Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

---

Article concerns

Relationships with 2008 Presidential candidates

Can we edit this section down to something very brief. It's not actually part of the man's career. Just something his name got dragged into.Historicist (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Full name, wife, 1948 Birth date

As shown by databases, his full name is Rashid Ismail Khalidi and he was born November 18, 1948. His wife is Mona T. Khalidi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfdsadfafsdfasdf (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Family, education and career

Spent some time cleaning up this section. The previous incarnation had concealed the decade Khalidi spent in Lebanon by listing the academic appointments out of chronological order and lumping everything prior ot Columbia under the misleading phrase "many years" at U. chicago. It was eight years, apparently a year or two less than Lebanon. I believe tathat this is the bes place for the much-discussed, early career PLO connection. I bow to the concensus that it should go in but not in its own section. The advisor-at-Madrid thing should also go somewhere.Historicist (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

The Missing years

I cannot account for the years 1974-76, and 1983-85. Is this when he was at the University of Lebanon? At Georgetown?Historicist (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Academic career

I'm going to augment that section next. It really should be the longest in an academic career.Historicist (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

A small improvement, but all I have time for now.Historicist (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Public life

Wikidemon's suggestion that there should be an expanded general section abotu the reception of his views is a good one.Historicist (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

New section on militant organizations

I have posted a well-sourced description of both sides of the controversy. It is notable and it is accurate, and I believe that it is unequivocably not a BLP violation. Should you feel otherwise, especially you wikidemon, I would request you bring valid reasoning here before engaging in edit-warring. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have asked for input from WP:PPalestine, WP:IPCOLL, and WP:Israel. -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the content is notable, well-sourced, and does not constitute a BLP violation. However, I think there should be a controversy section detailing this and other controversies, rather than being part of the 'public life' section. But this is a style concern, not a content concern, which is what the edit war seems to be about. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like very good NPOV Wikipedian writing to me, though I'm not familiar with the topic. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)^{G-Dett makes some good points. 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC))}

OK, first the positive. I appreciate your attempt at compromise. I appreciate your soliciting my feedback. And I appreciate that you've struck a tone of restraint and neutrality in what you've written. All very good, all very appreciated.

That said, I can't support this version. It goes directly against every single objection I've raised on this page, indeed as if in ignorance of them. You present claim and counterclaim, all very well. But the "according to" claim presents a passing attribution in a 23-year-old primary-source news article as if Thomas Friedman were a party to this dispute. He isn't. His 23-year-old sentence (which you've turned into a present-tense claim, which is another problem) is the football, but Friedman isn't one of the football players. There is a very important difference between primary and secondary sources, and it's especially important in this dispute, because the significance of passing attributions in primary sources is precisely what's being fought over by the secondary sources who have made this a notable subject in the first place, if indeed it is one.

Then there's your counterclaim, about Khalidi's apparent denial. It's sourced to a strident, verging-on-hysterical anti-Khalidi op-ed in a highly partisan newspaper. We have only the strident, verging-on-hysterical op-ed writer's word that in the context-free quotation he's provided – which I cannot find corroborated anywhere – Khalidi is even "denying" a PLO association in the first place. Historicist rightly points out that the "denial" is not a denial. For Historicist, this is evidence of how sly and slippery Khalidi is. For me, it's simply symptomatic of the fact that this is an uncorroborated quotation provided by a bad source who offers insinuation in lieu of context.

Totally absent from this presentation is the most significant fact about the dispute, and the only fact that gives this a snowball's chance in hell of notability, and that's the fact that several right-wing pro-Israel bloggers who have been murmuring about this for years suddenly, and very briefly, got a mainstream audience for their murmurings in the context of the 2008 U.S. presidential election. I am not categorically against inclusion of this material, but if it isn't presented in terms of the secondary sources who have made this (arguably) notable, then I will rigorously oppose it.--G-Dett (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify something regarding the above. When I say I would want the dispute to be introduced by way of the secondary sources who are arguing about this (rather than presenting the primary sources as if they were party to the dispute), I don't mean I'd want these secondary sources identified as "right-wing pro-Israel" or whatever. They'd just be identified by name and claim. In other words, no well-poisoning.--G-Dett (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Coming over from the Collaboration page over A's request, and without reading the whole article or looking at anything above on the talk page, and commenting generally as one would in any BLP, I would make the following comments:

