Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 7

Latest proposed compromise/consensus language
Historicist (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"nature or existence" perhaps? Also, maybe we should get a version WITH the citations (and a reflist section) in a collapsable box so we have a markup of text and sources before we put it into the article? -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Nature or existence" is fine. The cited version would be helpful - I don't know if there is a way on a page to limit footnotes to only citations from a short section of the page. Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Doing it like so should work:

collapse top ===Heading===  Text with citations ===References===  reflist collapse bottom -- Avi (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Here is the text with some of the proposed citations. I moved to the agreed "nature or existence" phrasing. User:Mackan, Historicist (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Location
I am, as I ever have been, willing to add this material to the bio as a consensus that it well-sourced, not a violation of BPL, or NPOV, and, that it therefore belongs in the article. I am also happy to have it as a subsection of Public Life.Historicist (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the form proposed the material is more about what Khalidi actually did than the controversy surrounding it. Accordingly, I think it makes the most sense to put it in the section on his career rather than the existing section on the 2008 campaign controversy.  The article organization is a little convoluted as it is, and not entirely chronological, so as best as I can figure the "public life" is where it fits.  My $0.02. Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Photograph
With all of the discussion we are having, it would be nice if we could get a free-use photo of him for the article. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Columbia University. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Material added by ChildofMidnight
The material added by ChildofMidnight is unacceptable for several reasons.

The first paragraph: "Rashid Khalidi was noted by media for working as a spokesman for the PLO in Lebanon between 1976 and 1982 as well as heading Palestinian press agency Wafa.[25][26][27] However, The Washington Times reported in 2004 that Khalidi was denying that he ever worked for the PLO.[28]" Khalidi was not noted by these media for working as a spokesman. He was quoted in these media, under different appellations. To assemble three of these citations and make this kind of statement is original research (WP:SYNTH), contentious, and unacceptable in a BLP. Second but equally importantly, the Washington Times does not show him denying that he "ever worked for the PLO." The statement is only as to being a "spokesman," and it is a highly partisan source (the article's title: "Arafat Minion as Professor").

The second paragraph: "In his book Palestinian Identity, Khalidi writes of being asked by Faisal al-Husayni, a leader of the PLO, to serve as an advisor if Palestinian-Israeli negotiations were begun.[29] Khalidi agreed to serve at the Madrid Conference of 1991. He was required to travel to the various meeting points - Madrid, Oslo, Jerusalem and Washington D.C. - for weeks at a time over a two year period. Khalidi worked alongside other notable advisors including Faisal al-Husayni. [30]" First, the statement that al-Husayni is a leader of the PLO is not found in the source; including this statement is again a contentious use of original synthesis. Khalidi is widely reported to have served at the Madrid conference; no reliable source that I am aware of states that he served the PLO or connects this to the PLO. This paragraph has no place in a discussion of "Relations with PLO," if such a discussion should exist.

The last paragraph: "Khalidi wrote: "The Palestinian-Israeli negotiations at Madrid, Washington D.C., and Oslo, starting in 1991, appeared to put the process toward statehood back on track, and seemed to justify the highest hopes of, and for, the PLO." [31]" This is pure original synthesis, again to suggest that he was serving the PLO in Madrid, when in fact the statement has nothing to do with Khalidi's service at the conference.

