Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

}}

Re Article Protection

First discussion

In response to User:ChildofMidnight's question on my talk page, which I'm interpreting as a request to reconsider the page protection, is there now a consensus version of the article we can put in place? I'm very happy to remove the protection if that's the case (it will currently expire on 20 January). EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a section here that several people signed on to, before discussion seemed to fizzle out. The placement was discussed here. So, speaking for myself, I agreed to placing the linked text in the section "Family, Education and Career", between what are currently the second and third paragraphs, if that satisfies others. Mackan79 (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I said, I'll be happy to either make the edit or remove the protection so someone else can, if we can get some sort of agreement from the other regulars here. EyeSerene^talk 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with putting the text in the suggested box above between the second and third paragraphs for now, and then we can discuss a more logical re-organization of the article, if necessary, at our leisure. I plan on (eventually) placing the sources in citation templates to maintain consistency with the rest of the article. -- Avi (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. All of the parties sounded very close before the discussion wound down, and I think it's safe to invoke silence=consent with respect to anyone who does not object in the next few days... (unless anyone would care to notify them). Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good Wikidemon. Ideally, I'm hoping to see some sort of accord (or at least acknowledgement of mutual sufferance!) between you and ChildofMidnight, since there would obviously be no point in unprotecting the article if edit-warring then resumed... perhaps I ought to add a gentle reminder to all editors that further edit-warring will lead to blocks, even if WP:3RR is not crossed. A self-imposed one- or even zero-revert rule while content development is underway may be a good idea.

Looking at the discussion above it seems to me that there was indeed a near-consensus, and if we give a couple more days for ChildofMidnight, Historicist, and Jaakobou to comment if they want to, we should hopefully be able to get things underway again. EyeSerene^talk 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with putting up the material as agreed. Also, just back from two weeks in a country where the web and the newspapers are censored, and a Bureau of religious affairs not only writes the weekly Friday sermons for delivery nationwide, but reviews and censors additional remarks Mullahs wish to make from the minbar) I just want to say that it's great to be home.Historicist (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not the source of any trouble with ChildofMidnight, so it is not a matter of reaching accord. At any rate, since nobody has voiced objections, anybody should feel free to implement edits faithful to that consensus proposal. Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article unprotected

As editors are clearly keen to get on with improving this article, and we seem to have some basis of agreement, I've removed the article protection. I'll leave it to the regulars here to insert their consensus text above.

I'll keep the article on my watchlist, and will apply a strict interpretation of the spirit of WP:3RR and WP:EW in the case of any further edit-warring. There is of course no problem with editors following the bold, revert, discuss cycle, but because I have no intention of again disadvantaging those editors who wish to work productively by reapplying protection, edit-warring will result in a block on the offending account(s). My talk page is always open if anyone has any concerns or it doesn't look like I'm paying attention. All the best with your editing, EyeSerene^talk 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented what seems to be (I hope and trust) a consensus among the editors as to how to phrase the material under discussion. I have copied verbatim (other than a few format things) the version under "proposed text" that seems to have been unchanged for a couple weeks. Although there wasn't agreement where to put it, I've followed Avi's suggestion - eventually, the whole article ought to be reorganized to flow in a better order so I hope the exact location for now isn't a big deal. Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you added it to the section on his political views. As I said above I'm unclear why it would go there, but if so, it seems the statement from Lassner and Troen is an appropriate tie in. I just added it for that reason; if there is an issue with this presumably someone will say. Mackan79 (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Breaking consensus?

Historicist just made this edit[17] which, in my opinion, diverges substantially from the consensus we only recently implemented. The sentence as it stood was part of the agreement, and serves to show that whatever Khalidi's relationship may have been with the PLO he distanced himself from it. The very crux of the agreement was how to pose the various sources, reliable and otherwise, that claimed that Khalidi was an "official", "spokesman", etc., of the PLO, despite his denial, and others that say he never was. We agreed on the exact text to be implemented. The new addition states directly that two authors were "identifying Khalidi as[sic] 'as an official'" of the PLO. We had agreed not to do that. Sensitive to Historicist's edit summary that the language created a "misleading impression of what Lassner and Troen actually wrote" I tried to simplify the statement so it would not create any misimpression[18] but ChildofMidnight summarily reverted in Historicist's change.[19] If we cannot agree on any neutral language to satisfy Historicist's new objection to the consensus wording (frankly, I do not see the problem), we should leave it as is. Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that ChildofMidnight has now reverted again[20] - edit warring on this. I will leave a talk page cautiion, and urge people to leave the stable, consensus version. If that cannot happen I will seek administrative help on this again. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please revert your false accusation. I don't appreciate your harassment and incivility. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You have asked me to respond here rather than your talk page[21] so I will do so. I have never been uncivil or harassed you, and I have not abused you or the article. I have honored your request not to post unnecessarily on your talk page. However, leaving a simple edit warring caution on your talk page, to give you notice and an opportunity to stop before requesting an administrator's attention, is the way these things are done. That is not an accusation, false or otherwise - I am merely reporting that you have edit warred against the consensus we all reached. I asked you civilly on your talk page to self-revert, and instead you respond with accusations, threats,[22] and demands. Please, restore the consensus version of the language. If you do not I will ask for administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• There was no consensus around the idea of adding the quote form Lassner and Troen. User:Mackan79 has suggested it previously without winning consensus and added it withotu discussion after the consensus material was posted. I added another sentence because the quote inserted by Mackan79 upsets the neutrality of the section. If Wikidemon wishes to return to the consensus version, the way to do so would be to remove the Lassner/Troen material inserted by Mackan79.Historicist (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind removing it either. However, that sentence as it stood from January 12[23] until today[24] does seem to be part of the consensus language everyone approved at Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 7#Suggested text (under construction). I do not recall why I left it out initially. Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that removing the late-added text is a good idea and a simple way to resolve this.Historicist (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Re-Protection

We worked long and hard on this article to get somewhere acceptable and having this nearly devolve into another edit war so soon afterwards is unacceptable. I have restored the article to the state it was prior to the insertion by Mackan of the Troen/Lassner text. I personally am apathetic as to whether it should be in or not and how. However, if y'all would please take the next 3 days to discuss the matter and work something out here, it would be much better than having to levy a slew of 3RR blocks. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well let's see. I see the material is actually back in the section on his political views, now, which was not something I had signed on to; that was also why I added the Troen/Lassner statement, because it brings the issue around to his political views as opposed to simply his affiliations. In either case, though, it seems their statement could be there, since it remains the assessment of (IMO) our best source on this topic.

I'm not sure Historicist's addition is so bad in theory, although there is at least a technical problem. The major adjustment would need to be to acknowledge that this comment is historical, for instance "In 2007, identifying Khalidi as having 'served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)....'" The need to clarify this should be clear, but I don't know if there is a better way.

If that is added, though, it would seem a bit much for the "Family, education and career" section. So it's possible we should leave the whole thing out, but then we should return the paragraph to that section.