• You mention Thomas Friedman and "other sources" but there are no other sources in footnote. Why not say that LA Times article mentions it too? Both should have the correct past tense, if he no longer is considered by anyone a spokes.
• It is WP:UNDUE to quote in two different foot notes whole paragraphs from an article which is easily linked online.
• On the other hand, it would be far more NPOV to say: "Khalidi denies being a spokesman for the PLO, (REF Wash Time and Wash Post articles), stating that he often spoke to journalists in Beirut and was often cited as a well-informed Palestinian source and may have been misidentified as a PLO spokesman. (REF Wash Times). I would delete Dobbs mere speculation on whether he was a formal or informal spokes as WP:UNDUE being mere speculation from only ONE WP:RS. Such organizations don't always have "formal" spokespeople and it seems a backhanded way of inferring he was a formal spokes posing as informal one, which doesn't seem very WP:NPOV. If there were 3 or 4 WP:RS opinions to that effect it might be appropriate.
• I did notice LA Times article mentions Khalidi "decried suicide bombings against civilians as a 'war crime' and criticized the conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders." but a search of the word suicide in article didn't turn up a mention. Hopefully this kind of attitude is mentioned?? I'll take a look at whole article for any such POVs when get a chance. Carol Moore 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, having read G. Dett's comments it looks like it belongs in the Obama section and only the more recent sources should be used and only reflect what he actually said and not someone's interpretation of that. Carol Moore 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to have an entire section devoted to it, then it's not necessary to have the PLO bit in the "Family, education and career" section. It cited many of the same sources as the new "Controversy regarding relationships with militant organizations" section, so it was basically duplicate information. No need to mention the same thing twice IMO. Khoikhoi 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the material attempting to claim he is a "director" or "spokesman" of the PLO. That is not well sourced, and no amount of saying it is not a BLP violation makes that so. We clearly do not yet have consensus on how to treat this. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed whole section because Friedman was writing a positive review and saw R.K's contacts as basically useful to writing a book and that info should be presented in that context, but not as a controversy. One Opinion Piece from the Wash Times does not create a controversy worthy of a whole section, though it might go under Obama section if timely. 3 or 4 from different WP:RS would. Carol Moore 23:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Separating facts from misunderstandings

Because some people have come recently to this very long discussion, I would like to clarify two things:

Khalidi has never denied that he was employed by the PLO. He has answered this question only once (as far as I can ascertain.) He answered by email, and if you read what he wrote you will see that it is not a denial. "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."

There are four, strong, secondary contemporary sources: Source #1:"The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for Pacifica in Berkeley, California [1] 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." Sopurce#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 # 3: 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 [2]. Source #4: “Palestinians, People in Crisis, Are Scattered and Divided; The Palestinians First-of a Series,” New York Times, February 19, 1978, Sunday, Page 1, James M. Markham
- New York Times noted that Khalidi “works for the PLO,” in 1978. Source # 5 “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

"Never denied" is not an appropriate test. Four reliable sources mentioning something in the course of an attribution is weak. Considering that the question is whether to describe the subject of the article as an agent of a terrorist organization, we would need something stronger - an article that actually goes into his role and position. If he really were in the employ of the PLO, given th e thousands of articles about him, one would expect that to come out. As is, it looks like mining sources for something they do not truly show. Wikidemon (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, "Never denied" is not an appropriate test of what? Sometimes your logis is too convoluted to understand. My point was that Khalidi has never denied that he was a PLO spokesman. He has dismissed the accusation and he has permitted (encouraged?) others to deny it for him. In a man of Rashid's sophistication and long experience in handling press, I find this an interestigng and telling detail. If he never had an official position with the PLO, he has certainly had every opportunity to say so.Historicist (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

"Interesting and telling detail" = original research. We are not investigators. You need to take that hobby horse back to the stables before someone hauls it off the track and shoots it.--G-Dett (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon is asserting that The experienced foreign correspondents for the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times (two reporters in two different years) and the Washington Post are weak sources. And that Radio Pacifica recorded an hour long interview in the office of a PLO official and misidentifies the location of the office, the name of the organization, and the official. Horsefeathers.Historicist (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

No he isn't. The point is that they're primary sources who are not party to the dispute; the significance of their passing attributions are what others are disputing. If it becomes permissible to write –

According to Thomas Friedman of The New York Times and other sources, Khalidi has "close contacts in the Palestine Liberation Organization leadership,"[28] and has served as "a director of the Palestinian press agency," Wafa.