Good faith or not, this material is completely unacceptable. I will remove it so that we can return to discussion about something that could work. Mackan79 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - IMO, I don't see how some if any of those citations posted by CoM are connecting Mr. Rashid Khalidi to the PLO. For example; the book does state that The Palestinian-Israeli negotiations at Madrid, Washington D.C., and Oslo, starting in 1991, appeared to put the process toward statehood back on track, and seemed to justify the highest hopes of, and for, the PLO. However, it goes on to say... In fact, however, a careful examination... brought the Palestinians no closer to their goals of liberation, independence, and statefood. It might not be OR, but it is at least manipulation of facts; unintentionally or not. VX! 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the sentence was originally added (not by CoM) to give the impression that Khalidi was relaying his own goals at the Madrid conference as those of the PLO. If you read the passage, however, then you see that he is not talking about his involvement at all.  Rather, the material comes from a section purely about the PLO, and not about himself or any role that he played, and as such is completely irrelevant to any discussion of his role at the conference.  This is indeed the kind of thing that some of us are trying to guard against, and why getting the material correct can be difficult. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to see you assert that I haven't discussed the sourced material on the talk page. As you know I've repeatedly suggested altering the content to address any issues you are raising. Wholesale deletion of sourced content is grossly inappropriate. There are many sources in the section I added and they are reliable, scuh as the LA Times. The LA Times says he was a spokeperson, so it's well sourced and if you have another source that condradicts that, please add it. I object to your removing an entire section rather than correcting or clarifying it. Please put the material back with any corrections needed instead of removing all of it.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a consensus discussion afoot and the various parties do not seem to be far from reaching a consensus on the content. The material stays out until and unless there is consensus to include something.  Do not keep adding disputed material, particularly material challenged on WP:BLP grounds.  And again, please do not derail the attempts at consensus.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, consensus needs to be reached before you go blindly putting in content that caused the discussion in the first place. VX! 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason there is a discussion is because the section was removed. I welcome your retitle or tweaks to make it accurate and to make it better reflect teh sources. But to take out a whole section because you have an issue with some part of it inappropriate. Fix it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've said this several times, CoM, but you must realize that "fixing" material is not always so simple. I pointed out above that two of your three paragraphs do not belong in the section you created at all, as the sources are misused and do not support the argument.  The remaining paragraph is incorrect on both sentences, and could not be corrected without new language, new sources, and additional material to support the existence of the section.  This is not a simple issue; a great deal of research has been done here and on various blogs, but almost none of it has been assembled in what Wikipedia generally considers reliable sources on a BLP (that some say one of the blog posts is reliable because it is externally published does not exactly resolve the issue).  To simply throw the material up anyway results in exactly the kinds of mistakes you made, where you supply a sentence of Khalidi referring to the "hopes" of the PLO as if these were also his own, when the sentence was mined from one context and placed now in entirely another.  It isn't as if Wikidemon or I have not made proposals for that matter, as I have made several, and Wikidemon has made at least one, but all of these could be in different sections, focusing on different issues, etc.  This is why we have talk pages to iron these things out.  Mackan79 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether fixing material is simple or not fixes need to be attempted. It's not right to just remove a whole section of content and keep out any and all controversies no matter how notable. Where is the accurate version of this information that you are proposing? It's been two months now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Mackan79 is right. Please review WP:BRD, WP:BLP, WP:EW, and WP:CONSENSUS.  But nevermind.  Your edit warring over this got the article protected so nobody can insert or delete anything now.  The "fix" editors agree on is the one you call "politically correct nonsense", a "whitewash", and a "sham".  I'm afraid I cannot help you fix that.  Unless you  have a reasoned argument why your BLP violation is better, the consensus version is the one we should go with.Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! If everyone agrees on it let an Admin know and they will put it in the article. I'm thrilled that you've finally agreed on a a version of the information that's acceptable to you personally. As you know all I've been asking is that the information be included and that you stop your disruptive obstruction. I'm not fooled by your silly distortions and twisting of the truth. Anyone who wants to can read the archived discussion for themselves. I'm thrilled this is finally at an end. Please let an Admin know you're ready to add the section you removed back, so we can all go back to constructive contributing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (inserted out of sequence) Setting aside the misstatement of the record, does this mean that you will accept the version being discussed in the collapsed section above? If so, kindly say that and let us finish discussing without any further abuse.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As might be guessed from the continuing discussion, we don't yet have a consensus version. I made one proposal at 11:21 here, a second at 9:03 here, and a third at 6:55 here. I'd earlier made another proposal for the 2008 election section here   Wikidemon made a proposal here.  Problems or at least disagreements have been noted with each of these, so we are still working on it.


 * Incidentally, you say on AN/I that Khalidi is a controversial and polarizing figure. And yet, a very wide array of reliable sources refer to him in what could fairly be described as glowing terms; see for instance the paragraph I provided at 19:44 here.  Or see Martin Peretz here I'm not sure the article is currently negative or glowing, but my point is that it needs to not be either. Mackan79 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we have a consensus we should implement it. If not we should drop the matter.  The article is protected and I cannot see consensus discussion or further mediation being productive.  I will comment on the above exchange at AN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts
The fact that Khalidi worked for the PLO in Beirut before 1983 is well established by reliable, secondary sources. The news articles that mention Rashid Khalidi in his Beirut period between 1976 and 1984 are collected here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashid_Khalidi/Archive_6#The_Evidence    While it is true that some of these articles quote him without describing him as a PLO spokesman, it is equally true that some articles quote him without describing him as a professor. What they do say, however, is  that he worked for the PLO. While one article describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and another as  "a Palestinian with good access to the PLO leadership,"   the great majority of these articles, in major news sources including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times describe him in a straightforward fashion as a “spokesman” “spokesperson”  “official” “a director of the (PLO) press agency”  or as an academic who  “works for the PLO.”   In these interviews, Khalidi sometimes describes PLO positions and activities using the pronoun “we”  For example, in 1981, he was quoted by the Christian Science Monitor explaining the relationship between the PLO headquarters in Beirut and the Palestinians in Israel.: “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…” Multiple very reliable sources prove that Khalidi  worked for the PLO in Beirut. This is a significant part of the man’s career. And an important fact to include in an article about a man whose entire career, after all, has been devoted to writing about Arab nationalism, whose most significant book is a history of Palestinian nationalism, and who is a leading spokesman in English for the Palestinian national cause. Historicist (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what purpose that serves here. Other editors and I disagree with this presentation of the facts as an accurate, balanced, or complete representation of the sources.  The same material has been repeatedly presented, and I do not wish to repeat myself in repudiating it.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus version