I doubt we'll need any blocking, but I think it's worth suggesting that certainly if we do we should ask an outside administrator. I don't mind the three day protection either (or think it was unreasonable), but that is probably something that should be done by someone outside as well in the future, to avoid potential disagreements. Hopefully we'll be alright without it. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Mackan7's sugggested language: "In 2007, identifying Khalidi as having 'served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)....'"Historicist (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not what we agreed to and in my opinion it gets to the heart about why we had a disagreement in the first place. The point is that we cannot tell from the sources whether Khalidi was in fact a paid official agent of the PLO, or was some kind of unofficial intermediary. This source flat out claims that he "served...as an official" in the PLO. Others flat out say he did not. We should not stack the deck in favor of sources on one side or the other. Further, it is a parenthetical comment that is unnecessary to clarify the main part of the sentence, which is that (whatever his role may have been) his opinion about the organization changed and he later saw them in a negative light. I am okay with dropping the entire sentence, although it appears from the conversation that the version we apparently reached consensus on, is the version in the section above, which is identical to the main page text as implemented on January 12. Did / do we have consensus for that version or do we not? Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that at this point it seems that there is a disagreement as to how to put the sentence in, specifically whether or not the authors' discussion of Khalidi's movement away from the PLO should have those same authors' description of Khalidi's position with the PLO appended to it, and I would counsel leaving it out entirely for now. What some editors view as parenthetical others may view as crucial. As the paragraph as constructed does inform the reader as to the basics of the nebulosity of any official relationship and provides sources which link to citations for all sides, I believe that the difficulty in coming to how to state Lassner/Troen outweighs the benefits. -- Avi (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Mackan and Historicist's version. Something being controversial or disputed isn't a good reason to leave it out. It just needs to be balanced and fairly presented in the appropriate context. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine either way, for what it is worth. With only one opinion against (WikiDemon) perhaps over the weekend a consensus for the Mackan79 version can be decided upon. -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We went through a consensus process and I thought we had a consensus version. Now we're proposing to revisit the issue, after less than two weeks? I agreed to that as a compromise, not as a baseline from which to insert more attempts to claim that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman. If we are going to describe a source explicitly stating that he was we should include likewise cover a source explicitly stating that he was not - in which case neither should be included, because it has never been shown that the fact of a disagreement of the sources is anything significant. There is only one person so far who has objected to removing the sentence, so if we're going to overrule anyone why not just remove the sentence? The reason to omit controversial / disputed and possibly untrue information about living people is to avoid harm and disparagement.Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. I thought we had a stable version of this page, until there appeared to be a unilateral decision to make changes to a heavily disputed portion of this article. Khoikhoi 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I intended to suggest a preference for leaving it out, whether or not that was clear, so long as the material is put back in the Family, Education and Career section. That seems at the least to be capable of garnering consensus. I'm not entirely comfortable with the word "idenitifying" otherwise, as it suggests that they are identifying him as part of this debate. That is why I left it out in the first place, since it isn't an appropriate comment on the debate, and doesn't provide new information otherwise; I don't think we should give the false impression that people are making an issue of this when they aren't, or giving excessive or repetitive focus to the issue in parts of his biography where the reliable sources don't support it. If I read all of this correctly, though, the simplest answer seems still to take the whole sentence out and put the paragraph back in the section on "Family, Education, and Career." Mackan79 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The section seems to fit better where it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-)If consensus is to leave it out, that's fine too. I was concerned about the beginnings of another edit war, which would have been unacceptable. Are we agreed to leave it out for now? -- Avi (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it out if we replace the section where it was in the Family Education and Career section. I'm going to do that for now; I'm not sure why ChildofMidnight may disagree, but since it was part of the resolution of the prior discussions, I'm going to do that pending further discussion. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

I'm asking for page protection again due to yet another outbreak of edit warring over new proposed content challenged on the basis of BLP, POV, weight, coatrack, etc. I may post this to BLP/N and will make a note here if I do (although in the past BLP/N and the BLP talk page have not been very responsive to any but the most blatant BLP incidents).Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This material is completely inappropriate. None of the sources support the material, and the material itself is written in a blatantly derogatory style. I see that ChildOfMidnight has also been reverting again without commenting on the talk page. I'm not especially interested in taking the initiative, but frankly it seems like past time for administrative sanctions against one or both of these users. I'm talking here about the insertion of contentious policy violating material and repeated attempts to revert war it into place. If Historicist and ChildofMidnight agree to stop doing this then fine, but otherwise they should not be editing this page, as we can't simply expect a clued-in administrator to arrive every time this happens and protect the page. Mackan79 (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have referred the matter to AN/I here. Although this article is now page protected there is edit warring continuing on other articles, BLP issues are present, and nothing else has stopped the edit warring so far. I trust that editors will avoid edit warring, particularly material challenged on BLP grounds, while the matter is under discussion. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

Could I be allowed to attach one of my photographs of Rashid? (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLN_Rashid_Khalidi.jpg) In my view, it is in the public interest - irrespective of whatever administrivia is being resolved behind the scenes. The ongoing Gaza issue - and Khalidi speaking publicly about it - would seem to indicate that getting the info/photo out in a timely manner is of some importance. Any assistance here greatly appreciated. Apologies if I have offended anyone or committed some faux pas in making this request in this location in this manner - I am no wikipede, just a photojournalist. Thanks again. Thomas Good (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. You are the photographer and donated that per. the GDFL license? Then we can add it as soon as the article protection is lifted. Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am the photographer and everything I do is CopyLeft. Thanks much! BTW, I am now uploading the video I shot last night for the Lawyers Guild (I'm a member) - Rashid was very good - eloquent, articulate, etc. www.youtube.com/nextleftnotes (all of our youtube footage is also copyleft, dunno if this helps anyone but thought I'd pass it on). 24.168.91.228 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor, Thomas? Can you please send an e-mail confirming your licensure to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so we can keep it on file in the OTRS system? Thank you very much! -- Avi (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Avi - the following was sent to the above address at 21:20 EST (U.S.): Please be advised that all materials released under the Next Left Notes masthead, also known as NLN, are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) unless otherwise indicated. All materials: photographs and other images, video footage, audio segments and news copy authored by Thomas Good, editor of NLN, are released under the GFDL without exception. All materials may be freely reproduced and redistributed with attribution.

See www.nextleftnotes.net/gnu_fdl.html for details on the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

All materials uploaded to wikimedia commons by Thomas Good are the copyright protected property of this individual and are subject to the terms of GFDL as is clearly indicated on each wikimedia submission. Thomas Good (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You should get a response from the system shortly. -- Avi (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition to section on Academic work

Take one

historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just added some material[25] that I removed as an inappropriate WP:COATRACK. The problems with the edit should be obvious to any seasoned editor. While possibly true literally (someone did criticize the professor, and the material he used appears to be widely quoted but inaccurate and some claim fabricated but not by the professor), it is utterly misleading to say that he "has been criticized" without pointing out that the criticism is from partisan opponents, in which case we need to do a reasonable analysis of whether the criticism is notable. He is a controversial figure and like all such people has a considerable share of critics and opponents. That a professor makes mistakes is not terribly significant. Saying that he is "citing fabricated quotations" is over the top - it implies that he fabricated the quotations, which not even his critics are claiming. Quoting a partisan critic who calls his academic work "political polemics" is not terribly helpful. If there is widespread significant criticism that should be properly framed and cited to secondary sources, not the primary sources who are doing the criticism. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) promptly reverted,[26] suggesting that it was an issue of citations. That is beside the point. We don't decorate articles with criticism and defense sections so as to create a controversy section in every BLP article. The point is to include reliable, encyclopedic, relevant information that reliable sources show to be significant enough to include. Given the history of this article, we should really concentrate on trying to elucidate the professor, his biolgraphy, and his work, not to throw up material that seeks to discredit him. Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this a little farther, the claim that Khalidi is criticized for citing fabricated evidence is supported only by an editor's note in the New York Times about a single misquote ("This quotation, while cited widely, does not appear in the Israeli newspaper interview to which it is usually attributed"), a partisan website[27] that was the subject of quite a bit of Wikipedia gaming and drama (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Wikipedia campaign) that itself called the quote a "hoax" but did not accuse Khalidi of being the one to perpetrate it, and a third source that has nothing to do with that particular quote. There isn't a reliable source to say that the quote is fabricated. In a section about Khalidi's academic work, it is undue weight to the point of irrelevance to highlight criticism over a single apparent misquote, and to do so in a way that doesn't even reflect the sources is especially weak. Although it might be possible (subject to the general preference against criticism / controversy sections) to write a balanced, reasonable, encyclopedic treatment of critiques of Khalidi's work, covering political partisans taking potshots at him is not the way to get there.Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pace User:Wikidemon Wikipedia articles on controversial academics all have sections on the criticism of their work. See: Martin Kramer Efraim Karsh Edward Said and many more. Policing an article to make sure that legitimate criticism is not included is a way of introducing bias to the encyclopedia.Historicist (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The third source is an academic article about Khalidi's use of a different fabricated quotation, and a discussion of a Khalidi falsehood about a book by Theodore Herzl. I was trying to keep this brief. The section can certainly be expanded to include more examples of published criticisms fo Khalidi's errors fo fact and citiation, there is a small literature on the subject. And Wikidemon is correct, he did not fabricate the quotation, what he did was to cite fabricated quotations, a major scholarly sin since you are qupposed to verify every quotation you cite.Historicist (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we headed for administrative intervention again? This is not the way to edit an article. I've attached an NPOV tag and removed the part that's clearly a BLP violation (Wikipedia claiming that he cites fabricated evidence is easily understood as a claim that he fabricates evidence, and there is no reliable source posed that the evidence is even fabricated). Your proposed addition is inappropriate for the reasons discussed above. Per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS please don't try to have your way by edit warring disputed material into the encyclopedia. Remove it and try to justify it here if you wish, but as I said it's very far from being appropriate to the encyclopedia. If you want to claim that Khalidi is sloppy or partisan in his scholarship, try finding some reliable secondary sources that say so, rather than cobbling together criticisms of his opponents. Wikidemon (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, per WP:WEIGHT, if you want to include a partisan's editorial in a partisan forum, like Efraim Karsh's opinion of Khalidi in Middle East Forum, please provide some secondary reliable sources to show that Karsh's opinion is of any notability to Khalidi's biography.Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your response?[28] It's a BLP vio, making this the third time a BLP vio has been introduced here in quick succession - disparaging material cited only to an unreliable source (the claim Khalidi is citing fabricated evidence, even with the semi-clarification that it was fabricated by others). Further, the claim in the article still does not match even the partisan source that is the source of so much Wikidrama. The CAMERA editorialist accuses the quote of being fabricated does not say who supposedly fabricated it. I'm at 3RR so I won't continue even under the WP:BLP exception, but I don't think that's helpful. Please take this back to the talk page instead of article space or else I'm going to seek administrative help. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise, Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources... And from WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true. I fail to see how the stuff you're adding meets the appropriate criteria per Wikipedia policy. Khoikhoi 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting that assesments of a scholar's work by another scholar are nto appropriate? And that issues of accuracy are immaterial to a scholar's biography? Nothing could be more relevant to a scholar than evidence of shoddy and biased use of evidence.Historicist (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I cited Wikipedia policy for my explanation, you seem to have cited your own opinion. If this encyclopedia was based on your own rules, then I would agree with including the section. But please re-read and understand what an artificial controversy is. Khoikhoi 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reliable sourcing to the claim that the supposed factual errors are significant. In fact no reliable sourcing that there is criticism at all, only primary sourcing to the partisan websites of people who are in business to defend Israel by attacking its critics. Week after week these sites make attacks on their rivals on behalf of their sponsors, some fair, some misleading, and some just mean. The proponent of the material argues that it goes to the core of Khalidi's credibility. If so we would need a reliable source for it, not an attack organization that was recently caught planting material in Wikipedia in support of its agenda. But the derogatory comments themselves are not even about Khalidi's scholarship, they are about his own newspaper editorials. None of this is scholarship, nor is it relevant to scholarship. It all exists in the world of paid partisanship. The pro-Israeli and anti-Israel camps have taken their battle to the attack sites, partisan think tanks, and dueling newspaper editorial pages. We shouldn't fill Wikipedia up with this low-level sniping, and where it concerns living people there's a policy against it. Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've removed a similar coatrack from Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America [29] that at times has been worse than the one here. So there are attacks against Khalidi in an article having nothing to do with him or with the attacks. I'm wondering if we're going to need to escalate this. Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Take two

