984 (Beirut period) Articles that cite Khalidi without describing him as PLO.

(false?) Source # 1) describes him as "historian at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut" (this may be an error on my part. I cannot find such an article. I can only find this in regard ot Walid Khalidi.)

Source # 1 ("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" 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" 

Source # 2) (in German) identifies him as a professor. Politik ist keine Wissenschaft Karin Storch | © DIE ZEIT, 23.07.1982 Nr. 30  http://www.zeit.de/1982/30/Politik-ist-keine-Wissenschaft?page=allHistoricist (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Source # 3) Diplomats urge Reagan planners to include PLO in Mideast options By Helena Cobban, The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 6, 1981  http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0106/010645.html  Khalidi is describes as a  "professor,"  as "a Palestinian with good access to the PLO leadership,"  and as " mustachioed."


 * I have searched diligently, and can only find these three sources mentioning Khalidi without calling him PLO. There may well be more.  But the same searches did turn up the seven articles above that do cite Khalidi as PLO.


 * Then, in 1984, after Khalidi returned to the States. The Los Angeles Times described him as a "former PLO official."


 * Articles published between 1984 and 2004 consistently describe Khalidi as a professor, Arab or Palestinian or Palestinian-American scholar or professor, and as "close to the PLO."


 * There are a smattering of later sources that predate the campaign, like this:

From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA,  (New York Sun, Mideast Parley Takes Ugly Turn At Columbia U., By SOL STERN and FRED SIEGEL,  February 4, 2005 http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mideast-parley-takes-ugly-turn-at-columbia-u/8725/)   I cannot find any articles in the pre-campaign period mention the PLO connection in order to deny it.


 * There are also 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."


 * Presidential campaign


 * During the campaign, many, many pundits weighed in on both sides with assertions pro and con. Few cited sources. Most simply asserted that Khalidi was or was not PLO in the course of arguing that the McCain allegations were or were not scurrilous.


 * Post Campaign sources:


 * In the wake of the campaign, Thomas Lippman, Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post (1966-99, 2003), stated that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut


 * Historian Martin Kramer concluded that there is irrefutable evidence that Khalidi was a PO spokesman in Beirut http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm


 * Journalist Ron Kampeas looked into the matter and concluded that the evidence that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut is irrefutable http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2008/11/03/1000727/so-bustedHistoricist (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Weight of evidence
I wont't cut-and-paste the entire background but the above is an incomplete summary. Reliable sources contradict each other as to whether Khalidi was or was not moonlighting in an official capacity with the PLO while working as a professor in Beirut, and most reliable sources that describe his biographical history do not make this claim. There are sources that flatly state Khalidi was never a PLO spokesman, and he denies that he is. It is therefore unverifiable and a WP:BLP vio to try to cobble together scattered sources to argue for an accusation like this that if believed could seriously damage his career. Further, there is no reliable sourcing to show that the question of his being an official representative or not is a bona fide controversy, dispute, or issue of sufficient weight to cover. A few of the sources above are unreliable - a partisan political blog, an editorial, and a letter to the editor of a newspaper.Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, if you wish ot contribute tothis discusson, please address the sources. The academic books.  The articles which do not merely mention Khalidi in passing.  Listen to the Pacifica interview.   It is an indepth interview iwith Khalidi in which they describe him four different ways as a PLO spokesman being interviewed inside the PLO headquarters.Historicist (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pace Wikidemon, Martin Kramer is a respected academic, certainly as highly regarded as Khaidi, whose word Wikidemon appears to accept as gospel. the "letter to the editor" is form Thomas Lippman testifying to his own esperience with Khalidi while he covered the Middle east for the Washington Post.  Ron Kampeas renders his judgment as an experienced journalist.Historicist (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources, BLP vio. This is all discussed above.  Don't try to fork the discussion.  We have talked about all of this before, and I am not going to start from scratch or put up with your repeated personal attacks and incivility.  You have exhausted any remaining patience on my part.  We can close this down as no consensus or, if you can discuss this in a collaborative way rather than by gaming and personal attacks, we can consider material that does not violate Wikipedia policies. Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to stay away from this article for a bit, but I am compelled to remind you, Wikidemon, that you have no more right than anyone else to decide if the material stays in or out. You are still, in many of our opinions, improperly using the BLP policy to keep the information out of the article, despite the quality and reliability of the sources and their authors. Your position is known, as is ours. Your continued "slamming of the door" in the face of Historicist's evidence and patience does not contribute to the collaboration you seek. Collaboration means working together, not continued refusal. Perhaps you need a break, too. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Placement
We appear to be approaching a renewed consensus (we have reached this point twice before) that this material belongs in the article. The question now is where to put it. Mackan does not want it in a sub-section of its own in the section on Khalidi's politicla views. He also does not want it included in the sub-section on Khalidi's views on the Israel/Atab conflict. I believe that it is inappropirate to put it into the section on the election since has recurred in reliable sources since at least 200 and, is discussed in academic books as a job that helped shaped Khalidi's scholarshp, and is therefore plainly more than an election issue.
 * Perhaps we could put it into the biography section on the grounds that it represents a stage of Khalidi's career. I am also willing to go with the sub section idea. But, having reached a consensus to include the material, we need to decide to put it somewhere.Historicist (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly what are we nearing consensus on? If in the section of his Beirut era there is no consensus for a separate section or heading, or for a direct statement that he is attributed as a PLO spokesman, only that occasional sources noted he told them the PLO's position but that he denied being a PLO spokesman.  If in the campaign section it would be covered entirely as a minor issue raised by McCain's campaign, which Khalidi denied.Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pace Wikidemon, the majority of sources from the Beirut period describe Khaidi as a PLO spokesman or director of the PLO press office. Far from doing so in passing, the Pacifica interview, does so in the context of a lengthy interview with Khalidi in the PLO headquarters in Beirut in the course of which Khalidi is described four times as a PLO spokesman and official.  While this was indeed a minor issue in the campaign, it is a major issue in the career of an academic who is a leading spokesman for the Palestinian peoplre and who, as an historiah of the Palestinian national movement, has been charged by fellow academics with overvaluing the role of the PLO vis a vis other parties within the Palestinian national movement.  There is also aready a consensus around including Khalidi's dismissal of the charge, along with the multiple reliable sources that attest to hos spokesman role.Historicist (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The fellow is wise enough to play the fool, and to do that well craves a kind of wit." Shakespeare, Twelth Night.  That, my dear Wikidemon, is a kind of compliment.  Having read your endless arguments for over a month on this topic, I know that you are not as stupid as you pretend.  As you well know, the consensus is on re-adding the material to the article that Avraham took down two days ago.  The consensus is that this material is noteworthy, well-sourced, and not a violation of WP:BLP.Historicist (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon summarizes my view as well. I continue to see you claim that this is a large issue in his career, but the problem is that you do not have any sources backing you up on this.  You say sources mentioned a relationship before the 2008 election, but this is also entirely consistent with it only first becoming a notable issue in the 2008 election.  The point remains that as of yet, this issue has only been notable in the 2008 election, and in my view that is likely the only place we will be able to address it coherently.  Per Wikidemon, possibly we could also add something to the biographical material, but as he implies, the point of biographical material is foremost to accurately represent his life, which means that any addition there would be much smaller and would not focus on any of this.  There was no controversy about any relationship with the PLO in the 1970's or about what exact relationship may have existed; only now has it become any sort of issue, and still only in a very limited way.  That is why, if we wish to cover this as a controversy, I am suggesting it would have to be in the section on the 2008 election.  Mackan79 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I do.
 * 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, Historicist (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lassner and Troen discuss it very differently than we do here, and the difference is telling: they present this as a background for how Khalidi became a moderate, whereas each of the proposals here present is as an indictment that he has denied. We could take that source's argument, I just don't see it happening.  This was still presented as biographical material, however, prior to the discussion of his views which comes several paragraphs later.  I do not see how the Arafat biography supports your position. Mackan79 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. That is why I am proposing putting it in the bio or career section, rather than the section on political views.   This way it is presented as a straightforward part of his early career.  I do not read a statement that newspapers reported that Khalidi worked of rthe PLO as an indictment.   It is a simple a statement of fact.Historicist (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have such a proposal for the bio or career sections? I don't recall seeing any. Mackan79 (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pages 2, 3, and 4 of the archives are full of discussion about this issue, Mackan. The suggestion you want is here: Talk:Rashid_Khalidi/Archive_4. -- Avi (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this is discussed; did any proposal come closest? I would guess that any proposal would probably need to be updated, which I could try myself, but since I continue to think this would be best treated in the section on the 2008 election I may not be the right one to do it.  Mackan79 (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I really do not want to deal with an editor who calls me stupid, taunts me, and plays these kinds of immature wikigames. I see no basis for trusting the editor, and think it is simpler to reject the proposal as a violation of BLP, weight, and NPOV.   Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, I would like to argue with you about the issues, I truly would.  To do so, however, would require that you    bring    sources, making arguments, and do the ocurtesy of  answering questions that I and other editors ask of you.  Meree endless repition of the same previously refuted arguments week after week is not a productive discussion.Historicist (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, please be civil and do not misrepresent my edit history. You have presented all of your arguments, many times over, and I see nothing at all new.  My sources, arguments, and answers are all above.  Do not harangue me further.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Wikidemon, the same could be said for you. You have presented what may very well be your misunderstanding of BLP, RS, etc. many times over, and we see nothing new either. Which is why I have filed for the formal mediation, as we have exhausted all other venues for now. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am correct on the policy but that is not the point. If Historicist wants to hurl insults at me while repeating his argument the first issue is that a discussion here should be civil.  If we get past that, my response is that he has said it all before, and my position remains the same.  It is up to an editor proposing disputed content to make his case so if the various editors are at a stalemate it means no consensus, nor can there be consensus for a BLP violation anyway.  I appreciate your attempt at a resolution and have addressed my questions regarding mediation to that forum.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure on where this material fits but it certainly predates the electorial debates and should be added into some other section (possibly with a low level sub-heading). The elections issue seems like a silly fluff controversy while the PLO issue (affiliated or not) in itself is encyclopedic bigraphical content about the person.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Formal Mediation Request Filed
A formal request for mediation has been filed here: Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented there, but I have to wonder if there isn't a sense of frustration here that could possibly be resolved more on our own.   I am sure some of the editors here think Wikiedmon or I are being obstructive, but the basic problem in my view is this: whatever goes into this biography can't just be in one way or another defensible, but has to be good, fair, high quality material.  Per WP:BLP, we have to get it right.  Frustrated or not, I'd like to think additionally that some of the problems noted in the proposals so far would be recognized as real problems that need to be fixed, before they go into the article.