–then it becomes acceptable to follow that with

In no other news agency's reports, and in no other reports by the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times, was Khalidi ever described as working for the PLO. According to The Washington Times in 2004, Khalidi described these two as instances of misattribution. Khalidi was cited dozens of times throughout that period by other news organs, who described him variously as "Rashid Khalidi of the Institute of Palestinian Studies," "a professor of political science who is close to Al Fatah," "a Palestinian academic who is an observer at the PNC," "a professor of political science at Beirut's prestigious American University," "a Georgetown University analyst," and "a Palestinian professor at the American University of Beirut."

The point remains exactly what it has been for the last several weeks: in a dispute among secondary sources about the significance of passing attributions in primary sources, it is unacceptable to quote the primary sources as if they were parties to the dispute. Otherwise, you simply open up the primary-source archives to original research – whether Avi's original research or mine.--G-Dett (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well described, G-Dett. I see your points, and I have to think about this. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Post's defense of Rashid Khalidi ["An 'Idiot Wind,' " editorial, Oct. 31] was generally commendable, but in fairness to Sen. John McCain, it should be noted that Mr. Khalidi was indeed "a PLO spokesman."

In the early years of the Lebanese civil war, Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict. As we used to say in the pre-electronic newspaper business: Check the clips.

THOMAS W. LIPPMAN

The Middle East Institute

Washington Lippman was a Reporter and editor for The Washington Post (1966-1999, 2003); covered the war in Iraq for the Post (2003) and served as diplomatic, national security, and Middle East correspondent (based in Cairo) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/31/AR2008103103603_3.htmlHistoricist (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

a Pundit concedes "Martin is right - the evidence of Rashid Khalidi's PLO past is now irrefutable. Shahmat to him." continues here:http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2008/11/03/1000727/so-bustedHistoricist (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Why the unrelenting push to add a questionable designation pushed during the election cycle as part of the "palling around with terrorists" gambit? There is not adequate sourcing to establish that Khalidi was a "PLO spokesman" or "director" despite claims to the contrary. Most of the sources do not say this, and as I said four sources plus a strained argument that he "never denied" is weak. Wikipedia is not the place to argue on logical grounds that four sources trump thousands of others. Further, there is not adequate sourcing to establish a dispute over whether Khalidi was or was not a PLO spokesman. Somewhere between zero and one source among the thousands pay any attention to the fact that there is a debate - to find a controversy or disagreement with reporting we would have to put into opposition sources that were never meant to debate each other, which is original research. Finally, what would we accomplish if we did say that he is a PLO spokesman or has been called such? Only an implication, which is part of the political debate and blogs but not in the sources, that he was somehow an agent of the PLO, i.e. in their employ and doing their bidding, which makes him a terrorist, hence Obama dealt with and supported terrorists. On the other hand there is plenty of sourcing that Khalidi was in contact with the PLO, that some people considered those contacts inappropriately close, and made an issue of Khalidi in the last election. That's what we can source, just not the last two or three dots some people are trying to connect. In fact, it looks likely that those dots are, as one of the sources suggests, not a substantive matter at all regarding what Khalidi did but rather a semantic matter of what one calls it. There are plenty of things that need doing on the encyclopedia, and on this article, that are not such a stretch. Why don't we stick to what we can readily source and set down the questionable derogatory labels about living people? Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, please do me the courtesy to accept that I and many others in the academic community who interact with Rashid and know intensity of his passionate comitment to Palestine have been concerned for many years about the persistent rumors that in his youth he worked for the PLO. To many of us, who work with historical sources, this spate of new evidence is very convincing.Historicist (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Wikipedia is not the first place to repeat persistent rumors about a person's hidden past or concerns in his community about it. If the academic community is worried that he was actually in the PLO's employ, becomes embroiled in a controversy over it, and/or ends up ostracizing him, then presumably there will be reliable sources that report on the happening, and we can refer to those sources. If nobody has written about it being a controversy within academia, Wikipedia isn't set up to break the news. I think it is eminently sourceable that Khalidi is controversial due to his proximity and commitment to the PLO, as you describe it. However, I do not see sufficient sources for Wikipedia to come off the fence and conclude that he actually worked for the PLO, or to report that there is a controversy as to whether he did. The controversy seems to be over the wider issue of his being too close to the PLO in general. Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon is wrong: There are not four of thousands of sources. These are among the very first mentions of Khalidi in the media. Until he left Beirut, he was most often identified as a PLO spokesman in mainstream media.