I for one am not willing to go through the same process again on this material that lead to all of the edit warring, AN/I reports, incivility, article protection, etc., of the last few attempts to insert disputed material into the article. The article is yet again protected.[30] Three editors have explicitly rejected the material, one has proposed it, and another has reverted it in without much explanation. Let's entertain, briefly, based on substance and not process, and without recriminations against other editors, whether and why any of this material should be included in this article. Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I also may not have time for a long discussion, but the problems with Historicist's material seem simple enough. His initial edit is here and says that Khalidi has been "criticized for citing fabricated quotations...." The sentence suggests it is accepted fact that Khalidi has cited fabricated quotations -- ostensibly fabricated by Khalidi himself -- when the sources do not at all support this. It appears the New York Times simply ran a correction stating that a quotation could not be confirmed and therefor apologizing for running the quote. This is hardly a criticism, does not state that the quote is fabricated, and certainly does not support a statement that Khalidi has been "criticized for citing fabricated quotations."

The way to say this, if it should be said, is something like "In 2009, CAMERA accused Khalidi of citing a fabricated quote in a column Khalidi wrote in the New York Times." However, the only supporting source would be this single posting from CAMERA. To suggest that such a posting on the CAMERA website should immediately be added to Khalidi's Wikipedia bio suggests to me only a poor appreciation of how Wikipedia and especially BLPs work.

The second sentence about Efraim Karsh, beyond its poor and contentious phrasing, rises to the level of misrepresentation (more than a little ironic, considering the accusation Historicist has just added). In an article defending his reputation against various critics, Karsh quotes Khalidi to state in effect that the victimization of the Palestinians is not a myth that can be corrected as with the New Historians.[31] Karsh comments, "This blind nationalist belief in one's absolute justice may have some merit at the level of political polemics."[32] Apparently based on this (it is the only use of the phrase "political polemics" in the article), Historicist adds here that "Historian Efraim Karsh hacs [sic] criticized Khalidi for a 'blind nationalist belief' in the 'absolute justice' of the Palestinian cause that reduces his academic work to the level of mere 'political polemics.'" This is absurd; does Historicist really not understand the difference between a criticism of a specific comment and a dismissal of Khalidi's entire "academic work"? Honestly, this should by itself raise a serious question about what Historicist is doing on Wikipedia.

This isn't a comment on the idea of "criticism," of course, but solely on the material that was added. If there is criticism of Khalidi in reliable sources that needs to be added, then by all means let's discuss what those sources actually say. Mackan79 (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Take three

There is agreement that this article is in need of balancing with criticism from reliable sources not disproportionate to coverage of his career. I believe that the following speaks to the assesment of Khalidi's scholarship by other academics and that it is well-sourced and directly pertinent to the nature and calibre of his scholarship. Please note that some articles are linked to partisan websites althouth they were published in general circulation publications. My goal is access. The Wall Street Journal requires a subscription. Links to back issues of the Jerusalem Post are often unreliable, so I linked to a free website with a reliable server.Historicist (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

“ Khalidi has been criticized for the “intellectual laziness” of not cousulting archival sources, while “relying instead on secondary sources,” for making arguments in his books “based on scrawny evidence,” for being “factually wrong” in his citation of evidence, and for scholarship that is “negligent, if not dishonest.” According to historian Michael Rubin, “rather than access the original (speeches and documents,) he relies on secondhand interpretations by fringe Internet journalists. The result is repetition of bizarre (and anti-Semitic) conspiracies.” A number of instances have been documented in which Khalidi has published information that has proven to be incorrect or cited quotations and information to sources where they are not to be found.Khalidi’s work has also been criticized by historians as “propaganda parading as scholarship,” and for suffering from a “blind nationalist belief” in the “absolute justice” of the Palestinian cause that reduces his academic work to the level of mere “political polemics.” ”