 * In doing that, I see two basic determinations: 1.) What is appropriate material to cover, and 2.) What is the most appropriate way to cover it. There has been plenty of discussion on each of these, but the irreconcilable difference I don't yet see.  Even based on the current proposals, I believe both Wikidemon and I have suggested that a reported or alleged relationship with the PLO could be added sensitively as biographical material.  I am more certain we have both acknowledged that it could be discussed in the section on the 2008 election.  Historicist has contended that it should have more coverage, but I don't believe Avi has responded to my proposal for the 2008 election section, in a way that I might be able to address.  Considering that mediation generally means much more time and energy expended, I would think a little further work, if it can be done a little more amicably all around, would be worth the effort. Mackan79 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mackan, please see pages 2, 3, and 4 of the archives. At this point, we seem to be going in circles. In our opinion, Wikidemon is misapplying BLP to prevent reliably sourced verifiable information from experts in their fields about Khalidi to be placed in the article. Remember, at this point, we are debating the one sentence about Khalidi's denial being proved less-than-accurate by Kramer and Lippman, and reported by Kampeas. Wikidemon, on the other hand, believes that we are misapplying the WP:RS policies and believes that every one of the brought sources (Kramer, Kampeas, Lippman, the Wasshington Times Factchecker, the books, the radio interviews, the Thomas Friedman interview, the early Khalidi book reviews in the NYT's, etc.) all fail one or another of the WP:RS policies and so the fact that there exist perhaps a dozen sources that indicate that Khalidi had an official position with the PLO notwithstanding his denial should not be in the article. We've repeated ourselves perhaps ten times between the archive pages, to the point that I put up a paragraph, Wikidemon posted approximately 20 issues with it, and I (in my opinion) rebutted almost every, if not every, issue of consequence he brought up. There is not much more discussion that can be had here, I am afraid, if the simple sentence 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. will be edit-warred out of the article. This is why I requested a formal mediation to get a ruling on the proper application of policy. I am afraid that if the mediation is not joined by all parties, which must be done on a voluntary basis, there is only one other resort, which would be detrimental for all of us. -- Avi (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Avi, and I'm somewhat regretting that I didn't follow this more closely earlier. I am a little concerned that there isn't actually any other solution to further discussion, however, as my guess is that ArbCom would reject this as a content issue.  That isn't a challenge, and I agree even attempting it is best avoided (I suppose we could start edit warring if we wanted a case).  As to the content, I am not sure it is so simple.  I don't know if I would agree with Wikidemon on every policy issue, but from what I see he has raised valid issues with many if not all of the sources, at least with the specific way they are being used in these proposals.  I have a few concerns with the sentence you propose, notably: 1. Lippman did not say "official," and I think the sources give reason to question that he was an "official" PLO spokesman (this is only one of numerous possibilities), and  2.  Lippman is not responding to Khalidi, but to a Washington Post editorial, and "in fairness to Sen. John McCain."  Accordingly, the source differs substantially from this proposed wording, and the proposal creates controversy where I don't see that the sources support it.  Ultimately it is as long as there are still issues like this that I think we may be better continuing to discuss proposals than asking others to intervene, since that will likely involve much the same thing.


 * Still that isn't to say I oppose it, since it may provide some structure to go through this. I think Wikidemon was hoping for more of a response on the mediation page before committing, but if everyone else agrees I'll agree. Mackan79 (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I am wary of the process, and mistrustful that it can be followed without more of the same that has occurred on this page. Mediation is supposed to be voluntary, and undertaken only if there is reasonable hope for resolution.  I was burned by voicing support for a compromise that was within hours rejected, with my position misrepresented as a capitulation and baseline for going further - and my objection to this accused of being tendentious and in bad faith.  If people are not going through the process fairly or in good spirits, what hope is there that more process will be different?  I also wonder why it is so important an issue to insert the questionable, poorly supported claim that Khalidi was an official agent of the PLO, and analysis and claims about a controversy over that claim, which may or may not be true, when we could more simply state the facts as they are, that Khalidi is controversial in America for his views, statements, etc., something that became a campaign issue in 2008.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My view, in light of pending mediation
Since this discussion is going to mediation, I felt it would be appropriate for me to summarize what I think the article should say and why. I withdrew from this discussion because I could not understand Wikidemon's arguments, and felt I could not reach a compromise without understanding what the other side was saying. But, with mediation encroaching, I want to make my position clear.

My remarks relate specifically to the wording I suggested at Talk:Rashid_Khalidi.

First, I want to address the issue of notability: Khalidi is notable primarily for his advocacy of the Palestinian cause. That advocacy has found its expression in scholarship, in public appearances and writing, and in direct political involvement. It is this third aspect - direct involvement - which is at issue here. Any biography of Khalidi must, to be accurate and complete, include details of the nature of that involvement. This is especially the case here, as there have been public accusations made regarding that involvement, and specifically regarding Khalidi's relationship to Fatah and the PLO. It therefore behooves us to present a complete and accurate account of what the sources say regarding that involvement.

What do the sources say?


 * One primary source - Khalidi himself - confirms that in the 1970's he was "very active politically" in Beirut, without specifying the nature of that activity.


 * At least three secondary sources (NYT, LAT, Pacifica radio) identified Khalidi at the time as a spokesman for the PLO. One of these sources (Pacifica) presents an interview it held with Khalidi in the offices of WAFA, the Palestinian press office. (Other secondary sources have been mentioned in the discussion that identified Khalidi as spokesman.)


 * One primary source - again Khalidi - denies that Khalidi had any official position with the PLO at that time, but confirms that he spoke frequently with journalists on a background basis.


 * One source (Kampeas - I don't know how to characterize this source as primary, secondary or tertiary), on the one hand confirms that Khalidi could not have had an official position with the PLO, but that he served as a de facto spokesman.


 * One tertiary source (Kramer) disputes Kampeas's contention that Khalidi could not have had an official position with the PLO.


 * a primary source (Khalidi) discusses his subsequent disenchantment with the PLO, his increasing opposition to its policies and leadership in the last few years, and his decreasing involvement in direct political activity.

What can we conclude from these sources? Nothing. Nor is it Wikipedia's role to draw conclusions. What we should do is present the sources, concisely and accurately, and let the reader draw conclusions if he or she so wishes.

The sources are not being cited, as Wikidemon has suggested, to present "how journalists covered the matter" but as direct evidence of what Khalidi was doing at the time. Nor is the discussion giving the topic undue weight - two sentences that present sources about Khalidi's activities in the 1970's does not seem undue to me, especially considering that that activity has been the subject of major public debate.