Are you saying there are more than four or does the count still stand at four sources that identify him as a PLO spokesman? Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Four have come to light, two in NYT, one in LAT, and Pacifica Radio. He was entirely unknown in America at that time, had published no op-eds, and was only infrequently quoted. These were about the only mainstream media mentions of Khalidi prior to his return to the United States. And why, in your last edit, did you refer to Thomas Lippman, a distinguished journalist, as a "poor source"? An anonymous Wikipedia editor calling the recollection of a thirty-year Washington Post veteran "poorly sourced" is a bit rich. Lippman felt compelled to set the record straight out of fairness. If you want to be fair, ask him about it: twl22 AT columbia.edu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.242.201 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur that Thomas Lippman is an extremely good source. He was, after all, the Washington Post correspondent in the Near East at the time.Historicist (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

The comment by #79.183.242.201 is interesting. And quite accurate. I have checked the google news archive. Google news has precisely 4 hits for Rashid Khalidi pre 1983. One is a reference to his book. One describes him as "historian at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut" one as "a professor of political science who is close to Al Fatah" and one (in German) identified as a professor. In the German-language one he tells the reporter that he wass born in Jerusalem, certainly untrue. There are probably a few other articles out there that quote him by name, in addition to these. But Wikidemon, can you pleas tell us where you got the information that there were thousands? He may, of course, have given thousands of interviews, specifying that he spoke on background or that his name not be used. But as to interviews in which he is identified, I can only identify eight.Historicist (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Counting ghits is an imprecise measure for all kinds of reasons, but it's clear from this search[3] that the vast majority of sources that mention Khalidi (more than 1,000 in that search) say who he is without describing him as a former PLO spokesman. Four stray sources say he is. It is strained to argue on conjecture that those four are the correct ones based on timing. The Lippman source is obviously not reliable - it is a letter to the editor that is clearly the writer's personal recollection / opinion. That is not reliable per WP:BLP. Moreover, it was being used to support a claim that it did not even make: "Numerous journalists who interviewed him at the time assumed him to be a spokesman of the PLO, and identified him as such." It is a single unreliable primary source for the fact that a single journalist believes he is a PLO spokesman.Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, please attemp to argue clearly. This secment of the argument is about the number of sources that cite him during the years hw was in Lebanon. There are 8 discovered to date that cite him by name. One does so only to cite a book he wrote, whch leaves 7. Of these, four call him a spokesman or offical of the PLO and 1 says that he is "close to" the organization. Later sources, when he was a professor, say that he was a professor. So What?Historicist (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

My argument is plenty clear. 4 passing attributions / thousands of sources does not an argument make. It is not even enough weight to say that "some people claim" even in a non-BLP situation. Your timing argument is novel, but spurious. I am aware of no WP policies or guidelines that restrict sourcing of a person's bio to accounts written at the time. If it is relevant and true that he is a former PLO spokesman then sources of any date would say so. Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

please type:Rashid Khalidi PLO into a news google search,. then click "sort by date" and you will see a great deal of post-election coverage.Historicist (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

As Wikidemon perhaps forgets, he raised this objection some days ago. I responded by carefully searching for and posting a list of pre-election articles devoted to discussing Khalidi and his ties with the PLO and the Palestinian cause. At the time, he acknowledges that there had been rather a lot of discussion of the subject. I do admire Wikidemon's tactics, which appear to be to raise the same suurious objections over and over and over....Historicist (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Here is the old section that Wikidemon tiresomely demanded again:

Rashid Khalidi's affiliation with the PLO or lack thereof has been an issue for years now. Here is a list of articles about the controversial nature of Khalidi's political commmitments. I include no articles in which Khalidi is merely used as a source, there are thousands. I include no profiles of Khalidi, although there are many. I include no lengthy interviews with about substantive issues, although there are many page-long and hour-long interviews available with Khalidi as sole interviewee on some topic or other, usually, although not exclusively, to do with the Middle East. I include no articles in which Khalidi is one of a number of professors whose political commitments are under discussion, although there are scores, possibly hundreds. I include what is merely a small sample of feature articles dealing exclusively with Khalidi and exclusively with the controversial nature of his political commitments and affiliations and alleged affiliations. This man's politics and the nature of his PLO affiliation have been a matter of public controversy since at least 2002, when he was first mentioned as a possible Columbia hire. This is not a mere campaign issue. There are many more, these are only a small sample. • http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/04/22/news/12717.shtml • http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/25/princeton • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i22/22a00701.htm • http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i36/36a00702.htm • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i22/22a00701.htm • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i17/17a00702.htm • http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/education/features/10868/ • http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/190281 • http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-03-08/news/a-free-speech-war/1 • http://socialistworker.org/2005-1/533/533_16_RashidKhalidi.shtml • http://www.nysun.com/new-york/professor-khalidi-might-be-bound-for-princeton/9996/ • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i26/26a01003.htm • http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jul/08/20040708-083635-4366r/ • http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/civilrights/20050407/3/1371Historicist (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicist (talk • contribs)