Historicist (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs down. That's worse than your previous suggestion. Go read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, slander and libel, WP:COATRACK - and any other Wikipedia editing guideline resources. You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I remind you that leaving out criticism is as gross a violation of WP:NPOV as putting in unfounded criticism would be. Khalidi is an extremely controversial scholar. At present, the article about him is a sort of hagiography, the kind of article that makes Wikipedia look silly and partisan because it presents an entirely admiring portrait of a controversial figure. These are Wikipedia WP:RS and criticism of a widely criticized public figure is certainly not a violation of WP:BLP. Moreover, this provides enough data (links, unlinked citations) for the interested reader to follow through, do the research, and make their own conclusion.Historicist (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, Old Man, just saying thumbs down to a proposal with this much sorucing does sound like a flat refusal to even consider the idea that some balance may be needed in this article.Historicist (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Providing multiple sources does not make your position more balanced. Replacing two articles with a dozen doesn't make it any better. You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of balance. Please go and read those links.GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As a general principle no BIO needs "balance" by adding derogatory material about the subject. The purpose of a bio to say what is notable about a person's life and career. If there is a scandal, controversy, significant critique, etc., that is actually significant and relevant, as demonstrated by reliable secondary sources of sufficient weight, then negative material may be included. But not simply for the sake of balance. As for the proposed material, the first source (and material it supports) is no good - it's an editorial by an opposing partisan in the New York Sun. The second source & material is no good - it's an opinion in a book review, and the proposed material does not match the source: the material says criticism = he makes arguments based on scrawny evidence (which is a general claim); source applies that to a single argument in a single book. The third source & material is not reliable - partisan publishing derogatory opinions in an opposing partisan publication, and it is a highly pejorative claim. Fourth and fith - no go, a partisan publishing his opinion in an editorial piece. Sixth and seventh source, NY Times is legit, but does not support claim that "a number of instances"..X or Y, nor does it establish the weight. I would leave it out as a trivial coatrack. Sources 7 and 8 are no good for reasons discussed elsewhere. Ninth is opinion voiced in book review, getting closer but still it is a derogatory editorial opinion by a partisan. And #10 is a partisan editorial in a partisan publication. So basically we have one reliable source that stands for a very insignificant provision we have already discussed to death, that Khalidi repeated a widely circulated quote that turns out not to be verifiable. That is not worth a section or even a sentence. In short, I see nothing here. Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you want to convey that Khalidi is a controversial scholar you should find a secondary source that says so directly. On an encyclopedia you can't find a series of disagreements with partisans on the other side of the fence and then pronounce that it is a controversy. You have to find a reliable source that actually says there is a controversy. I found that in about three minutes in the case of Henry Siegman‎. You might start by googling "Khalidi" and "Controversial". Here is a non-reliable source but it's almost what you might need, a piece in campus watch that comes out and says he and his positions are "controversial".[33] Campus Watch seems to be the main source calling him "controversial". Well, I won't do all the work for you but somewhere there is probably a profile of Khalidi or some of his issues by a reliable source, that covers in a neutral factual nonpartisan fashion the fact that Khalidi is controversial, or has been involved in some controversies. Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this in mind: WP:BLP states, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who commits the edit; this is especially true for edits regarding living persons." - if Historicist is going to propose material, it's his responsibility to ensure that they stand up to scrutiny in the light of Wikipedia guidelines. It's his responsibility, not the responsibility of others, to correct his slanderous wording and moderate his POV pushing. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an essay on criticism sections that might be worth reading. The primary problem with this material I see is that it takes random critical statements and assembles them into a paragraph which incorrectly suggests these are all general criticisms of Khalidi's work. This is then worsened by the fact that it seems to seek out the most sensationalist words and phrases available.

There isn't any reason to do this. If we are relaying criticisms, we should be specific about what they are, not simply reduce them into generalized negativity. If Efraim Karsh criticizes The Iron Cage for relying too much on secondary sources, then let's say so in a discussion of that book. If Michael Young says an argument is based on "scrawny evidence," then let's consider whether the issue is notable to Khalidi, but not falsely state that Khalidi "has been criticized" for "making arguments in his books 'based on scrawny evidence.'" The same goes for all of this: the attention to detail here just needs to be a lot better. As Wikidemon suggests above, also, "This article needs to be a little more negative" is not generally how Wikipedia BLPs work, but if good and informative material is added appropriately to the article, then great. Mackan79 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Khalidi is known among other historians for two things. The ideology-driven nature of his scholarship; and the fact that he relies so heavily on secondary sources of a type that would be called not WP:RS by Wikipedians, frequently embarassing himself as he did with the Ya'alon quote. The article implies only that his politics are controversial; not that his scholarship is regarded as highly partisan. I certainly acccept the ussefulness of a sentence with footnotes to historians who praise his work. However, to omit the serious criticism of his scholarship on the grounds of overreliance on questionable secondary sources puts this Wikipedia article in violaton of WP:NPOV.Historicist (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole Ya'alon quote is still subject to question. As it's been quite adequately discussed, it's neither "bogus" or "fraud", as you keep insisting "unverified" as all that has been established.

As to WP:NPOV, neutrality doesn't mean, "show the good and dig up some dirt to show the bad" - it says that articles must present significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. That doesn't mean there's any obligation to sling mud around, just to appease your sense of "balance".

I suggest you take a step back. Think about what most accurately represents his work - not how you can inject your partisan opinions into a Wikipedia article by trying to twist the wording of editing guidelines. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist, your unsourced claims about what Khalidi is known for are out of place here, and are in fact a continuing violation of WP:BLP. In all seriousness, please read and consider that policy before continuing to edit the article or post here. If you believe Khalidi is known for something, then you have to find sources which say exactly that. Without such sources your claims here violate WP:BLP just as much as they do if you add them to the article. If you think that's too stringent, simply consider that it's well established policy, and that if you continue to ignore it you'll likely be blocked from editing this article at the least. There are reasons for this, of course, among them that it is not reasonable or remotely useful for us to spend our time debating unsourced claims, defamatory or otherwise. Mackan79 (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Take four

“ Khalidi has been criticized for the “intellectual laziness” of not cousulting archival sources, while “relying instead on secondary sources,” for making arguments in his books “based on scrawny evidence,” for being “factually wrong” in his citation of evidence, and for scholarship that is “negligent, if not dishonest.” According to historian Michael Rubin, “rather than access the original (speeches and documents,) he relies on secondhand interpretations by fringe Internet journalists. The result is repetition of bizarre (and anti-Semitic) conspiracies.” A number of instances have been documented in which Khalidi has published information that has proven to be incorrect or cited quotations and information to sources where they are not to be found.

Khalidi’s work has also been criticized by historians as “propaganda parading as scholarship,” and for suffering from a “blind nationalist belief” in the “absolute justice” of the Palestinian cause that reduces his academic work to the level of mere “political polemics.”His usefulness as an advocate for the Palestinian cause has been defended by the PLO's Palestine Affairs Center "because he’s a serious scholar and a Palestinian who wouldn’t harm the cause."

”

References

The sources for this are eminent historians of the Middle East, Michael Rubin (historian) , Daniel Pipes, and Efraim Karsh. User:wikidemon may not care for their politics, but they are highly regarded historians and, as such, their assessments of Khalidi’s methodology and historiography are eligible for quotation in Wikipedia. What they are sayingm, moreover, is that Khalidi carelessly uses bad facts and bad qotes form secondary sources, and that he is haghly partisan. The first assertion. Bad facts and bad quotes, are substantiated by footnotes 1 thru 8. The assertion that Khalidi is highly partisan in his writing is not something that he himself would deny. He is a former PLO official, a political advocate of the Palestinian cause, and a harsh critic of American foreign policy. Historian Daniel Pipes and Efraim Karsh opine that this colors his writing. I am shocked, shocked…. Wikidemon demands neutral, secondary sources. I am not at all certain that there are ANY neutral sources on the Israel Arab conflict. But Reason )magazine) and the New York Times And they agree that Khalidi gets quotes and facts wrong, and they are hardly an extremist partisan sources. Wikidemon, of course, is. He polices articles aggressively in an extreme, intemperate and consistently anti-Israel fashion. His editing leads to badly biased Wikipedia articles.Historicist (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. You are proposing only one reliable source, which does not say what you claim it says, and this exact material has already been discussed and rejected by consensus as unsuitable in its entirety. Please remove the ridiculous personal attack and/or close this discussion.Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This material is not supported by the sources that it relies upon. The sources are primarily book reviews with specific comments about specific books, while Historicist's generalization of these comments into rhetorical broadsides against Khalidi are grossly inaccurate.

Beyond that, there is no reason to have a section on "Criticism" of Khalidi any more than we should have a section on "Praise" of Khalidi. If there is material from sources that should be added to parts of the bio, then they should be added to the appropriate sections, not separated via original research into sections "for" or "against" the subject of the biography. Mackan79 (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Claims of article bias

Take one

I have just taken a tour of Wikipedia pages on controversial scholars. At least one, Noam Chomsky, actually has an entire page called Criticism of Noam Chomsky, or something like that. The extremely distinguished Bernard Lewis has a criticism section that is out of all proportion to the section on his scholarship. People clearly regularly log on to the ages of Jan Gross and Deborah Lipstadt and add criticism form poor sources with little context and out of all proportion to the careers of these historians. Criticism of Edawrd Said does appear. I added an issue that had been on Bernard Lewis' page but not on Said's. For balance.