The fear that Wikidemon raises that quoting these sources could do harm to Khalidi and lead to legal action against the Wikipedia seems so unbased that I don't know how to address it. It seems that Wikidemon thinks that, by citing (conflicting) reliable sources on a controversial topic, the Wikipedia is taking a position on that topic. I simply don't see how Wikidemon reached that conclusion.

In summary, by omitting discussion of Khalidi's direct involvement in Palestinian politics over the last 40 years, we are presenting an incomplete and distorted view of Khalidi's life work. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we do not cite sources as direct evidence of what may or may not be true. We state facts that are sourceable.  Unverifiable facts harmful to living people are not presented in "this is what source X said" format, they are simply not included.  That the material is harmful to Khalidi is so obvious and fundamental, it hardly needs saying.  Khalidi was fired from one job for his alleged proximity to the PLO, there was an investigation and calls for him to be fired from his current professorship, he was opposed strongly by well placed people when applying for a more prestigious appointment, and the claim was considered so derogatory that Obama's political opponents smeared Obama for merely associating with Khalidi based on the claim.  "Khalidi is a former PLO spokesman" is, without any plausible doubt, a harmful thing to say about him.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact-checking Wikidemon by fired from one job I assume that Wikidemon refers to Khalidi's dismissal from giving one lecture a year in a 12 lecture series training New York City school teachers. Dismissing a tenured professor form a once-a-year lecture gig is not exactly like getting fired. Moreover, I know of no evidence that this was because of hie PLO connection.  The New York Times certainly reported that it was because of opimions Khalidi expressed, such as calling Israel "racist" not because of any affiliations he had. As to the assertion that there was an investigation and calls for him to be fired from his current professorship, perhaps Wikidemon is thinking of the Columbia Unbcomiing  affray.  I know of no calls for firing Kahlidi.  I agree with Wikidemon that we should verify facts before posting them on Wikipedia, even in discussion sections.Historicist (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My facts check out 100%, and the objections are completely impertinent. You seem to be objecting just for the sake of being difficult.  The point is, tying Khalidi to the PLO is likely harmful to Khalidi and there is no point arguing otherwise.  I will not waste any more time on such pointless arguments.  Because the claim is harmful, and disputed, it must be impeccably sourced.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravpapa, looking over your proposal again, and surmising that this is intended to go into the biographical section (though I have not clarified where), here is something I might suggest:


 * Aside from his writing, Khalidi has at different stages of his career been actively involved in the politics of the Palestinian cause. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[1].  Khalidi was cited in the media during this period, sometimes as an official with the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization.  He was critical of the PLO leadership then, and has become increasingly so over time; after the issue was raised in the 2008 United States presidential election due to a reported friendship with the Democratic candidate Barack Obama, the nature of Khalidi's affiliations during this time remain unsettled.  In 2007, Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage."


 * 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[6].


 * 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[7], but "I can't do all those things [teaching, writing and lecturing] and be involved in politics."[8]

There may be issues still, but perhaps it suggests another way to cover the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mackan, Please take this as the nhonest questuion that it is. Do you have reason to know that He was critical of the PLO leadership then,?  I ask because I had understood his critical stance to have begun laterHistoricist (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair question; I'm basing it primarily on Lassner and Troen above, and Ron Kampeas' blog post. Lassner and Troen may not be explicit about when, but state that he "acknowledged" these problems (as opposed to "acknowledges" or "has acknowledged" them), and at least suggest that it was done contemporaneously.  Kampeas states: "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.'"  I recall seeing quotes myself from the time period that struck me as critical (I'm thinking of one statement along the lines, "Even Rashid Khalidi, a PLO official, stated...") but until I find them those were the basis. Mackan79 (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I grant you that the PLO was complex and that Khalidi's relationship with it may also have been complex, but we do have to recall that Khalidi in the Beirut period gave interviews to both the Christian Science Monitor and to the New YOrk Times (http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professor) in which he spoke of the PLO as we.  Certainly Troen and Lassner are, as your say, not specific on this point. I think we'd need something stronger before making a positive statement like: He was critical of the PLO leadership then.Historicist (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, firstly, Kampeas's post is not considered a blog under wikipedia rules. Please see WP:SELFPUB. Secondly, you feel that Kampeas's post is reliable enough to discuss Khalidi's distancing himself, but nit reliable enough to bring his concession that the scholarly analysis performed by Martin Kramer whose conclusion is that Khalidi was acting officially for the PLO is irrefutable?! I'm not certain I understand that. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, well that's why I conceded that it's a blog post in either case (not referring to the Wikipedia policy). However, the entire paragraph I proposed here was based in part on these sources (Kramer, Lippman, Kampeas), but simply in what I consider a more careful manner.  Of course, I did propose to say that he was cited with the PLO, Kramer's basic point, and which without Kramer probably wouldn't be an issue.  I don't believe I've stated definitively that any of these are reliable or unreliable; I think all of them have to be seen as somewhere in between.  The important issue to me is more broadly how to treat this fairly based on the sources that we have, taking into account all of our content policies. Mackan79 (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another source
I had not seen this article (The PLO's Professor, Philip Klein, The American Spectator October 31, 2008 http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professor) before and thank Mackan for bringing it to my attention. It is a reliable (albeit right-wing) secondary source assessing the evidence re: Khalidi's relationship with the PLO. It should therefore be addes to Kampeas, Kramer and Lippman as a fourth reliable source on this point.Historicist (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording Dec. 14
Another attempt, based on Macken’s recent proposed language. Footnotes to follow every sentence. (I intended this to be four paragraphs, not four bullet points.)

Historicist (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I would be satisfied with the above. However, I forsee Wikidemon disagreeing with Other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO. However, I would think that if everyone but Wikidemon agrees, we would have our consensus. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with this statement, and the bottom line is that it builds up a BLP violation. It is misleading to say "Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as [W, X, Y, or Z]..." when the truth is that he was cited several times as one or another of those ("several" being generous), not universally.  We do not have any sources to establish that these occasional attributions are anything worth covering, and the fact that they differ from each other means it is not clear what they were getting at if anything.  Similarly, it is misleading to say that "other academics and journalists" contradict Khalidi, when all we have are some editorials, partisan blogs, and a letter to the editor.  The truth is that three Mideast experts, one wearing his partisan hat and none an academic or journalistic one, argue that Khalidi was a PLO affiliate, while others  in journalist mode say there was no affiliation.  "A few bloggers and editorialists claim either that Khalidi was, or was not, affiliated with the PLO" is the more accurate statement, but what is the point covering such a thing?  The statement about "we" is original research, Wikipedians are doing direct analysis and making assumptions based on Khalidi's statements (or mirroring opinions of editorials or blogs).  Finally, the issue was not raised in the election "due to" an "acknowledged friendship".  The issue was raised as an election year smear tactic, and whether or not Khalidi acknowledged a "friendship" was not the issue.


 * As worded it it is still a BLP problem because it incorrectly portrays that there is a consensus among academics that Khalidi was a PLO affiliate, and in the process leaves the reader possibly believing a claim harmful to Khalidi that he was a PLO affiliate that is weakly sourced, that he denies, that others deny, and that is possibly untrue. The claim as presented in the proposed wording is in three parts: (1) Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO; (2) academics and journalists as a whole believe he was affiliated with the PLO; and (3) Khalidi's has made untrue statements about the matter.