Demolishing Wikidemon's argument that If it is relevant and true that he is a former PLO spokesman then sources of any date would say so. No, they would not in an instance like this where, until a couple of weeks ago, a connection was an allegation with little evidence in support. To see how this works, take a look at Hassan Diab. Old coverage might well have described him merely as a professor. Now that the French have released evidence that , like the evidence of Khalidi's work for the PLO, is old but previously not public knowledge, and proves something heretofore merely alleged, the descriptions of Hassan Diab will necessarily change. Khalidi, unlike Diab, is not accused of criminal activity, so the new evidence does not make headlines. although Counterpunch, unlike Wikidemon, seems to think it significant.Historicist (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Please, this is a Wikipedia talk page, not a professional wrestling baiting session. You have not '''Demolished''' anything. The point of a talk page is to seek consensus. You do not have mine and declaring victory over me will not get it. If this becomes uncivil I'll just withdraw from the conversation with a standing opposition to the proposed material. We're pretty much at the point where everyone has made their arguments and is just restating them. Getting past that, your cut-and-paste of an earlier post proves my point, not yours. Source #1 does not even mention the PLO. Source #2 does not mention the PLO. Sources 3, 5, and 6 are behind a password payment system so I will not comment. Source #4 does not mention the PLO. Source #7 does not mention the PLO. Source #8 does not mention the PLO. Source #9 does not mention the PLO. Source #10 does not mention the PLO. Source #11 does not mention the PLO. Source #12 is a bad link. Source #13 is behind a password. Source #14 is a Washington Times editorial that also calls him an "Arafat minion" - perhaps we should call him an Arafat minion as well. Source #15 is a bad link. Somehow this is supposed to prove he is a PLO spokesman or that there is a controversy as to whether he is? We already know he is controversial for his statements on Palestinian matters. Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As G-Dett has said, we are not investigators. I don't see how these are reliable secondary sources, and I furthermore fail to see why you continue to cite them. Scott Horton for example has called Tom Friedman's column in the New York Times "erroneous." ([4]) Khoikhoi 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

KhoikhoiAre you dismissing {s. Ilan Troen]]'s discussion of Khalidi (below)? It is certainly a reliable secondary source. As are the New York Times Los Angeles Times {{pacifica]] News service and Thomas Lippman of the Washington Post. But my point here is that you appear to have forgotten S. Ilan Toren's book.Historicist (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I have already addressed the "Beirut nerve center of the PLO" claim. To quote once again from a prominent international relations scholar, Stephen Zunes, Both McCain and Palin have referred to Khalidi as a former "spokesman" for the Palestine Liberation Organization, citing his time in Beirut during the late 1970s and early 1980s when the then-exiled PLO was based there and some of its armed factions were still engaged in terrorism. Khalidi was never a spokesman for the organization, however, instead serving during that period as a fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies and as a professor at the American University in Beirut. Later, he served in an advisory capacity for the non-PLO Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid peace talks. ([5]) Khoikhoi 18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi appears to believe that all sources are equal. Zunes asserts that “the source” of the assertion that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman is “a 2004 Washington Times article written by Asaf Romirowsky and by Jonathan Calt Harris.” Zunes does not address the fact that there were multiple news reports including one form the left-wing Pacifica, that described Khalidi ad a PLO spokesman. Hwe ought to have known about at least the Thomas Friedman article, yet he mentions only the Washington Tiimes article. This is because the Zunes article is an opinion piece written in the heat of a campaign. It was posted on Alternet, a publication more-or-less as far left as the Washington Times is right. I do not view either opinion piece as a source on Khalidi’s involvement with the PLO. The Troen/Lassner book is something else entirely. It is a work of carefully sourced scholarship.Historicist (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Khoikhoi does not believe that all sources are equal. Again you are engaging in original research. Because Zunes does not mention something or that he "ought to have known" something else does not mean that it is not a valid source. Zunes personally knows Khalidi, how is he not a reliable source? He even says, "I first met Khalidi in the Lebanese capital back in 1981 and recall him as someone who clearly embraced an independent and moderate nationalist perspective." His Wikipedia biography shows that he is a scholar, having published numerous publications on international relations and the Middle East. Who cares where the article was posted? Weren't you just arguing just a few hours ago that it's OK to link to blogs or personal websites as long as the source itself is reliable? Khoikhoi 20:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, like the Washington Times piece is an op-ed. And it's a deliberately misleading op-ed since it gives the reader impression that the only source for Khalidi's ties to the PLO is an assertion in an op-ed. We can cite op-eds from here to morning, and not prove anything except that a lot of people have opinions. The Thomas Lippman piece is also, as you note, the personal statement of a foreign correspondent who was in Lebanon. Its reliability derives from the fact that it was Lippman's job at the Washington Post to know the position of the sources he quoted. Zunes, who was also there, did not have such a responsibility. He might have known Khalidi and not known what his affiliation with the PLO was. This makes his assertion a smidgen less valuable than Lippman's. As to the fact that he know Rashid personally, hell, so do I. I probably see him more often than Zunes does since Zunes is at U San Francisco. Now, can we address the fact that the Lassner/Troen book is a reliable secnodary source.Historicist (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Attempt at a synopsis