• My purpose in adding the material critical of Khalidi was to begin a section that might, with time, develop into an appropriately-sized section on academic criticisms of this highly controversial academic. The three items I chose, contained in two brief sentences, were:
• 1) A fabricated quotation, published by Khalidi no fewer than four times. It was not only removed, the removing editors implied that the quote was not fabricated. Note that the correction ran 22 days after the fake quote. In that time the Times contacted Khalidi (departmental scuttlebut) and Rashid desperately attempted to find the quote, and failed. If Khalidi couldn't rind it, and the Tiems couldn't find it, its a fake. The quotation was first published by journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, without a citation. The citation to a particular Ya'alon interview was first published by Khalidi. That is, he fabricated the citation to a source twhere the quote did not appear. In a junior professor, this sort of fraudulent scholarship lieds to denial of tenure.
• 2) an academic article about a second instance of Khalidi relying on a fabricated quotation, and making a verfiably false claim about a book by Theodore Herzl. That is, I was adding three well documented instances with good sources in which Khalidi published false information abotu what a Zionist had actually said.
• 3) an assertion by a distinguished historian who, like Khalidi, is highly controversial, and for similar - if opposite - reasons. I quoted Efraim Karsh making a widely shared criticism of Khalidi as writing books more as a propagandist for the Palestinian cause than as an objective scholar. Similar statements appear on the Wikipedia pages of many of the pro-Israeli historians whose work contests Khalidi's claims. I point out here that Khalidi self-describes as an advocate fo the Palestinian cause and actually worked for the PLO as a young man as an official propagandist. Many historians view Khalidi's work as part of a centuries old tradition of nationalist historians promoting their national cause. It is not a category to be scorned; most of us regard Herodotus as a nationalist historian, he gives about as balanced an account of the Greek cause and the Persian Empire as Khalidi does of the Middle East. When historians write as partisans, it is appropriate to say so. I admire some of Khalidi's work, I use some of it, but I recognize it as an entirely one-sided account of reality, polemic in the best sense of the word.
• Please note that I spent about three months last fall on this page attempting and finally suceeding in adding a very brief statement to this page abot Khalidi's relationshipwith the PLO in the late 1970's early 1980's. It took three months because Khalidi's page is visited daily by editors who appear to view any criticism of the man as illegitimate.
• On Wikipedia pages that draw wide attention, problems of balance can usually be ironed out with sufficient effort. However, on other pages, dedicated editors can police the page aggressively and suceed in biasing it by dogged removal of material that is well-sourced but critical of a political figure whom they admire.Historicist (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Criticism of notable people is allowed if properly sourced and cited. Bringing external criticism of scholars, especially criticism that directly impacts their claims to scholarly credentials, is not only allowed, but necessary to maintain the neutrality of the encyclopedia. See the voluminous criticisms of Alan Dershowitz for example, or the section of criticism on Martin Kramer for another example, both of whom, it can be claimed, are significantly more important scholars than Khalidi (as measured by honors, awards, longevity, and published works), and Kramer is such in Khalidi's own field. We must be careful not to let any criticism section become unduly large and violate WP:UNDUE, but leaving out any criticism is as gross a violation of WP:NPOV as would be putting in unfounded criticism. Wikipedia cannot be used as a soapbox to vilify or whitewash; we bring reliable and verifiable secondary sources (where possible, primary where necessary) and we provide enough data (links, unlinked citations) for the interested reader to follow through, do the research, and make their own conclusion. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Historicist's conduct last fall fall was most unfortunate. He continues to make up inappropriate nonsense accusations again about the motivations of other editors. Assuming good faith, and civil editing, demands that when people disagree with content on Wikipedia policy grounds, and on the way material is cited and written, is a content disagreement and not trying to scrub the encyclopedia of derogatory material about people they "admire" for ulterior motives. That kind of attitude poisons the editing process around here, and indeed Historicist's actions initiated multiple edit wars, and several times required administrative intervention, leading to page protection. Now, for the fifth time or more, he has just edit warred against consensus, and against claims of a WP:BLP violation by multiple editors, to add poorly source derogatory information about Khalidi into this article. There is no no reliable source in the edits that the quote is a "fabrication" or even incorrect. But he added the same material in WP:COATRACK fashion to at least five different articles, and continues to edit war across several of them. Claims of academic fraud should not be made based on those sources, even on the talk page. The material in question is not in, and does not concern, academic articles - as with the past disputes this is the stuff of blogs, editorials, and pro-Israel partisan think tanks. The claims say nothing about Khalidi's scholarly work, for which tenure decisions apply. They are a petty war of character assassination by partisans over each other's op-ed pieces. A "criticism" section may or may not be legitimate. That is open for debate. But a criticism section that mimics here on Wikipedia the the lowbrow war of words transpiring on the blogosphere is unwelcome. NPOV does not demand that we become a tabloid, or that we give a free pass to reprint the mouthing off of anybody with credentials, only that we pay attention to significant matters that are reliably sourced as such. If neutral sources such as scholars writing in a scholarly context, or news articles in major nonpartisan mainstream media, report that Khalidi or anyone else is partisan, sloppy about sourcing, makes stuff up, etc., then it is fair to consider the material. When pro-Israel attack organizations, whose very existence is to tear down their perceived opposition using every available means, badmouth professors over alleged errors in their editorials or speeches, the POV violation is to give them a forum to do that here. If we had to listen to them, every single article about anyone who questions Israel would require a "criticism" or "controversies" section describing the attack. That's the opposite of encyclopedic. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• USER:Wikidemon's claims are extraordinary. His accusation that I placed poorly sourced claims on Rashid Khalidi's page is demonstrabloy untrue. The source I used was the New York Times, which took three weeks to investigate and give Rashid Khalidi time to provide a source for a direct derogatory quotation allegedly from Moshe Ya'alon, before concluding that this widely cited quotation cannot be found in the interview where Khalidi claimed that he found it, nor anywhere else. If a three week long, New York Times investigation of the existance of a recent quotation, the sense of which is an inversion of the speaker's position in the article cited, is inadequate sourcing, I cannot imagine what Wikidemon would accept as adequate.
• [[USER:Wikidemon's assertion that my behavior last fall was unfortunate is equally remarkable. My effort was to include, on this page, the well-sourced information that Khalidi represented the PLO in an official capacity in Lebanon in the 1970's and 80's. USER:Wikidemon worked obsessively for three months to keep that information off the page . His tactisc were repeated edit wars that wore out the patience of many editors, personal attacks on my talk page, and false claims of poor sourcing the sources included the NEW York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. He is repeating those tactics here today.I find his behavior troubling.Historicist (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you placed material on the page, some of which was sourceable, some sourceable only to a partisan attack editorial that made the accusations, and some that did not reflect any sources at all. The New York Times editor's note says only that the quote was unverifiable and not contained in the source it is generally attributed to, not that it was "fabricated" or even incorrect. I do not object to the New York Times sourcing. However, the fact that a newspaper editorial by an individual contains one widely repeated but unverifiable quotation is not terribly notable to the career of a professor; trumpeting it up as a major criticism or controversy is a coatrack. You repeatedly edit warred BLP violating material onto this page for months, and engaged in incivilities and made-up personal attacks. Bygones are bygones, except that you just started the exact same behavior again in support of some biased content you are trying to include. I was not the one trying anyone's patience - you seem to want to slant this article against Khalidi, and have again and again started edit wars over that. I made no personal attack on your talk page - that is yet more made up nonsense. I left a caution for edit warring over a BLP violation, which is a standard courtesy notice that is a routine step in dispute resolution before seeking administrative intervention. I am not the editor suggesting you take a leave from this page, although if you cannot edit in a civil, collaborative fashion, that is probably the answer. Please, either cut it out or take a break.Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Take two