 * Please don't make premature declarations of consensus. This RfC process is of diminishing credibility given the hi jinx.  We have to acknowledge that some editors with thoughts on the matter have not participated in every piece of this RfC, and that an RfC is not supposed to be an exercise in pushing disputed content by war of attrition until you can grab the flag.  For anything to be a real consensus proposal it would have to be presented in full form, with any proposed footnotes or headings, and sit long enough to engender appropriate commentary.  None of that overcomes BLP either.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of this, but I still think there could be some work around in theory while addressing these concerns. For instance the version I proposed was intended to minimize assessments by these partisan sources, and instead to provide less controversial summaries based largely on Lassner and Troen's book.  Of course, that doesn't mean anyone else would agree to it.  Mackan79 (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unclear about three other issues: 1.) Which source is being used to state that he spoke for the PLO as "we"? I would think it especially problematic to include this as an unattributed statement of fact (e.g. that Wikipedia would say this happened rather than report that someone said it), although I'm fairly sure that claim is not a major point to include in either case.
 * JUNE 11, 1979, the New York Times One view shared by the Palestinian leadership and the rank and file, down to armed youths who guard doorways and intersections, is that the goal of an independent state will be foreclosed if the Camp David accords succeed. "We are in a make-or-break-it period," asserted Rashid Khalidi, a professor of political science who is close to Al Fatah. "If we don't turn the tide, if what (Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat is doing is not decisively repudiated, if the idea that Sadat had brought peace is allowed to stick without regard to Palestinian rights, then we are done in. Israel doesn't need to sign with us. They already control the land.
 * January 6, 1981 Christian Science Monitor Dr. Khalidi also argued that the PLO's standing among Arabs in the Israeli-occupied areas has grown significantly. "Quite apart from the politics of it, we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians 'on the inside' in different ways. We can render them services, often through our compatriots in the West, that King Hussein, for example, could never match. We've never been stronger there, and the trend is continuing," he said.Historicist (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mackan, do note that I specified that every sentence shoulod be footnoted. I find these two statements compelling evidence that Khalidi spoks as and for the PLO.  A secondary source on this is: The PLO's Professor, by Philip Klein

The American Spectator October 31, 2008 http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professorHistoricist (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Klein in the American Spectator says that Khalidi refers to the "Palestinian leadership" as "we." The New York Times quote above connects him to Al Fatah.  I'm not quibbling here: the problem is that people who want to make this connection are in effect playing into popular politics and ignorance by hyping a connection to the "PLO" when this is not how the sources characterize it.  Of course this is amplified by presenting an issue such as who Khalidi referred to as "we" in an encyclopedia article, and asking readers to connect the dots.  It's what I'm talking about when I say some here are playing "gotcha" more than following WP:ENCYC. Mackan79 (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mackan, Al Fatah is the PLO. there is no distinction.  It was the name in common use when the Times article was written.Historicist (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

2.) Which sources are being used to support Khalidi's dismissal of the claim?
 * The 2004 Washington Times interview. It is, to my knowledge, the only time Khalidi ever answered a question abour whether he did or did not work for the PLO.   When other reporters have asked, he has stonewalled.  So, it is the only source we have.Historicist (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I think the issues with this have been covered. Actually there is a CNN article noting Palin's claims and that Khalidi has denied being a spokesman (I believe this was the phrasing); if we want to include his denial, I would think it more appropriate to rely on it rather than to use this quote from the Washington Times.  I'll find it if necessary. (Add: I see Wikidemon has addressed this below.)  Mackan79 (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

3.) Why have Lassner and Troen been removed, along with the questions raised by Ron Kampeas, to be replaced with this other material?
 * Your proposed Troen and Lassner quote: Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage.” The problem is, Troen and Lassner do not specify when Khalidi began to discuss the corruption in public fora.   They do state that Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO.) Which really does speak to the point.Historicist (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is our disagreement: you seem to think that a connection to the PLO is the only issue, whereas I'm trying to say that the issue here is Khalidi, reliable coverage of Khalidi, and to accurately represent it. So far as I am aware, Lassner and Troen provide our only clearly reliable material we have that actually discusses the relevance of Khalidi's activities during this time period to his career.  It would seem remarkable then that we would ignore it in favor of primary sources and blog posts (whether externally published or not). Needless to add, I find it rather weak to say their claim that he courageously pointed out the failures of the leadership do not suggest that he did it at the time.  In that case I could simply reword the summary, "He was critical of the leadership, however, and became increasingly critical over time...."   To accurately represent this, I do think it is important to note the other side of this, that Khalidi is widely respected as a moderate and has sharply criticized the Palestinian leadership and its actions; coverage which associates him with the PLO but does not clarify this would indeed place us with, if not beyond, even the most partisan of sources that have looked at the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mackan, I do apologize. I had intended to write that the Lassner Troen book should go into a footnote.  This is the way we handled it during the two previous consensus texts.Historicist (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mackan, you have a point that the fact that Khalidi became critical of the PLO later in his career belongs somewhere. But, wasn't it you who preferred to put the PLO material into the Family, education and career section?  someone did.  so I thought that was how we were proceeding.  If this material goes under Family, education and career, I don't think his later criticism of the PLO belongs here.  Perhaps it oculd go in a subsection of Public life?  Or we could go back to putting Relationship with the PLO as a subsection of Public life.  and conclude with material on his later criticism of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it was later in his career? Lassner and Troen say he served in the Beirut nerve center, and in the next sentence that he acknowledged the "corruption and highhandedness" publicly, "an act of no small courage."  It then continues "after he left politics."  I do not see why you would suggest separating this to another section.  From my view, and based on the sources we have, including Lassner and Troen's perspective will be a critical part of any attempt to cover this issue. Mackan79 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My impression, with all due respect, is that at least some editors here are still trying to "get" Khalidi on this issue. It does not appear to me that you are considering how to responsibly cover this issue, but rather that you are considering how most clearly to state that there was an affiliation with the PLO, and perhaps for added benefit that Khalidi has not been forthright about it.  I say this in part because you are removing all other relevant discussion that does not speak to this, even though sources that have discussed Khalidi throughout his career do not do this.  I can say this now or in whatever other forum, but if there is going to be consensus, this is what I think needs to be improved.  I may try a third proposal in the next day or so, but those are my issues if someone else wants to try. Mackan79 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * About a month ago, I stated quite plainly that I believed Khalidi's advocates would be better served by omitting Khalidi's dismissal of a PLO association.  I was certainly willing not ot include it.  Others - perhaps it was  Wikidemon? - insisted that it go in.  I am ,as I have always been, willing to omit the Khaldi dismissal of the association.  It certainly does have the effect of making him look less than forthright.Historicist (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Washington Times (thought not necessarily a reliable source) says "Khalidi denies having spoken for the PLO." Per CNN, Khalidi "has denied he was a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization."  According to the Washington Post, Khalidi "has denied being a spokesman for the PLO." (and a number of other pieces in the Post)  Per CNN Khalidi "has denied" the "characterization" (note it is described as a characterization, not a statement of affiliation).  That is from a few moments of googling, and I can't go through every source just for this latest, but per this Haaretz piece, Khalidi "was never a PLO spokesman".  There are a bevy of other sources to say that Khalidi denies having been a PLO spokesman, but I have not checked them all out to see which are fully reliable versus editorials or op-eds, and who is copying off whom: The Guardian, Boston Herald,, CNS,  Anderson Cooper on CNN says Khalidi "denies that" [he was a PLO spokesman]. Reading through a number of the blogs on the subject I see that the arguments printed here (the "we" thing, that he never denied it but could have asked for a retraction, the old versus new sources, the recent "discovery" of old sources all parrot arguments being made in those blogs).  Rather than including strung-together accusations, a denial, then a blog-and-editorial rebuttal of the denial that makes him "look less than forthright", we should not try to make him out to be a liar to begin with based on poorly sourced claims.  The "we" material is particularly weak, and clearly a matter of speculation and advocacy on Wikipedia.  I agree that the vigorous and tenacious push to include this questionable material, when there are far more solid and relevant things to say about Khalidi, seems a little odd.  I sense agenda-pushing on a hot button political topic, and when I see that my natural inclination is to ask for solid sourcing.  That has not been forthcoming, so I remain unconvinced that the material is suitable for Wikipedia.  That does not make me an "advocate" of Khalidi, nor is any of this to serve me.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact-checking Wikidemon The 2004 Washingotn Times piece quotes, verbatim, Khalidi's email reply to the question Did you work for the PLO. While some of you have come recently to this topic, Wikidemon has been here for many weeks, and we have discussed this lone source many many, many times.  The great problem with this discussion is that it goes on, and on, and on with the same questions being asked by the same editors and the same answers being given.   As I have explained before many many, many times, none of the other sources shows evidence of having received an answer to this question from Khalidi.  they appear to merely echo the 2004 Washington Times piece.  This is why I said that the 2004 Washington Times piece is the only statement that Khalidi has made on this specific topic.   However, as I have stated before, I don't care if it goes in or not.  If Wikidemon wants it, we can put it in.Historicist (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Stop "fact checking" me.  As far as I'm concerned this proposal is dead.  It's a poorly sourced BLP vio and after repeating your point and attendant incivilities many times you have failed to advance it any further. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly fail to understand the basis for the attempt to keep this information off Khalidi's page. I say this because I cannot imagine anything more relevant to an article on a leading advocate for a nationalist cause who is also the leading historian of that national movement than the documented fact that he actually worked for one of the leading factions of the national movement that he advocates for.Historicist (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon hit on it earlier when he said he sensed "…agenda-pushing on a hot button political topic…" I sense the same thing, interestingly, from some of the contributors here. -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The attempt is currently only to keep flawed representations of this material out of the article, for specific reasons that have been mentioned above. It would seem worth making a strong effort to resolve these before deciding that it can't be done. Mackan79 (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two errors that can be made. One would be to state something that we cannot reliably source.  The other would be to appear to make this aspect of the career of a major intellectual figure in the Palestinian national movement appear less significant thatn it is.  Both would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers.  I do not see this as a difficult task.  The fact that Khalidi spoke on behalf of the PLO in some sort of official capacity in his Beirut period is well-sourced.Historicist (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