OK. Let me see if I can distill the conversation into very basic elements.

Reasons for discussing Khalidi's possible relationship with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)

1. As a noted scholar of Palestinian history and culture, a relationship with an militant/terrorist (depending on which country you are in) organization of that culture would be ipso facto notable.
2. There are multiple historical reports describing Khalidi as a "spokesman" for the PLO.
3. There is at least one article which has relationship with the PLO as its primary subject (The Washington Post article).

Reasons for discussing Khalidi's possible relationship with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)

1. Most articles refer to Khalidi as such in passing. Using them as sources is not advisable as they would be considered "primary sources".
2. The Washington post article is described by one of the contributors here as a "strident, verging-on-hysterical anti-Khalidi op-ed in a highly partisan newspaper."
3. The absence of acceptable sources makes this a BLP violation.
4. This issue was dormant for years until being "stirred up" by pro-Israeli bloggers, and as such is not notable.

I admit, I probably have not accurately reflected the claims of the opposition, and would request corrections before I try and counter the opposition's arguments. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dormant it was not entirely dormant. It comes up every time Khalidi gets into the news, when he was proposed for a job at Columbia, during the flap over the ffunding of the Edward Said Chair, when he tried for and failed to get a job at Princeton, when Schools Chancellor Joel Klein kicked him out of a program to educate NYC School teachers, durng the Columbia unbecoming affray... It surfaces pretty regularly as an issue.Historicist (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

In passing The Pacifica interview is a long interview with Khalidi that describes him four different ways as wroking for the PLO, and it's prtty convincing because the interview takes place in the PLO offices. Do you allow your office to be used by some professor to give interviews about yout organizations?Historicist (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

The dedicated article is in the Washingotn Times, not the Washington Post.Historicist (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

In addition to the four contemporary articles, the Washington Post recently published a confirmation by Thomas Lippman, their correspondent at the period in question, affirming that Khalidi was indeed acting as an official spokesman for the PLO.Historicist (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist.

During the last week of the campaign, the Los Angeles Times affirmed its period description of Khalidi as a PLO spokesman by publishing an article flatly describing him as a spokesman for the PLO. Historicist (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