This article is an example of the extreme difficulty in achieving neutral Wikipedia articles on politicians. Khalidi is criticized by historians not only for writing highly inflected, nationalistic versions of history and has become somewhat notorious for getting his facts wrong due to over-reliance on secondary sources. It would be meaningful to include these well-sourced allegations. I do not maintain that the version I proposed above was perfect. I do, however, believe that editors on this page are willing to edit-war endlessly to prevent well-sourced material critical of Khalidi from appearing on this page. Policing articles in this way - to insure that nothing critical of favored political figures appears - is the sort of behavior that leads Wikipedia to be widely mocked. Did anyone else chuckle at the Februsry cover of Time Out New York, with the bold headline that read: Like Wikipedia - but with facts!.Historicist (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What well-sourced material? If there is notable criticism of Khalidi other than the smear campaign in the last American presidential election, then the criticism would be covered by reliable neutral secondary sources. If the criticism is confined to the sources that have so far been proposed: blogs, editorials and op ed pieces, conservative and pro-Israel Lobbyists, think tanks, etc., used as primary sources to establish that criticism has been made, then the only reasonable conclusion is that reliable sources do not view any of this as significant enough to write about. Many of those sources appear to be in a no-holds-barred lowbrow match of lawyers, academics, and journalists smearing each other that is, frankly, as insulting to the intelligence as the similar attack games politicians play. The bottom line is that the blow-by-blow is, per the lack of coverage in reliable sources, simply not something that an educated reader wants or needs to know. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, and is not a compendium of rival partisans disparaging each other. You seem to take issue with Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing policies, and the content you have proposed and repeatedly tried to insert into the Israel/Palestine related articles almost universally fails to abide by those policies. That is fine once, and that is why we have BRD and consensus. However, for the umpteenth time please do not take your disappointment out on the other editors here who are more respectful of Wikipedia policy by accusing them of bad faith. That is not going to win anyone to your side, and will only disrupt the editing environment here. Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist is totally correct here. There is an enormous effort on wikipedia to suppress any unfavourable information on political figures who are darlings of the left. This is unfortunate and diminishes the standing of wikipedia as a credible and unbiased source. Hadrianheugh (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You too, please use this page to make reasonable requests for information or proposals to improve the article. If you want to chat about the state of Wikipedia or have a complaint about other editors this is not the place. Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist, you keep making claims about Khalidi's reputation without providing any of the sources that should be able to establish them. The fact is that Wikipedia is inconsistent. On some bios, you can add basically anything and no one will notice. Other pages have editors that ensure they comply with WP:BLP. I might venture some differences in the potential impact of poorly sourced negative material across some of the articles you mention, that may be reflected in how much people care. Someone like Chomsky, for instance, is likely prominent enough that a bogus claim on his bio is likelier to embarrass Wikipedia than it is to embarrass Chomsky. With others there may be more reason to be more concerned. The standards are always there, though, and are enforced anywhere someone is familiar enough with Wikipedia to make it happen. At least in my view that's also quite important, whether or not any single person has the ability or effort to protect every BLP. Mackan79 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mackan, Reason (magazine) the Wall Street Journal the New York Times Efraim karshDaniel PipesMichael Rubin (historian) - these really are significant sources. But I do agree. Articles on people like Khalidi that read like whitewashes are more likely to embarrass Wikipedia than to affect Khalidi.Historicist (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, my contention is not that Khalidi is a contentious scholar. It is that he is a sloppy and inaccurate one who frequently uses bad facts and bogus quotes dur to his highly unprofessional habit of “relying instead on secondary sources,” for making arguments in his books “based on scrawny evidence,” for being “factually wrong” in his citation of evidence, and for scholarship that is “negligent, if not dishonest.”

• My proposed addition to the section on Khalidi’s academic work consists of statements from three eminent historians who have assessed Khalidi’s work and concluded, in print in reputable journals, that Khalidi’s work is frequently marred by the use of inaccurate or fabricated quotations and untrue facts because he relies on secondary sources instead of using or checking primary sources. These claims are substantiated by documented instances in which Khalidi has been shown to have published facts and quotations that have been proven to be inaccurate – footnotes 1 – 8.

• The second assertion, again, by eminent historians, is that Khalidi’s work is in the nature of advocacy writing. When we consider that Khalidi actually worked as a PLO official as a young man, is an outspoken and severe critic of American foreign policy and of Israel, and is not only an advocate by a founder of advocacy organizations that promote the Palestinian cause, is it inappropriate for reputable historians to point out that these views also color his academic writing?

• As for User:Wikidemon’s assertion that everything needs to be cited to “neutral secondary sources” – balderdash. Prominent historians can be cited from their own publications. Moreover, I am not persuaded that there is such a thing as a “neutral secondary source” on the topic of Israel and the Arabs, although Reason (magazine) and the New York Times are not usually though of as unreliable and partisan, as [[User:Wikedemon}} would have it. Historicist (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on the reliability of sources, not the credentials of their authors. There are reliable sources for any topic we cover, and when there are none it means the subject is not notable and we should not cover it. A PhD and a think tank appointment does not buy any partisan a free pass on Wikipedia to sling mud at other partisans. That's all policy, not balderdash. Not to mention that you're continuing to misrepresent what even these partisan sources say, after this has been pointed out again and again. We've talked in so many circles on this that it seems pointless to entertain the same argument repeated for the fourth or fifth time.Wikidemon (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The knife cuts both ways

Wikidemon, I just want to point out to you that both Efraim Karsh (PhD, professor, head of Middle East studies at a respectable British university) and Diana Muir (widely published author and historian whose works are regularly published in reputable academic journals) are living people, just as is Rashid Khalidi. To refer to their criticisms of Khalidi, published in an academic journal (Middle East Quarterly), as "no-holds-barred lowbrow match of lawyers, academics, and journalists smearing each other", even on a talk page, is at least as much a BLP violation as you contend would be including their criticisms in the Khalidi article. Both Karsh and Muir could probably bring action against the Wikipedia for these remarks, if they were so inclined. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Not by a mile. Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Is there a game plan for unprotecting this page? I am concerned that the discussion is not going anywhere, but the page continues to be protected indefinitely.

As far as recent material that has been proposed, I do not see how any of it is appropriate, or close to appropriate. It is clear that there is not currently consensus for this material, so I would think the way forward would be to unprotect the page, and to clarify that this material (or material generally, for that matter) would need to be improved into something that can garner consensus before continuing to try to insert it. If people disagree with this then it is possible we will need dispute resolution, but I don't see how indefinitely protecting the page is satisfactory. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

criticism

I think there needs to be a "criticism" part in this page. His scholarship is definitely not undisputed.Tallicfan20 (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Best not to have a separate criticism section, for a few reasons. One is that it becomes a WP:COATRACK for detractors of Barack Obama due to attempts in the past presidential election to portray Khalidi as a former terrorist and Obama as a close friend of his, which all presents WP:BLP and [{WP:POV]] problems. Second, in general many people disfavor criticism sections, particularly concerning people. People are not normally judged by who their supporters and detractors are, or in any event this is but a single aspect that is more important to some people's lives than others. Reception, influence, and commentary are a little more to the point. What's more important that praise and criticism, is how Khalidi fits into the work of other scholars, and to the extent he is involved in politics what his place is there. That's best integrated into the fabric of the article. For a case in point take Sigmund Freud, whose body of work is very frequently criticized. That's a pretty good article... you'll see that it's not short on criticizm, but: (1) it represents significant criticism and dispute of his theories, not so much scandals and accusations about his life, and (2) it relates to his legacy and not to any academic squabbles he was in. Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think there could be a way to have criticism incorporated into the article but make it solely about his scholarship, not just Barack Obama. Like all historians and academics, his works have been criticised, but the criticisms haven't shown up on here. On pro-Israel academics, they always show up.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Do you want to take a pass at that? Wikidemon (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll start finding stuff, tho I others should do so too.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

As there is now a criticism section and it seems that any undue weight issues were handled, I will be removing the tag. Before anyone replaces it, please explain why you believe the article is not neutral. -- Avi (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Moshe Yaalon quote