December 15
People continue to ask for attempt at consensus / compromise. So here is a version that gets around the BLP problem by avoiding questionable sources, and conveys the issue with due WP:WEIGHT as a career involvement rather than a controversy, act of prevarication, dispute among sources, etc. It also tries to avoid synthesis, commentary, or analysis of the sources. It is culled from Historicist's December 14 proposal and Ravpapa's December 4 proposal. It would go in the public life section, just under the first paragraph, with a suitable neutral subheading like "Participation in Palestinian politics". - Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is actually not that bad. I am a bit uncertain about the placement of the last two sentences in the first paragraph, as it implies that the dispute as to the nature of the relationship occurred solely prior to the denial, as opposed to what happened subsequent to the denial. It is definitely movement in the right direction, however. Kudos. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon. thatn you for what is indeed a step in the right direction.  Can you tell us what source 27 is?Historicist (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What I have for "subsequent" contradictory sources are this Haaretz article: "...he was never a PLO spokesman.", the recent LA times article, the Barry Rubin book ("former PLO spokesman"), and the Troen book ("an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)"). To address the timing/placement question, we could move the clause beginning "and subsequent sources" to its own sentence at the very end of the paragraph.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That (moving the sentence to the end) would work.  Plus adding the  Lippman, Kramer and Kampeas sources Avi brought a few days ago as footnotes at this point.  anong with the Haaretz and Troen/Lassner and Rubin booksHistoricist (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that the Lippman, Kramer and Kampeas are both not sufficiently reliable (you know that argument), but also unnecessary because the Troen and Rubin books and the LA Times article fully support the proposition for which they are cited. However, I would not object to adding them as bare references (without quoting them or repeating their arguments) in the list of "subsequent" sources that differ. Wikidemon (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good with bare references. We do need User:Avraham's opinion.Historicist (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon. That second paragraph is excellent.   It succinctly summarizes Kahlidi’s changed attitude toward the PLO.   I am, however,  troubled by this wording: Khalidi was cited by several sources during this period as conveying the Palestinian Liberation Organization's official position.    What the sources actually said was that  Khalidi was a PLO  official  or spokesman.  I think we need to say this just as  the sources we are using said it.Historicist (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some sources say he was a "spokesman", some an "official", some that he was a "director" of Wafa, and others said nothing. Objections were later raised by Khalidi and others to the claim that what he did made him a "spokesman", and the Washington Post calls it possibly a semantic issue, i.e. calling Khalidi a "spokesman" does not mean he was officially employed but rather that he was merely repeating their position.  It would give undue weight, and be speculation on our part, to try to summarize all the sources in order to figure out what each means.  The narrowest statement that includes that entire class of sources is that they said he was conveying the official PLO position.Wikidemon (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority of sources that mentioned Khalidi at all during his Beirut period described him as an official, spokesman or director of the PLO or its press office.  To say less is to misrepresent these very strong sources, to give UNDUE weight to Khalidi’s decades later denial, and to fail to give due weight to such strong recent sources as Thomas Lippman who actually interviewed Khalidi in Beirut for the Washington Post.  We have an obligation to accurately represent what the sources say.  I propose this:

Historicist (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't go with "Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization" because that stacks the argument entirely to one side and creates the misleading impression that the weight of the sources tie him to the PLO. If you are going to start characterizing what the media said, the accurate statement is "Khalidi was cited by X sources as an 'official' of the PLO and by Y sources as a 'spokesman' of the PLO, although most sources did not make the association, other sources reason that "spokesman" is a semantic distinction that does not imply an official relationship, and yet other sources flatly state he was not a "spokesman".  But that runs into weight problems, and calls undue attention to a disputed harmful claim. Again, I am going for the narrowest description that captures all of the sources and does not try to interpret them.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Factchecking Wikidemon Pace Wikidemon, who alleges that most sources did not make the association, as I laid out above in Evidence, the majority of news sources that mention Khalidi in his Beirut period do indeed refer to him as a spokesman, official or director of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop "factchecking" me. I reject your proposed characterization of the sources for the reasons stated, which are valid and correct.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see Wikidemon's refusal to use the language from the sources, spokesman director and official as an attempt to bowdlerize the article and a   WP:NPOV violationHistoricist (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am following Wikipedia policies and guidelines on BLP, WEIGHT, RS, and NPOV, among other things, by rejecting an attempt to string weak sources together into a case against someone that would likely hurt them. I have explained why your proposed synthesis of the sources is unacceptable, but a more neutral, factual, and accurate statement would be fine.  Again, please stop complaining about me.Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon's proposal is fine. Go with it. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of questions with it, if all will hold on for a moment. For one I wasn't clear that Khalidi had denied any official role; I only saw him deny having been a spokesman (most likely I just missed the source).  The second is that it would still seem appropriate to include something from Lassner and Troen, though I haven't had a chance to consider the right way.  Perhaps that could be added afterward in any case.  This looks basically good, I just logged on and wanted to take another look. Mackan79 (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the sources again, the denial may still be an issue, as I don't believe he said he had no official position. Even the sources for Wikidemon's proposal only say he denies having been a spokesman (this is also what the Washington Times piece said). This would be a minor fix in one way, simply to substitute "Khalidi has denied having been a spokesman for the PLO," but then this would be a little odd without having included the direct allegation. It could work.

The other issue is that it still seems overly focused on this issue, however. One small fix would be to swich "...and subsequent sources disagree..." (emphasis added) to "although", since the second half provides a contradiction. Either way, this is why I proposed leaving out the denial, and instead added Lassner and Troen's comments, which move on rather than stopping everything on this point (especially at a point in the bio, chronologically speaking, when nobody noted the point at all). I remain most sympathetic to this approach that I attempted, though I concede there could be something here as well. Mackan79 (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:wikidemon has already agreed at the suggestion of User:Avraham to split this sentence and put the second clause after the Khalidi dismissal of the charge. I made the rearrangement in my proposal.Historicist (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think you mean just to split the first sentence, rather than "and" or "although"? I'm trying to catch up here and find any latest proposal.  Mackan79 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Footnote Issue
In earlier consensus agreements on this, the approach agreed upon was to include the language used by the newspapers as brief quotations in the footnotes. The idea was that readers would have the facts and could judge for themselves. This was particularly necessary because these old articles are not readily available online, it is not possible to put up a link and let the reader click through and read the article. In the Dec. 15 proposal, User:Wikidemon has removed the quotatinos from the footnotes. I only just noticed this - in every previous proposal the footnotes have had the quotes included. We had also agreed to group the footnotes to avoid long strings fo numbers, at the cols, of course, of paragraph-length footnotes. I do wish Wikidemon had thougt to mention that he was making this significant change. I suggest that we put the fotnotes back the way they were, with the quotations.Historicist (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you stop complaining about me? and stop distorting the record here? I never agreed to a litany  of one-sided quotations, and have consistently objected - only some of the proposals include them and I see no consensus on the subject.  It is a WP:COATRACK and gives WP:UNDUE weight to fill a footnote with a litany of quotations claiming that Khalidi was a "PLO spokesman" when most sources do not make such a claim, a few make a different but related claim ("director", "official", etc.) and there are other sources that say he was not.  Historicist has performed an exhaustive search for the former, but not presented included any of the latter, so I'm afraid it skews things.  One argument that was given for why a harmful allegation like this is allowable under BLP is that the allegation is publicly made in major sources.  That argument is defeated if one has to reprint hard to find quotes that are not available online.  We should do this the way Wikipedia normally handles citations, with two or three well chosen simple citations from the most reliable, major, mainstream sources, with preference for those we can link to: in this case New York Times, LA Times, and possibly Pacifica Radio.  That is balanced nearby with cites to Khalidi's denial, and sources saying Khalidi was not a PLO spokesman. Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon I did indeed, in the Evidence section, present a list of ALL the articles that mention Khalidi form the Beirut period. Not only those on one "side".Historicist (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment modified accordingly. Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Where we stand
I believe that these four are the issues still to be resolved.Historicist (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1.) The footnote issue, I propose we agree to restore the full footnotes, with brief quotations from news soruces, to the article.