 * I still agree to this consensus text.Historicist (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless it's been stated I still need to hear exactly where this is to go, and exactly the heading. That's a deal breaker as I've said, since much of the concern here is more or less WP:Undue.


 * Specific to the text, I notice that the reported denial is still missing, leaving the impression that Khalidi has addressed this without denying that he was a spokesman, despite that many sources report that he has denied it. I don't think the denial is strictly necessary, but if we're addressing the specific allegation and his response, then it would seem to be.  If this is intended to be a section on "PLO relations," then the sentence about Madrid should not be there, but I am not convinced that there should be such a section as I've said.  The extensive quotes on the PLO are interesting, but these also seem more like his views on the conflict than biographical material (the same is true for his statement about suicide bombing under international law, which it was suggested that I add).  Again, whether this material belongs seems to depend largely on where exactly we're talking about, the section, between what paragraphs, and so on.  If we can't find an appropriate place, then it suggests we need to think harder about what material to include. Mackan79 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like this would be about as far as I can go in describing that some sources tied Khalidi to an official position with the PLO. It is not ideal but as a compromise to reach consensus.  I do agree that we should add a sentence that says simply that Khalidi denies that he was a PLO spokesman.  That is in fact the best sourced fact of the entire affair, having appeared in most of the major publications.  To avoid creating a seeming contradiction or dispute when there is none I would put that right after the sentence beginning "Subsequent sources".  There is a paragraph break to be inserted just before "From 1991 to 1993".  The material should go in his biographical section (i.e. "public life") because that is what it is, and if there is a heading it should neutrally describe what the whole matter is about, i.e. "Involvement in Palestinian politics."  In that context his views of the PLO, and the sourcing question of exactly what he was doing with the PLO, are both relevant.  Finally we need to agree on the footnotes (I think we do but we should mock them up to make sure everyone is clear.  I don't think anyone is perfectly happy with this version, but that's what compromise is all about -- if everyone is slightly unhappy that means we've reach some middle ground.  I do think this avoids the BLP vio, which was the main thing.  I'd urge you to take a breath and ask yourself whether you can live with it - not whether it is the best version but whether it is unobjectionable.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another option would be simply to remove "Responding to depiction as a PLO spokesman," and say "Khalidi has denied being a PLO spokesman, stating that he [insert quote]." Since we say he was cited with the PLO this would make the point, and is how most of these sources seem to cover it.