Whats your argument? POV issue is not applicable, sourses are valid. --Rm125 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the articles actually suggest that Khalidi was involved in some sort of wrongdoing, or was embroiled in controversy for that matter. A few of the sources refer to him simply to describe the chain of misattribution that occurred from 2002 onwards. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125's text is unacceptable for several reasons. (1) it says the quote is fake, but it should only say that certain named parties claim it to be fake. (2) Surely RK has replied to the charge, but why is it not mentioned? Zero^talk 03:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya'alon's statement as translated in the English Haaretz was apparently "I defined it from the beginning of the confrontation - the very deep internalization by the Palestinians that terrorism and violence will not defeat us, will not make us fold." Comparing this to Khalidi's version "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people," I fail to see that much difference. "Very deep internalization" is the same as "in the deepest recesses of their consciousness" and "Palestinians...are a defeated people" is almost the same as "Palestinians...will not defeat us [Israelis]". If the English Haaretz sentence was the original, Khalidi is still guilty of misquote, but if the original was Hebrew (which it probably was) and Khalidi just made his own translation from the Hebrew Haaretz, then it is defensible. So has anyone every looked at the Hebrew version of what Ya'alon said? Zero^talk 04:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I looked this issue up in a very large newspaper database (Factiva) and the only mention of it I could find was the very recent Toronto Star polemic. I bet it was inspired by Wikipedia! No evidence of notablilty here. Zero^talk 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is a single reliable source here relating to Khalidi's role in all this, the Toronto Star piece mentioning that CAMERA decided to pursue the inaccurate quote after noticing Khalidi's repeating it in a New York Times op-ed. It's never called fabricated, fake, bogus, or anything like that. Rather, the Star article says that the quote attributed to Ya'alon is in fact the Haaretz interviewer's summary of Ya'alon's position, which at some point got attributed to Ya'alon, after which many major publications repeated it as if Ya'alon himself had said it, when it was in fact another writer's attempt to summarize Ya'alon's position. Indeed, it does make a lot of difference. Ya'alon's words seem reasonable and uncontroversial: Palestinians need to accept they cannot defeat Israel. The summary is not: Palestinians need to internalize they are a defeated people. Assuming that's not what Ya'alon said or meant, a great disservice was done to Ya'alon. The quote (as per the Star) symbolized to some Israeli victimization of Palestinians, and Ya'alon's personal callousness. That it is a misquote means that was unfair. The POV problem is that this incident is being used on Wikipedia and in various blogs, editorials, etc., but not in reliable sources, to tarnish the reputations of every figure seen as unsympathetic to Israel who has repeated the misquote. That would be dozens of notable people. Already on Wikipedia editors have tried to insert the claim in article after article that one anti-Israel figure or another has repeated a bogus quote. We really only need mention this once or twice, in the articles most appropriate. Repeating it everywhere becomes a form of coatrack. Wikidemon (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, there is a second reliable source as well,[34] which covers the issue without mentioning Khalidi, and mentioning Seigman by reference only as "a reporter from Haaretz". That both reliable sources treat this as an issue of propagation of journalist error, rather than misconduct by any specific journalist, is key. The POV position is to disparage the (perceived) anti-Israel journalists who repeated the misquote. The sources don't do this at all, only the partisans. None of the reliable sources say that Khalidi repeated it seven times, that's CAMERA, an unreliable source. The Star piece mentions Khalidi's repeating it once in the New York Times, but not as a comment on Khalidi but rather getting the chronology of CAMERA's investigation. Wikidemon (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is notable because Khalidi is a professor. Academics are responsible for getting the facts right. What Khalidi did was to quote, no fewer than seven times, a quotation without ever checking the source. This , in academic terms, is huge. Even undergrads are responsible for checking their sources.Historicist (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

According to CAMERA it was seven times. And your opinion of what is notable is just that, your opinion. Please stop edit-warring to include BLP-vios. nableezy - 17:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have filed an AN/I report regarding the edit warring, here. The substantive issue is pretty trivial. We don't make our own decisions about various journalists' credentials. The sources mention that this quote was widely reported throughout the world. One mentions Khalidi in passing as the subject of CAMERA's interest, but not by way of impugning Khalidi. The other does not mention any names at all. It would be silly to track down and add to every journalist's bio who repeated this a mention of the incident. To do so, selectively, among the several anti-Israel scholars and journalists CAMERA chose to attack (as is their job) is POV, also poorly sourced / BLP because CAMERA is hardly reliable. The new edit warring on this subject is spanning a few articles so this is turning into a bit of a mess, hence the AN/I report - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The misquote in itself is notable, in that it was covered extensively by a number of reliable sources. Khalidi's role in the affair clearly isn't. His actions are only mentioned in passing in two reliable sources, and neither attempt to place any blame on Khalidi. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I have tagged the article because of the absence (repeated removal) of material on Khalidi's record of false citations and frequent publication of bad facts.Historicist (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag is inappropriate. I would remove it, and will likely do so once this settles down, but I do not wish to edit war. Please remove the tag from this and the other BLP, participate in normal editing process, and don't commit BLP violations in article or talk space by accusing living article subjects of dishonesty. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why this revert?

The person who removed the following from this article asked if the person who placed it there was or is joking. I do not understand the question and do not understand the removal of this short quote from Chronicle of Higher Ed from this article. These are the details.

"To his supporters, Khalidi is celebrated for bringing to light a history that, some say, has been long obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century." From the issue dated March 6, 2009 Rashid Khalidi's Balancing Act The Middle-East scholar courts controversy with his Palestinian advocacy By Evan R. Goldstein http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i26/26b00601.htm

In erasing this entry, Nishkid64 wrote-- (rv gross POV; you're joking, right? "...had tended to be obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century.")

Do you mean that you object to the point the article writer, Evan Goldstein, is making, and on that basis contend that what Goldstein wrote should be removed?

I checked and found the quoted words to be accurate. So why was this deleted from the article? Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be an objection, in the form of a rhetorical question, to an addition seen as unwarranted. The editor who added it announced in advance that he was making "badly needed" balance to the point of view of the article,[35], often a sign of trouble, and was later blocked for edit warring here. The material added to the article based on that source was: "Khalidi's scholarship is notable for bringing to light aspects of Arab and Palestiian[sic] history that, in the view of some, had tended to be obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century." There are quite a few problems with this prose. First, it is not clear out of the context of Goldstein's piece what this quote is supposed to mean. It says several things at once: (1) that some people believe that an aspect of Palestinian history (presumably displacement and other difficulties in Israel) has been overshadowed by Jewish suffering (possibly a holocaust reference). It is not clear whether this is an observation about historical attention, or an observation about people's value judgments about whose suffering is more important. (2) Khalidi brought Palestinian history to light, according to some. (3) the people who believe Khalidi brought Palestinian history to light are his supporters (or people who celebrate him, per the source). Taken together, is this a praise of Khalidi that he brought a poorly understood matter to peopel's attention, or is this a dig, trying to divide the world into "supporters" and non-supporters? And why is this supposed to be a point-of-view matter to begin with? The point of this article is to describe Khalidi's life and career. Posing this as a question of what his supporters think of him versus others, and comparing Jewish suffering to Palestinian suffering, is rather far afield. Even if we have the context, it is a single author's opinion of Knalidi, and there is no real showing that this opinion is particularly astute or germane. The removed text does not clarify that this is the opinion of one author. Rather, it endorses it as Wikipedia's official position - the business of assessing Khalidi's reputation among supporters for bringing Palestinian history to light. All in all it doesn't really explain Khalidi as well as it could, and it's not a very encyclopedic fact. If Khalidi discovered new things about Palestinian history, let's find a source that says it and say it simply. If Khalidi popularized already-known historical facts, we can say that. If he has supporters and detractors and they have different views of him, then if it's really a significant relevant issue we can say that. But conflating them all in a single sentence is rather murky. Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, given the user's POV on Khalidi, I considered "immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century" an attempt to distract the reader from the main purpose of the sentence. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism claim