 * 2.) To mention or not to mention Khalidi's 2004 dismissal of a PLO connection.


 * 3.) Naming. Should the section (to go as a Public Life subsection) be called Relationship with the PLO or Participation in Palestinian politics


 * 4.) Wording of the key sentence. Proposals on the table include Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.' and Khalidi was cited by several sources during this period as conveying the Palestinian Liberation Organization's official position,


 * 1 - no, as explained above. #2 - it's absolutely necessary.  Khalidi's denying being a PLO spokesman is the best sourced part of this whole issue, and including the claims against him without stating his position and sources agreeing with him would certainly be biased.  #3 - adding PLO to the heading is of undue weight, and misrepresents the contents of the section, which is about his involvement in Palestinian politics.  It is also biased because it favors one side of a disputed claim.  #4 - the second, obviously, because it is true whereas the first is misleading.  Note that we are not going to use the unreliable sources (the Kampeas editorials, Kramer blog, or Lippman letter to the editor) to stand for anything beyond listing them as sources alongside the reliable ones (two books and an LA Times article) as recent sources that differ on Khalidi's official role, if any, within the PLO.  These are, collectively, the things that I objected to in the earlier proposal.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We do not need to bring all of the texts in every footnote. A list of the sources, with one or two having a sentence (preferably the ones that are not online so that readers can see the actual material) should be sufficient. As long as the material can be found with the source given (book and page number for example) that should be sufficient.
 * I think that Khalidi's dismissal of the claim is critical to the article and needs to be mentioned.
 * I prefer "Participation in Palestinian politics". We need to mention the PLO connection, but we do not need to make it a centerpiece.
 * Perhaps a compromise including wording similar to Lassner/Troen's "Khalidi was cited by several sources during this period as conveying the Palestinian Liberation Organization's official position, and was reported to have served in the Beirut nerve center."
 * I am fine not having K/K/L listed in the text, but I maintain that they must be brought in the appropriate footnote for the reader to follow and make their own decision.


 * The first paragraph would look something like this:


 * Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have three basic thoughts: 1.) The denial still isn't accurate; from all I have seen he denied being a spokesman, not having any official relationship. 2.) The statement that he was cited "as an official of or spokesman for" is an improvement over some versions, but remains misleading, in that this is not always or predominantly how he was cited. Possibly this could be fixed without much change, but I believe it is the basis for Wikidemon's wording. 3.) If those two issues are resolved, I think the format is nearly ok but would be improved with Lassner and Troen's assessment at the end, since again, that is the one source we have which has actually synthesized this into an assessment of Khalidi's career. This could be either the quote I provided earlier or a paraphrase, but I do think it is important as I said to note that he has been notably critical of the PLO, if we are discussing this aspect of his career. Mackan79 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Avraham. I agree with Mackan that we are getting close. 1) Mackan has a point, perhaps we could wirte: In a 2004 interview Khalidi denied that he was a spokesman for the organization. 2) Mackan, if you will look at   I think you will agree that the sources do infact support theas an official of or spokesman for language.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashid_Khalidi#The_Evidence_2).  3) We could use the second paragraph that User:Wikidemon suggested.  It is indeed reasonable to demonstrate the Khalidi is now critical of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources say that Khalidi denies having been a PLO spokesman. The text of one denial, covered by the Washington Times, explains both how the other sources might have gotten it wrong and also why he did nothing about their error (which is used here and in the blog world as supposed proof that the claim must be right).  Again, the sources generally do not say he was affiliated with the PLO - only a few do, and it is both WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and incorrect to create a contrary impression for the reader.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading Wikidemon's continuing protestations that this is poorly souced, I decided to review the evidence and see whether I was missing something the User:Wikidemon was seeing. I spent a couple of hours reviweing the sources, searching Internet news archives, and updating the Evidence section when I found something new. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashid_Khalidi#The_Evidence_2). What I discovered that there were more period sources linking Khalidi to the PLO than I had thought and fewer that discuss him without asserting a PLO link.Historicist (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a poorly sourced derogatory claim. Tweaking the evidence section does not change that.  A few reliable sources make an attribution that he was a PLO spokesman, or official, or director.  A very few say directly that he was affiliated with the PLO.  Most reliable sources do not mention it as part of his biographical history, at least one (and probably others) say flat out that he was not a PLO spokesman.  He denies that he was a PLO spokesman.  One source says that the question of whether he was a spokesman or not may be a semantic issue.  That is weak sourcing for Wikipedia to conclude that he is a PLO spokesman, and per BLP we cannot do that.  Nor is Wikipedia an appropriate place to string together sources to make an argument that he was a Spokesman.  It is odd, under the circumstances, to be debating so endlessly under the circumstances that the claim is so well sourced and important that it absolutely must be in the article.  The only relevance I can see to this is that the claim was used as an accusation to smear Obama in the election.  Beyond that, the claim is unproven and quite possibly false. Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding Avi's suggestion, we should add citations other than to the quote from the Washington times saying that Khalidi denies being a PLO spokesman - that improves sourcing because these other sources are in major nonpartisan mainstream publications, and used as secondary sources. I agree that per the sources Khalidi denies only being a PLO spokesman, but that makes sense because he was responding to that claim.  We should just state the facts, but be careful to do this in a way that does not imply Khalidi is admitting to some other kind of official relationship.  I also agree with Mackan79 that we should include more reliable sources than the Kramer, Kampeas, and Lippman cites for the proposition of what modern sources say.  It is okay to leave them in but that does invite adding links to editorials, blogs, etc., that say the opposite.  In general, if we are going to say that sources differ we should include the most reliable of them - the two books and the newer LA Times article do that, plus the Haaretz article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One or two editors claiming that sourced content is a BLP violation is a lousy way to try to push personal POV. If there are sources that say he wasn't PLO spokesperson and didn't speak on their behalf, let's see them. Claiming that the LA Times and other reliable sources don't count, and that no one else can put in any content that you personally disagree with or think might harm the guy's career (with no evidence to support that wild claim) is disruptive. The good faith editors working on this article have been patient and willing to compromise, they've made numerous suggestions and efforts to word the content appropriately. The delaying tactics and obstruction have gone on long enough. We don't write articles to suit our POV, we write them based on the best sources. I will be adding the sourced content to the article soon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not make accusations, and do not edit the article without consensus. The parties may be nearing a consensus on this, but if you start to edit war you could destabilize that.  You can see the sources in the discussion, above.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should other sources besides WashTimes, that was all I remembered at the time. Perhaps to cover all bases we can say the following:


 * This way the only time the word spokesman is mentioned it is in the context of the denial, not the relationship. Regardless of how the sources refer to Khalidi's relationship with the PLO, I think it is reasonable to say he was used to source PLO opinion/policy. Lastly, we can bring the sources discussing the denial in the last footnote - no need for text as they should all be available on the web. -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor fact Avi, if you scroll up to Evicence, you'll see that the Los Angeles Times called him a Plo spokesman in 1976 and the far more politically-correct Pacifica Radio called him a PLO spokesperson in 1978Historicist (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I can agree to that as a compromise, Although I do not agree in full, I would consider joining a consensus conditioned on: (1) agreeing on the citations and heading, (2) subject to the foregoing and copy editing, this first paragraph plus the second paragraph as proposed gaining consensus among the participants here as a full and final resolution of how this article in all sections, headers, and footnotes treats Khalidi's relationship with the PLO, with no new discoveries or "consensus can change" attempts to alter it at least for the reasonably foreseeable future.  (inserted out of order so as to respond to above two paragraphs) I have no opinion on the use of gender-neutral language, and I think that's a style choice.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nearing consensus I concur with User:ChildofMidnight and User:Avraham that it is nearing time to declare consensus, put this material on the page, and get on with our lives. I see no problem with the wording User:Avraham has suggested.  I further note that consensus is not the same as unanimity.  While I hope that it is possible for reasonable people to unanimously concur with Avi's fine, compromise wording, there may be times when a consensus is no nearly unanimous that we can move ahead.Historicist (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely reject Wikidemon's assertion that no additional information or sources can ever be added. This is the type of ultimatum that has no place on Wikipedia. Stop grandstanding and move forward with the good faith compromise. Editors are always free to change their minds. No one has to sign in blood or agree to your conditions. Enough is enough, you should thank these editors for their incredible patience and willingness to put up with objection after objection with little in the way of counterproposals and counter sourcing. Their sources supported their original version. It is a testament to their good faith that they were willing to collaborate endlessly with editors who use ultimatums and threats in such an inappropriate way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop making accusations. I am a good faith editor, those are my conditions, and I have a solid reason for them.  If ChildofMidnight will not agree, either we have no consensus, we will implement a consensus over his/her objection, or we will have to deal with this as a behavior issue.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Compromises are not conditional. That's not part of the editing process. Setting conditions, making threats, and imposing ultimatums are not the actions of a good faith editor. If it's a reasonable compromise agree to it. If you are concerned that someone may add more later, say so. But stop making ultimatums and threats and setting up unilateral conditions. We're editing an encyclopedia not agreeing to a post-war armistice. They've agreed to generous wording after an enormous demonstration of patience and good will, and despite having good sources that support the original wording they proposed. Stop trying to throw your weight around and let's move forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear.Historicist (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture me about the editing process, patience, etc. There is nothing generous about avoiding WP:BLP violations.  I stand behind my editing here and if you don't like it, take it somewhere else.  Again, I will compromise on the wording only if it represents a real, complete, and final consensus on the text, headings, and footnotes that the editors here will not renege on.  We were close to that, and we still may be if you don't derail it with pointless accusations.  I do not want to re-argue why the consensus discussion broke down because debating moot matters would be counterproductive.  Suffice it to say I have a solid reason for expressing my position this way, which you would understand if you thoughtfully reviewed the history of the article and talk page.  This should not be so hard.  If there is a consensus version you or anyone else would accept, and you're ready to live by without reneging on it, put your money where your mouth is and say so.  If you are keeping your fingers crossed behind your back and you're going to use any compromise version as a launching place for adding more derogatory material about Khalidi and the PLO, admit that you are not accepting it as a consensus.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, are you agreeing to User:Avraham's proposal,