possibly the most important source is the book Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, by Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. It is persuasive because these are two very distinguished historians. It is persuasive because of its moderate, scholarly tone; because it discusses the importance of the PLO period for the development of Khalidi's career and intellectual understanding of the region, and because it is specific and matter of fact. Khalidi is described as : an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". You can easily find it by typing four terms : Rashid Khalidi Ilan Troen into google books. p. 72.Historicist (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Point of information Why is it relevant who "stirred up this discussion? The French Revolution was stirred up by pro-Revolution agitators and it was notable. Seriously, sometimes bad actors produce good evidence. We do not therefore ignore the evidence. The Rosetta stone was discovered as a result of an unjustifiable imperial invasion and conquest of Egypt by a notorious Revolutionary. By this logic, we should all stop reading ancient Egyptian documents.Historicist (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Wikidemon writes: "The Lippman source is obviously not reliable - it is a letter to the editor that is clearly the writer's personal recollection / opinion. That is not reliable." If prestigious journalists writing contemporary to events are not reliable, and prestigious journalists writing subsequent to events are not reliable, then references to The Washington Post and the New York Times might as well be banned from Wikipedia. It is one thing to denigrate the reliability of bloggers. To write off the country's leading newspapers--in a format that has no serious editorial vetting--is just laughable. (I think I'll send a link to this page to Mr. Lippman, and share the joke.) This exchange demonstrates how one dogged editor can block even a hint of a major controversy that has raged and still rages around a figure--a controversy that will never go away, because it has some substantive basis. On top of that, the entry as a whole is a mess. Many of the details are contradicted by Khalidi's entry in Contemporary Authors (right off the bat, his date and year of birth), he is no longer director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, and on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.30.130 (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does in fact regard statements on the personal blogs of public figures such as academics as reliable sources. A signed letter to the editor by a public figure like Lippman is certainly a reliable statement.Historicist (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

To both, you can laugh all you want, but BLP contains an absolute prohibition against self-published sources and blogs. If you wish to consider a letter to the editor a reliable source for denigtrating a living person as an agent of terrorists your issue is with WP:BLP and WP:RS, not the discussion on this talk page. Additionally, I will caution the IP editor to remain WP:CIVIL and not make personal accusations - and also to pay more attention to the discussion if he/she wants to participate. I am not arguing against covering the controversy involving Khalidi being too sympathetic or close to Palestinian causes and the PLO. I am specifically objecting to his being called a PLO "spokesman" and "director", an attribution that is poorly sourced and not shown at all to be a notable controversy. Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how Lippman's letter can be classified as "self-published" in any way. The Washington Post receives thousands of letters that it does not publish, so it clearly made an editorial decision in favor of his. And he was relaying what he knew to be a fact at a time when he was employed by the Washington Post. (He was their Middle East correspondent for many years.) In the past few years, Lippman has published a book on U.S.-Saudi relations, and his latest, published this past summer, is a biography of the State Department Arabist William Eddy. He remains a significant and quotable expert on the Middle East, so to claim that he is a poor source for something he says he knew and witnessed is itself derogatory. Lippman's recollection accords perfectly with the independent, contemporary reportage of other renowned journalists: the late James Markham (NYT), the late Joe Alex Morris, Jr. (LAT) , and Tom Friedman (NYT)--all award-winning Middle East correspondents. There is no reason to dismiss their identification of Khalidi as somehow sloppy. Professional journalists know that precise identification is right up there with precise quotation. A misidentified source has recourse to a correction, as Khalidi would, had he been misidentified. There is every reason to believe that these journalists asked Khalidi how he wished to be identified, and there is no record anywhere that he corrected any of them.

Wikidemon thinks the PLO at that time was a terrorist organization, and to associate Khalidi with it is derogatory. I suggest he listen to the Pacifica interview in full. At the time, Khalidi not only insisted upon the PLO as the only legitimate representative of all Palestinians, but justified its violence as legitimate responses to Israeli violence. Whether the PLO then was or wasn't terrorist is up to the reader to decide (in fact, there was no State Department terror list at the time, and the PLO had an office in Washington which was registered with the Justice Department as its own, and for which it paid). All this entry should do is flag the issue so that readers know of it and can make further inquiries if they wish. As it stands, the entry is a cover-up, which effectively mimics Khalidi's own position of coy silence. I propose the simple factual statement--amply documented--that "Several leading journalists who interviewed him at the time believed him to be a spokesman of the PLO, and identified him as such." As a statement of fact, this is unobjectionable, it passes no judgment on him or the PLO, and it flags the issue for the reader who might wish to pursue it further from other sources--which is the purpose of any encyclopedia entry.