There's recently been a move to (again?) accuse Khalidi of plagiarism here in this article. The material is weakly sourced but true... The account given here is a neutral account of what happened: an article originally attributed to Khalidi was found to be substantially copied from an earlier article by someone else, Khalidi and his publisher denied that Khalidi wrote it and claimed instead that the original byline was erroneous, and Alan Dershowitz then accused him of plagiarism and making up excuses. This was mostly a tempest at Campus Watch, which makes regular sport of bashing Khalidi and other scholars and journalists seen as anti-Israel. There is some primary sourcing to the documents in question, a reference to a source of questionable reliability (a campus watch reprint of a Jewish Advocate story), and then a reliable but relatively minor source, an account of the dust-up published by a History News Network intern. What's missing is any indication that the claim is significant or received any mainstream attention. I'm tempted to challenge the entire thing on BLP grounds as a poorly sourced accusation of academic fraud (for the umpteenth time - this article has long been fraught with that). However, for the moment I just cleaned it up. Any arguments as to why this is significant enough to overcome BLP and WEIGHT issues? Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work cleaning up, Wikidemon. The URL to solomonia/campus watch is more of a wp:convenience link. The Jewish Advocate's own archives don't go back that far. I guess we can try and trace if anyone has a microfiche of the original article, but I think that its existence is not questioned. As for why it belongs, isn't plagiarism one of the worst charges that one academic can levy against another? The Dershowitz/Chomsky affair comes to mind. -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, Deshowitz has been involved in several similar episodes. Yes, plagiarism is a major charge. It's a firing offense for professors. But a claim of plagiarism can't boostrap itself to importance based solely on the fact that the claim was made, particularly not when made by a partisan source where few if any reliable publications see fit to report on it. If this claim has any significance, wouldn't you expect some mainstream publication, say Fox News, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or even the The Des Moines Register, to say something about it? For example, this Columbia professor's charge of plagiarism resulted in her firing and was important enough for USA Today,[36] and this one in the Washington Post.[37] This unproven allegation in the Associated Press.[38] In fact, I could turn the argument around and ask, if such a significant accusation is made against such a controversial figure and no significant reliable source thinks it's worth reporting, isn't the claim itself unremarkable per the sources? Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good points, and I do note that two more recent NYT articles do not mention the plagiarism. On the other hand, it is not unsunstantiated, so perhaps recasting it as one, at most two sentences would be the best option as to neither ignore it nor give it undue weight. I'll take a crack at that. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's now one sentence, combined with the previous paragraph, and sourced to the two main points. -- Avi (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed on sourcing grounds (which implicates BLP) the statement that Khalidi is accused of having a political agenda. The two sources were a Cinnamon Stillwell article in Campus Watch, and a Chicago Maroon (University student newspaper) editorial also reprinted in Campus Watch. If Khalidi has indeed been accused of having a political agenda, and the accusation is of any significance, surely there is a more substantial source that would say "Khalidi has been accused of having a political agenda." We don't need the Wall Street Journal to actually agree with the claim, just to report that it's been made. Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume the lack of response by anyone implies acceptance? -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys... the talk page is still here. I think since Khalidi felt the need to defend hismelf, and perhaps to have his byline removed, this is notable. Let's just stick to the facts as neutrally as we can. IronDuke 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I agree with Zero about the BLP violation and using an article by an intern as the sole source for it. An allegation as serious as that would need first-class sources, several of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is Dershowitz as well, and regardless of what you think of him, he is no intern. -- Avi (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And Khalidi responded to it, no? IronDuke 03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to Dershowitz, but to the HHN article, which means that Khalidi thought it serious enough to merit a response (and a changing of an attribution that stood for years). -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course he wanted his name off an article he didn't write. And the fact that he didn't write it is blindingly obvious. A scholar of Khalidi's status doesn't rely on "The Golden Bough" for ancient history. Zero^talk 03:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is why we have that in the article as well, Zero, we are not trying to hide anything. -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Facts only -- everyone has their say, the reader decides. IronDuke 04:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. Slimvirgin is right, it is policy: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This material is highly contentious, exceedingly dubious on its face, and based on the claims of "an anonymous historian". It is rare to see such an obvious case of BLP violation. Zero^talk 04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Khalidi a poor source? IronDuke 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Coupled with an anonymous source claiming he had, if IronDuke had said, "I do not beat my wife. would that be a legit source for alleging he did? Skywriter (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Dershowitz a poor source? And why is History News Network not reliable? Do we vet each author of New York Times articles and refuse them when they say "Staff"? The fact that it is published by the History News Network should be sufficient if we believe that the History News Network is a reliable and verifiable source. -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

HNN reported an accusation in one article then retracted it in another. The accusation was always absurd and came from some anonymous person now identified as a "friend" of a known enemy of Khalidi. People who write on controversial topics get accusations hurled at them all the time and there is no reason we should report them unless they become prominent public issues. Being echoed by the usual suspects like Campus Watch doesn't make something notable. If they do become prominent public issues and are reported on by high quality sources, then we can report it also on the basis of those sources. Zero^talk 04:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I shortened back in June, as I wrote above: Good points, and I do note that two more recent NYT articles do not mention the plagiarism. On the other hand, it is not unsubstantiated, so perhaps recasting it as one, at most two sentences would be the best option as to neither ignore it nor give it undue weight. I'll take a crack at that. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC). Which is what it is now. -- Avi (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP is clear: contentious poorly sourced material must be removed. The source is one article written by an intern. If it's a serious issue, other people will have written about it, and given the nature of it, we need multiple, mainstream, reliable sources. I've made it invisible for now, but we need to remove it very soon, or else add good sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP is clear, Slim,. but your "intern" claims are not. According to you, every New York Times article written by "Staff" is ineligible for BLP's. The reliability is based on the source; and if HHN chose both to run it, and not retract it but instead publish the Khalidi response, that is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point; I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I really don't. What does this have to do with the New York Times and staff? The article clearly says it was written by an intern. That alone is enough to cast doubt on it, in terms of our BLP policy, which insists on the highest-quality source material for anything contentious -- and for a writer or academic there are few more contentious allegations than plagiarism. The second thing that counts against it is that it's a sole source. It's unlikely that one article by an intern would be all that exists on this if it's correct. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked around for other sources and can't find anything mainstreasm; also if you read the HNN article, it's not clear whether they knew who the anonymous source was, and they name one newspaper that declined to publish the story. I felt uncomfortable about leaving this invisible in the article when BLP is clear about poorly sourced material, so I've taken it out entirely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin. An article written by an intern is clearly not the type of high quality source that needs to be used to source contentious material in a BLP. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

*What you are all missing is that Khalidi was the founder and President of the American Committee on Jerusalem, the organization on whose web site the article appeared. He really does have to take some ownership for an article that appeared under his byline for several year on the small web site of the small organization with a tiny staff that he was President of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton23 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) indef blocked sock nableezy - 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Slim, Nish, Zero, what I believe the flaw in your positions is that when we look at reliable sources, we look at the publisher as well. Many articles from sources such as The New York Times, The Guardian, or Al-Jazeera are used on wikipedia even when either not attributed at all or attributed to staff. What we rely upon is the fact that the work as a whole is reliable and so what it publishes is as well. Same here. If there is a question about HHN as a SOURCE, that I understand, and that has to be discussed. But this was not an op-ed piece, this was an article, and so the identity of the author is pretty much irrelevant as long as the work published it in its news section. Of course, op-ed pieces are different. Therefore, I submit, that as long as HHN as a whole is a relibale source (it is surely verifiable, we all see the page), we are required to bring what it says, in such a way as not to violate undue weight, which is the one-sentence addition I made a while ago. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Slim is right. Our BLP policy is clear. We require multiple reliable sources for contentious information, of which this clearly is. As far as looking at the publisher and considering what Khalidi and Dershowitz have said and what was apparently worth a response, you're getting into synthesis. We report what has already been reported in reliable sources, we don't draw conclusions based on our own research. Unless the information can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. Lara 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi, that the HNN would allow an intern—an unpaid trainee—to publish a potentially libelous story like this based on an email from an anonymous source, when it's not even clear that they know the identity of the source, tells us something about their reliability as a news source, in my view. Also, please read the story carefully. It's poorly written, not well-researched, and they make clear that no mainstream news organization wants to publish it. Had it been published by The New York Times, as staff or with a byline, I'd have had no problem with it, but it wouldn't have been published by them, at least not in that form. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Question, how is this contentious? Khalidi admits his name was on the article for years; he just says that was an error, and we report that as well? -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot - I don't think anyone cares outside the strange world of pro and anti-Israeli journalists, activists, and scholars trying to besmirch each other's reputation. Even if sourced, the whole thing is a non-event, both logically and as measured by its paucity of sourcing. Dershowitz hurls accusations right and left at a lot of people with whom he disagrees ideologically. The very fact that he said it, and one or two papers report on what he says, is not by itself a ticket to notability. Further, there is a problem at the boundary of BLP and WP:WEIGHT with repeating an accusation by an unreliable source, simply because a reliable source has said the accusation was made. Every time Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or even Noam Chomsky says something particularly incendiary, somebody reports on it, but we don't use Wikipedia as a compendium of every piece of reported character assassination. If we used that as the standard for article inclusion this would be pundit-pedia, repeating all manner of accusations and disparagement. Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and the fact that it is not carried in more mainstream publications, while I fear bias may have somewhat to do with it, nevertheless is indicative enough in its own right that I understand the position that the sentence should remain out of the article until such point as we have better sourcing, so I will not be the one to restore it without another source for now. Thank you all for the discussion that was remarkably free of rancor . -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions

Regarding this addition[39] there is no indication that this analysis is particularly noteworthy. The same goes for the Clyde Haberman opinion that is already in the article. There must be hundreds, or thousands, of editorials about Khalidi and his works. Why choose any particular one? I would think that any criticism, praise, or opinion expressed about Khalidi ought to be verified for weight purposes to a neutral reliable third party source covering the opinion, rather than the expression of the opinion itself. Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Relations

Is Rashid Khalidi related to Walid Khalidi? I think they might be cousins. Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)