with your second paragraph?Historicist (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the other participants will sign on to that version, together with an acceptable set of footnotes and heading (these have been discussed but we need to spell it out), as resolving the full issue of how to describe Khalidi's historic relationship with the PLO, I am willing to join that consensus. Given the admitted game playing here (see ChildofMidnight's talk page) we need to make very certain exactly what the consensus version is and whether people actually agree to it.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no BLP violation in content sourced to the LA Times as well as other established and reliable media sources. Stop making debunked arguments that serve no purpose but disruption. I came here because I saw the dispute on the third opinion board. I've mostly stayed out of the dispute except to try and move it forward to a conclusion. If the proposed content is agreed to by the parties involved, I have no intention of changing it. If you're going to make ultimatums and continue endless delaying tactics, I'm going to move ahead with what I think is a reasonable consensus version. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is improper. My arguments are fine, you are misstating what it was, and it was a clear, unarguable BLP violation.  Don't make threats to disrupt the encyclopedia.  Do not accuse me of bad faith.  Please cut it out immediately, and read your talk page.  You are going to derail consensus if you keep it up.Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is heading south, fast. Let's call it a night and see if cooler heads will prevail tomorrow morning (US time).  Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're doing reasonably, at least when we're focusing on the content (incidentally, I'd like to think Wikidemon was delaying a little so I could comment, which I appreciate). I'm sure everyone else is off now, but my issues with this proposal are basically two: 1.) I would need quite clear sourcing to support the language that he "was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization." I am skeptical for the same reasons as Kampeas, that the statements do not seem like "official policy positions."  The first source for Wikidemon's proposal is Markham in the New York Times, quoting Khalidi's statement on how Israel "could split us"; this was one of the statements Kampeas considered inconsistent with the role of a spokesman.  The second was Morris in the L.A. Times, highlighted for the same reason by Kampeas, where Khalidi is quoted as "PLO spokesman" to say "I see no change except that more people will be killed for no reason."  The third is the Radio Pacifica interview, which I'm listening to at the moment, but doesn't seem likely to shed additional light. Then there is Lassner and Troen, and then the more recent sources, but I don't believe any of these support the specific statement. The problem is that of course a person who is a "source for official policy positions" is a spokesman, which is the disputed issue here. 2.) "Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman..."  This leaves out that he is repeatedly characterized as denying that he was a spokesman, and accordingly results in the appearance of an incomplete answer.  Also it needs to be more precise, as we don't know what he was responding to (a question, more likely than a "depiction").  This is one reason I included reference to the 2008 elections, because it's one place where we know he has been alleged to be a PLO spokesman, and the only time to my knowledge that his denial has been made notable.

Listening to the Pacifica interview, I am struck by a few points. One is that none of these attributions appear to have been in his presence, contrary to the impression I had received. In fact, the program compiles multiple interviews, and as one can hear, only spliced over the narrative afterward. Second, the attribution as "PLO spokesman" is only offered quickly in the middle of the program, after Khalidi had already been introduced formally as "official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa." To rely only on these shorter attributions in the middle of the program would accordingly seem to lack support.

This also raises the previous point, that it strikes me oddly to suggest that he spoke for the PLO, when if anything it appears much more supported that he had some relationship with Wafa (where his wife is recognized to have worked). My impression remains that some are glossing the distinction between a news agency or press agency and a press office or communications office, when even if all are "official", these are not the same thing. I looked over this a bit earlier, and there seems to be a fair deal to indicate that the official PLO spokesperson during this time was Mahmoud Labadi, discussed at length in From Beirut to Jerusalem. On page 67, "The most sought-after spokesman was the PLO's Mahmoud Labadi, whom I've described above. During the summer of '82, Labadi could often be found outside his office, sitting like a vacationing tourist in a lawn chair..." On page 88, "The PLO spokesman's office in Beirut has often been depicted by the Israelis as a slick Madison Avenue public-relations machine. It was anything but that.  One tended to cover the PLO more in spite of Labadi's office than because of it." Reading the description of Labadi is reading the description of a "spokesman," and very unlike the descriptions of Khalidi.

This is of course also original research, but I think similar to that which started much of this. It is in any case why I suggested acknowledging a potential relationship with Wafa, since the position seems significantly stronger, especially considering Kampeas' statement that "Khalidi is referred to as a spokesman for the PLO by virtue of his employment by [Wafa]." I am not insisting that this be noted, but it seemed to me a reasonable and better supported way to cover the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Wafa was an agency of the PLO, though its job was apparently to disseminate news of and to the Palestinian territories, not to speak for the PLO. If they made the attribution in his presence to introduce him, and he did not object, that seems significant.  If I were going to apply Occam's Razor, meaning the most reasonable simple explanation consistent with the observed facts (including trying to minimize any assumptions that people were lying or major news sources in error) the most plausible explanation is that while he was a professor in Beirut Khalidi moonlighted (on a formal paid basis or otherwise) with Wafa, his wife's employer.  Having participated in a number of ad-hoc semi-organized organizations myself, people often say they are with a group when the relationship is informal.  That is how groups get started.  But no matter, he saw himself and they saw him as being with Wafa.  In the process, he also seems to have taken it upon himself to explain what the PLO was thinking, and perhaps to be an intermediary between the PLO and journalists asking questions.  That's inconsistent with being a journalist but again, everything sounds pretty informal.  He probably didn't have any power within the PLO, and no authority to represent the official position - he was not their agent in the conventional sense that his actions can be imputed as the actions of the PLO.  Rather, he was a go-between, trying to be helpful.  It is not surprising that some journalists, in the chaotic environment over there, called him different things including a "spokesman", which could even be considered correct in a de-facto informal sense.  Middle East terrorist (allegedly) organizations don't exactly have organizational charts in the same way a Washington lobbyist might.  A journalist attributing a quote to him has to do so in a few words.  "Khalidi, PLO spokesman" is a lot simpler and more professional than "Khalidi, who hangs out at the PLO news service offices helping his wife out and is often good for a quote saying what the higher-ups are thinking."  The denial in this sense is also correct - though it would be a lot more useful if we had something a lot more specific from him about exactly what he says he was doing with the PLO.  Anyway, this is all speculation based on Mackan79's original research.  What that does tell me is that we cannot readily conclude based on the reliable sources exactly what was going on.  The sources that do make conclusions contradict each other.  We should go only with things that can be fully and conclusively sourced, and not get into this morass of reading things into a bunch of unclear sources.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I said that none of Pacifica's attributions seem to have been in his presence. I had assumed that they were, and that this was the significance, but after listening it is clear they were added afterwards, in the narrative that served to tie the various interviews together.  Otherwise, yes, your speculation is similar to mine, except on the one point that I am still not sure he gave any focus to what the PLO in particular was thinking.  My impression from the Pacifica interview, and other sources, is that he presents himself as a Palestinian commentator, defending the Palestinian cause.