 * Regarding your suggestion on placement, it's not clear to me that this would be correct (or unobjectionable). The "Public Life" section seems to be mostly for individual issues relevant to Khalidi that sit somewhat on their own, separate from his career.  In contrast, the material here seems rather plainly to be about his career, to the extent it isn't about the 2008 election controversy.  Similarly, if we are addressing his involvement in Palestinian politics, I don't see why this would be separated from "Family, education, and career," where the rest of his career is summarized.  In either case, if the section is on his involvement in Palestinian politics, then the issue is that this gives greatly undue weight to his views on the PLO, with all but one sentence addressing this topic.  The problem is, this whole PLO issue was mentioned in a couple of magazines as a rumor as of 2004 or 2005, before which it had never been discussed, and only exploded in the 2008 election.  This is why I've contested the idea that we can address this by now characterizing his entire career of political involvement in terms of Khalidi and the PLO.  More simply put, this is either an issue of Khalidi's early career, or it is an issue that was raised in the 2008 elections, but this idea that it has been an overarching issue of his political life is incorrect, an original and highly contentious interpretation.  Mackan79 (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am fine with either approach regarding denying being a PLO spokesman. I think the placement problem arises from the article's organization, not a problem with the content.  Ideally there would be a single roughly chronological account of Khalidi's life and career.  We could then put the entire thing in the part about the late 1970s and 1980s.  Looking at it again, I do agree that it goes better in the family, education, and career section.  I also see that the public life section has a bunch of unrelated stuff that ought to be merged elsewhere.  Let's just stick it in the career section, and after the article is unprotected someone can be bold and reorganize the whole thing.  It does look like undue attention to an issue not sourced as important to his career, but I think the problem is that other elements of his career are a little too short, not that this is too long.   Wikidemon (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just edited the proposal, in the spirit of that kind of boldness, to something that I think could be placed as a third paragraph in the "Family, Education, and Career" section. That was, 1.) to fit the first sentence into the narrative, 2.) to add the reported denial, and 3.) to remove what I think is then excessive discussion of his criticism of the PLO.  Like with my earlier suggestion, the sentence about the Madrid conference could then be placed in the next paragraph.  If the change wasn't welcome of course anyone can edit it back, or make another suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment+query: in general, this version seems ok though I think the sentense about "Subsequent sources disagree" should be clarifid a bit further. It currently reads (to me) a bit like it's more supportive of the 'is not' version and I believe it should actually lean a bit towards the '[soucres say] he is' considering the reliable sources I've encountered personally (e.g. Ehud Yeari). Still, seems like an oversall reasonable version. What were the general objections with this version?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding my recent edits to the proposal, I have added some sources to stand for the proposition that subsequent sources disagree: A 2005 New York Sun and 2008 LA Times article that attribute Khalidi as a PLO spokesman (these bolster the Kampeas / Kramer / Lippman pieces that I can accept only as a matter of compromise but do not consider reliable sources per policy), a 2008 Haaretz piece that says that Khalidi was never a PLO spokesman, and a 2008 CNN piece that says "this may be a question of semantics". I have my own opinion about what the sources say but it would be best if we can avoid trying to synthesize them.  The safest thing we can all agree on is to say that these sources differ, as they obviously do.  I also added two sources to stand for the claim that Khalidi denied being a spokesman.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll 1: text of consensus version
It seems that everyone recently involved has said in one way or another that they can accept the current proposed version we have been editing of late as the way this article deals with Khalidi's reported relationship with the PLO. See the "Suggested text (under construction)" heading. Can we confirm this and, if so, ask that it be implemented under article probation? I am taking the liberty of adding a note about each person's apparent approval, in italics so it's clear this is just my summary. Feel free to replace this with your actual statement about the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Avi - Indicates approval "with some minor corrections" / "kinks" - WD
 * User:ChildofMidnight - unknown. -WD
 * User:Historicist - "I still agree to this consensus text" - WD
 * User:Jaakobou - "in general, this version seems ok" - WD
 * User:Mackan79 - "Something that I think could be placed" - WD
 * User:Wikidemon - Will join if there is a consensus around this version. Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Other users - Please indicate your position here.

Straw poll 2: placement and heading
(Can someone else propose this? Thx) - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the article needs restructuring, but at the moment I see two possible places for the paragraph:
 * 1) Under Views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * 2) Under Family, education and career