As to the notion that this is not a "notable controversy," it's frankly preposterous. Controversies over the persona and credibility of public intellectuals who practice in Middle East studies have become major issues since 9/11 and the Iraq war. The Wikipedia entry on Edward Said includes an entire section on the famous controversy surrounding whether he lived any siginificant part of his childhood in Jerusalem--a matter of even less significance to his scholarship and activism than this controversy is to Khalidi's, and one that never garnered the level of national attention that the Khalidi controversy has received. To omit even a hint of of the Khalidi controversy is entirely inconsistent with Wikipedia's general practice in treating public intellectuals. That omission can only be described as glaring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.230.41 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is not adequate sourcing to say Khalidi was a PLO operative given the obvious and demonstrable disparagement such a claim in linking Khalidi to terrorism. What I think about the PLO is not at issue. There is no sourcing at all that the question of whether he worked for the PLO or not is the subject of a bona fide controversy - only original research by editors here pointing to a few claims that he was. Puffing about "glaring", "preposterous", etc., and repeatedly misrepresenting what I am saying after I have pointed it out, discourage consensus rather than building it. If there isn't any additional sourcing to propose I think you're wasting your time. Wikidemon (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, it is difficult to argue with you because you return to issues that have been settled. On Archive 3 I posted books and articles going back several years discussing the question of whether Khalidi was a PLO official. You waste everyone's time bu denying that this has been an issure for years. However, if more proof were needed, I would say that the extensive coverage during the campaign establishes the seriousness with which the public takes the question of whether a noted scholar was, inhis youth, active in the PLO.Historicist (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

My proposed addition does not assert he was a PLO operative, but says he was identified as such by leading journalists, which is indisputable. I propose to rectify the omission at the very head of the section on public life. I propose the reference read as follows:

According to Khalidi, during his time in Beirut, he "was deeply involved in politics." Several leading journalists who interviewed him at the time believed him to be a spokesman of the PLO, and identified him as such.

(The Khalidi quote is from this interview: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/khalidi.htm)

There can be no consensus that excludes any reference whatsoever to this matter. The question is how it can be reasonably referenced. Wikidemon has made no proposal as to how that might be done, and is just squatting on the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.230.41 (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No further sourcing? My objection stands. After that squatting comment I think the discussion is more or less done. No consensus means the material stays out. Wikidemon (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No further sourcing is necessary for the proposed addition--it is amply sourced. It merely flags the issue, sticks to facts that are known, and leaves the reader to pursue the matter further from other sources. The entry, as it stands, is a disservice to readers. I'll bow out now and leave others to forge a genuine consensus, that goes beyond Wikidemon's imperious veto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.230.41 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you are quite wrong. Signed, formal statements of fact issued by scholars or public figures on blogs and websites are accepted by Wikipedia at the same level of evidence as are statements by those same scholars published in, for example op-eds. Thomas Lippman's signed published letter has exactly the same weight in this encyclopedia as though he has published it as an op-ed.Historicist (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist.

Here's the Wikipedia policy: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS In this case, we have Thomas Lippman, former Washington Post foreign correspondent in the Middle East describing his own work as a foreigh correspondent for the Washington Post. It is reliable.Historicist (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Wikidamon, you have never addressed the material in the book Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, by Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. It is persuasive because these are two very distinguished historians. It is persuasive because of its moderate, scholarly tone; because it discusses the importance of the PLO period for the development of Khalidi's career and intellectual understanding of the region, and because it is specific and matter of fact. Khalidi is described as : an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". You can easily find it by typing four terms : Rashid Khalidi Ilan Troen into google books. p. 72. In my opinion, this source alone would be sufficient for inclusion in the article - although, I hasten to add that I believe the contemporary newspaper articles should be included to enable readers to examine the evidence. Can we assume that you accept the Toren/Lassner book as a reliable secondary source?Historicist (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I'm done here. As noted there seem to be four sources, which is not sufficient under the circumstnaces. It's a BLP vio, and there is no consensus to include. If you want to improve the article, better to concentrate on that controversial pro-PLO / pro-Palestinian material that is solid. Wikidemon (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be done here, Wikidemon, but your claims are still not necessarily correct. The fact that you, Khoikhoi, and G-Dett disagree with the applicability of the sources brought does not mean you define wiki policy, especially as Historist and I think that your application of BLP is improper here. We will need to file at leadt one RfC, if not two, to get both bio experts as well as BLP policy experts involved. Improperly applying a wiki policy to bowdlerize articles is just as damaging as improperly applying a policy to smear them. -- Avi (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started a BIO rfp. I think you can notice the RfC to multiple meta-pages (within reason of course) without creating a second. I'm not sure if you can just put a second tag atop the first to put it another RfC notice board. I hope that people can stay civil and try to stick to making their own point without being confrontational towards other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)