 * Substantively I do think the sources can still be tied together, though. My proposal remains the following (with minor adjustments):
 * From where I sit this is entirely reasonable. It accepts that he was cited as either or neither a spokesman or a Wafa official.  It notes the controversy in the context of the 2008 election, since this (rather than in the 70's or 80's) is when the controversy occurred.  It includes the important context that he was critical of the PLO, as noted by Lassner and Troen and by Ron Kampeas.  It then ties it in with the best supported summary of the issue that we have.
 * From where I sit this is entirely reasonable. It accepts that he was cited as either or neither a spokesman or a Wafa official.  It notes the controversy in the context of the 2008 election, since this (rather than in the 70's or 80's) is when the controversy occurred.  It includes the important context that he was critical of the PLO, as noted by Lassner and Troen and by Ron Kampeas.  It then ties it in with the best supported summary of the issue that we have.


 * I can only surmise that some think it puts too positive of a spin on the issue, but in truth that is the material we have if we are including it in this part of his bio. If we presented it in the section on the election controversy, then of course it would be different.  I remain unable to see how the other proposals are better supported by the sources, however.  Mackan79 (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we back to putting it in the bio? I thought we were discussing a sub section of Public Life to be called Participation in Palestinian politics.  I can go either way.  But I thought that we were back to haveing a subsection.Historicist (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise/Consensus version
My hesitation about Mackan's latest proposal is  this part: He was critical of the PLO leadership…  It seems Chronologically  misleading. There is lots of evidence that Khalidi later became critical of PLO policies. None that he was critical at the time when he was a Wafa/PLO spokesman/official in Beirut. I find Wikidemon's second paragraph much more accurate. I have added Mackan’s  Troen/Lassner quote to it. Moreover, User:Wikidemon has been adamant about including the Khalidi dismissal of the spokesman role. I therefore think the compromise/consensus version is this:

Historicist (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My statement was based precisely on Lassner and Troen in their book. Their broader paragraph may be worth reading:

You are saying that it is not clear when Khalidi was critical, but my proposal is no more or less specific. Nevertheless, they clearly considered this a relevant point, and placed it before going on with "After leaving politics...."

There may be some merits to your proposal, but besides leaving the issue of whether Khalidi was in fact a "source for official policy positions" (see my long post a few hours ago) it raises other issues: 1.) You now present both of these paragraphs as an extended discussion about Khalidi and the PLO when I don't believe that is supported (perhaps because you intended it to be an independent section on the topic, but I do not see the support for that either), 2.) You presume that it was only "as his academic career progressed" that he became "increasingly critical," but this is if anything contravened by the source, and controversially phrased, 3.) The proposal still does not actually include a denial on the point where it was reportedly given, and finally 4.)  I'm not sure how the quotes you included were chosen, but their meaning isn't particularly clear, other than that they are sharply worded. For instance, this omits his statement that suicide bombing is a war crime.

So, I appreciate that changes are being suggested, but I don't see how it presents a fair representation of the material, compared to some of the other options that we have. Mackan79 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Troen/Lassner piece certainly states that Khalidi has been crtitical of the PLO, a point upon which we all agree. It does not, however,  make the order clear.  It does not, that is, specify that  Khalidi acknowledged the corruption of the PLO or cirticize their policies in public forums while in Beirut.  To insist, as I take it that you wish to do, that Khalidi was a critic of the PLO policies while in Beirut, you would have to produce some evidence of that.  We have a number of news interviews from that period, but I see nothing to indicate that he was a PLO critic at that time.Historicist (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The book states: "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." You seem to assume that they meant to say "he later acknowledged in public forums," but this isn't what they said.  It's also the same point made by Kampeas: "Spokesmen don't often proffer strategies to the enemy for 'splitting us' nor do they suggest that their side kills for 'no reason.'"  Is there more to this, beneath the surface, to support either Lassner/Troen or Kampeas' statements?  That we don't know, but it is why I removed the word "then" and simply went with their characterization.  I don't know if it was while he was in Beirut either, but the strong implication is that it was part of his "invovlement in politics," and they are explicit that he did it at a time that was "courageous."  I'm not convinced by the suggestion that we should ignore this or place it separately. Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the passage ambiguous. Some period sources in whish Khalidi actually criticizes the PLO before we can write that he criticized them while in Lebanon.Historicist (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to say specifically that he criticized them in Lebanon. Ultimately, if we are including this as biographical material, I would like to note that he has starkly differentiated himself from the group, since this is an important point made by the sources that cover him.  The above proposal is one way that's entirely faithful to the source; you've questioned it, but I don't believe you've explained how the proposal was incorrect.  I can clarify, otherwise, in the effort to resolve this: I am quite likely to contest any material that overplays this as in any way representative of Khalidi's career, since I don't believe that is how any reliable sources have discussed it.  To present this as a big issue (i.e., by presenting Khalidi's career from 1976-1991 as primarily characterized by a relationship with the PLO) is in my view a clear BLP violation, based on the sourcing we have.  To have an individual section on this, separate even from the section on the 2008 election controversy, also strikes me as a clear BLP violation unless we're to have separate sections for every school he studied at, taught at, etc.  I have not seen any reasons for separating this both from the 2008 election section and from the general biographical section, while the reason not to put a header in a BLP just because it is a contentious point would seem clear enough.  So, unless I misread the discussion, that may be the issue we need to reconcile at some point. Mackan79 (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, on your wording that Khalidi criticized the PLO whle in Lebanon.

I cannot discover that Khalidi was criticizing the PLO in the Beirut years.

He published only  two books in the Beirut period. Palestine and the Gulf. A collection Camille Mansour. Khalidi’s chapter discusses Soviet policy. British Policy towards Syria and Palestine, 1906-1914 has nothing to do with the PLO.

I checked JSTOR, nothing but a couple of book reviews of books on the 1948 and earlier. Nothing about contemporary policy in them.

Then I found this:

Review: A Self-Made Quagmire Author(s): Rashid Khalidi Reviewed work(s): Going All the Way: Christian Warlords, Israeli Adventurers, and the War in Lebanon. by Jonathan C. Randal Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Summer, 1983), pp. 81-85 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2536248

The topic would allow Khalidi to criticize the PLO. He doesn’t.

We really cannot assert that he was critical of the PLO in this period unless we find somewhere he criticized the PLO pre 1983.Historicist (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding to Mackan 1) I reallly think everyone including Wikidemon agreed to make this a sub-section.  I am, nowever, willing to put it inot the Family, education and career  2) We can change that wording to soemthing like "later".  the point is, I have seen no evidence that he was a PLO critic in his Beirut period.    3.) could you reword this, please?  I honestly don't know what point 3 means.  4) I'm happy to include his criticism of suicide bombing in the second paragraph.Historicist (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just quickly, the third point is that you still haven't actually included that he denied being a spokesman. You have his added context about what he was doing, but not the denial itself.  That was all.  Mackan79 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the 2004 quote "often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source."[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it." is his only statement on the subject. Wikidemon and others read it as a denial.  I read it as more of a carefully worded evasion.  Rashid is extremely clever with wording.  If you read his acadmeic work, you discover that he often implies more hthan he plainly states.  We can put it in or not, but it's all we have.  Other than many pundits and journalists stating that he had denied being PLO without any of them having a new quote from him.  We even have tape of Khalidi refusing to asnwer a reporter's quesiton on this point.Historicist (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many major sources say that he denied being a spokesman, without connecting that statement to the Washington Times quote. So we can include that statement without a second quote.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My error. I had intended to copy Mackan's wording of the second sentence. Fixed in version below.  Also, this version assepts Mackan's point about causation of his change of heart by removing the part about why he changed his opinion.  I'm not married to this particular wording of the second paragraph, just trying to move this along by accepting Mackan's suggestions.:

Historicist (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Query: Who came up with the "if any" phrasing?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed that was Wikidemon, but by my reading it is based on the specific reference to an "official relationship." E.g., if one only referred to a "relationship," then the disclaimer may not be as needed, but if the reference is to an "official relationship," then it likely needs to be clarified that there may not have been an official relationship at all, and potentially only informal connections.  Or to think of it differently, we can't state for a fact based on our sources that there was an official relationship. Mackan79 (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it was me. In pointing out that the sources disagree about the nature of Khalidi's formal relationship with the PLO it is important to note that some sources either omit or reject that there was a formal relationship with the PLO.  Anything else would be favoring one side of the issue.  Wikidemon (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "If any" does seem a bit gratuitous. We have already plainly stated that "sources disagree."Historicist (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How about we drop "if any" and instead say "Subsequent sources disagree on the nature or existence of Khalidi's official relationship…" While many believe the evidence is irrefutable, others believe not that way, so perhaps this would be acceptable? -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)