Under the current structure, I think "Views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is more appropriate, but I would prefer to see career spun off from "Family and education" and the entire "Public life" section merged into a "Career/Views" section. -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I understand why an assessment of where he worked and what positions he held would be better placed under his views than it would under his career. Perhaps the article could be better organized, but I believe that is what we have in separating these sections: First, a basic outline of where he's been and what he's been doing throughout his life, and second a discussion of his views  as a commentator.  This is why I modified the first sentence slightly, so it could fit directly as a third paragraph in the "Family, Education and Career" section.  I suppose we could have a single narrative, but then Wikipedia articles tend to be separated like this, which generally seems reasonable to me.  Mackan79 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone else going to comment? -- Avi (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened?
I come back after a near agreement on the following as a consensus edit and find massive edit wars and a locked article. Someone, please clue me in on what happened? -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight put up a version of the material using not the version we were wroking on but a blunt version that, while sourced, was not couched in language Wikidemon liked. User:Wikidemon locked the page, and started flinging nasty and inaccurate accusations here: WP:AN/I. I suspect that Wikidemon's acton, locking the page and writing this WP:AN/I instead of inviting Child of Midnight to come back to the talk page, or just putting up the consensus language, is evidence of Wikidemon's   determination to block this material from ever going on the  page.Historicist (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify Historicist, user:EyeSerene full protected the page for a month. I'm sure this action will spur Wikidemon to end his disruptive obstruction. (rolls eyes). He'll be adding a consensus version any day now... Don't worry. Oh wait, I'm not allowed to call it obstruction. What should removing information and refusing to agree to restoring any version of well sourced content be called? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally it's more useful to address Wikidemon's substantive comments than it is to accuse him of acting in bad faith. If you've done this with him (or with me), I haven't seen it, but I've seen you make these accusations several times.  The point is to avoid name calling, which anyone can do but usually doesn't help much of anything, and focus on the material itself where progress can potentially be made. Mackan79 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to being uncivil, the accusations and descriptions of the edit history are simply untrue. It is bizarre that I keep getting accused by these two editors of things I simply did not do. 08:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What really happened. I won't bother responding to yet another round of untruths and personal attacks above.  But what actually happened is that even though ChildofMidnight had been warned against doing this before he decided that further consensus discussion was unwarranted, so after a bit of preliminary trolling he put up his own version of he material and began revert warring on it.  It was reverted twice on BLP grounds by Mackan79,, who explained his objections in detail leading Eyeserene to fully edit protect the article for a month, and ChildofMidnight to file a bogus AN/I complaint, presumably against me.  Since then Historicist and ChildofMidnight have been engaging in increasingly vituperative personal attacks against me. Wikidemon (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Avi, I trust you are still okay with it, right? The last fully articulated version was Historicist's reprise at 18:40, 19 December 2008, with footnotes from the "collapsed version" just before that, and a few minor items on everyone's to do list.  Mackan79 has some concerns still that I think we can address if nobody disrupts the discussion again.  If the four of us go to the editor who protected the article (or to the AN/I board) and announce that we have reached a consensus then I suspect they'll be willing to either implement it or lift the protection so we can do so.  ChildofMidnight is the only wildcard here, and I have no idea how he/she might react. Wikidemon (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Like you, Wikidemon, I believe that the version posted above (with some minor corrections) while not optimal, is sufficient to comply with the major points of all the interested parties here, and if we can work out the kinks, we can go to the blocking admin and tell him that the conflict was resolved. -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's acceptable. It's also worth noting that Historicist signed on before I made a couple of changes, so I'm not sure if he objected to those (I don't think they contradicted points he had made, but all the same). I'm not clear on what the kinks are, but I'm willing to assume those won't be major issues.  Mackan79 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think the current version is the one Historicist re-posted, and some modified, just under the "Suggested text (under construction)" heading. Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Historicist just hasn't necessarily signed on to the modifications, right? As far as I know we now have you, Avi and me affirming that the current "under construction" material is ok. Mackan79 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Over zealous use of citation needed tags
Unacceptable use of citation needed tags

In Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East (2004), Khalidi takes readers on a historical tour of Western intervention in the Middle East, and argues that these interventions continue to have a colonialist nature that is both morally unacceptable and likely to backfire.[citation needed]

Suitable citation is:- Rashid Khalidi (2005) Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East Beacon Press, ISBN 0807002356 p v introduction. the book itself in the introduction states what is encapsulated by the article. Whoever placed the citation needed tag may wish to re-read WP:CIVIL before, what appears to be, unnecessary flyby tagging...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

University of California Journal of Palestine Studies current editorial staff. citation for first citation needed tag on Academic work that took 0.22 seconds to find on google....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

second citation needed is a spurious tag as the information is contained within the article. Look in the Bibliography
 * 1) Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Columbia University Press, 1997.
 * 2) The Origins of Arab Nationalism (Co-editor), Columbia University Press, 1991.

The second tag should therefore be removed as it is disruptive....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Third tag in accademic work:- "There is of course, a great mass of custom-tailored information in books, newspapers and magazine articles. Unfortunately, most of these fall into the categories of pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian propaganda or disinformation ... The exceptions, however deserve the highest praise; whatever their stance or political orientation, their concern was primarily with information and understanding ... The other exception is the Journal of Palestine Studies, published and edited by Hisham Sharabi since 1971, a quarterly magazine that is critically pro-PLO, but invaluable in its documentation of the PLO position.  Unfortunately, no comparable journal exists yet in Israel."

- David Kimche, former Director-General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, writing of sources "on our relations with the Palestinians" 

quote taken directly from Journal of Palestine Studies article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

citation for first citation needed tag Public life Layola University of Chicago ''Dr. Rashid Khalidi is President of the American Committee on Jerusalem, and editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies. He was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993.''...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed number one in the article. And as to "has Khalidi taught at Columbia" even the extremist organisation Campus watch do not challenge Khalidi's academic credentials.... Ismail Khalidi was actually a Saudi citizen, educated in American schools in Lebanon and in the U.S. — including at Columbia, his son Rashid's current pulpit, where the elder Khalidi got his doctorate in 1955. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has been undergoing intense discussions for weeks and weeks now, Ashley. We are very close to a consensus, so some extra patience is called for. Once the article is unlocked, we can address other issues. -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)