![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
How could such an esteemed university as Columbia University hire an anti-semite? I highly doubt editor Avraham's unsubstantiated claim that Khalidi is an anti-semite. He provided no reference to his claim. He merely put him in that category. Being critical of Israel does not make one an anti-semite. Dogru144 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going through the citations and updating where necessary. If the evidence does not prove anti-Semitism, I'll be glad to leave it out. As for universities hiring anti-semites, I sadly direct you to Leonard Jeffries and Joseph Massad. -- Avi 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have verified the citations for everything with a reference entry, and I have re-written the text to be more faithful to the citations and less sensationalistic for those areas I have edited. It should not be removed, as it is verified from reliable sources and should be weasel-word-free, at least the parts that I have gotten to so far. -- Avi 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they are reliable sources for 1) when they bring quotations of people and 2) to show an opinion exists. No one is making an allegation BASED on an editorial, rather we are bringing the allegations MADE IN the editorials.
Further, the way to handle NPOV is not to remove cited and referenced material (if the material meets WP:RS) but to bring all sides, as I have done with Khalidi's denial of teh claim of "brainwashing" etc.
As for the hnn quote, I'll look into that further as well. Thank you. -- Avi 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, please see Some definitions under opinions. If the opinions are attributed to the proper source (to prevent weasel wording) than the fact that they exist are facts, and the organizations own website is always the best place for that. To use CAMERA's site to say unequivacably that he is an anti-semite, for example, would be wrong, I agree. But to say that CAMERA, who makes it their business to monitor teh middle east, feels that khalidi is X, Y, and Z, is NOT an issue of WP:V or WP:RS or WP:NPOV. By all means, bring work from organizations that disagree so that the reader can make their own decision based on the evidence. -- Avi 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
These quotations, whether verified or not, are a blatant skew of Khalidi's political beliefs. They are simply a compilation of the least representative quotes possible, clearly designed to advance an agenda against Professor Khalidi. They ought to be tempered with rhetoric reflecting the majority of Khalidi's sentiments. cjs 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are calling the Washington Times, PBS, and the Chicago Tribune gutter press? I don't understand. -- Avi 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, I am removing the POV tag. If you have opposing views in verifiable and reliable sources, please bring them, but the evidence is what the evidence is. -- Avi 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I cut the last part of the Washington Times slander, because the quotation implied that Khalidi had stated what was in fact part of the article by "Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris". There is plenty of substance already from the WT editorial, and if the reader wants to go check it out, they certainly can.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.208.22.2 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, October 16, 2006 (UTC)
I just changed the title to "Controversial Statements," since the statements appear to have been chosen primarily for their controversiality. "Controversial Political Statements" would be another option. This section could also be combined with the "Criticism" under a larger heading of "Controversy." One problem with simply titling it "Political Views" is that it suggests they are typical and broadly representative, which doesn't appear to be why they were chosen. Being that they seem to have been culled to show his extremism by critics, they might also simply be included under Criticism. Mackan79 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. The fact you don't like it is not a wikipedia policy. It's all sourced and verifiable, and very researched and comprehensive, and it will all obviously stay. How on earth will you think that citing things he said about Israel or the allegations made agaisnt him about plagriasm and international law issues all sourced is "cherrypicked and a violation of wikipedia rules" - don't be ridicilous. Amoruso 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It is in plain violation of Wikipedia policy to fail to include the article subject's denial if he is accused of something. I am in the process of correcting this, but the article is still rather unbalanced. The only substantive section is on criticism of Khalidi. Kalkin 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
By all means add his rebuttal, but do not delete verifiably and reliably sourced accusations. -- Avi 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Kalkin, it pays to follow the entire edit history before making accusations
. GO back, check, and then come back and state your case. Thanks --
Avi
00:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I disagree with you. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America also known as CAMERA is a reliable source for bringing opinions regarding people with philosophies similar to Rashidi. I direct you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions where it states "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion." CAMERA is reliable enough to demonstrate the strong opinion and substantiating evidence that Khalidi is biased and holds extreme views regarding Israel, Zionism, and perhaps Jews in general. -- Avi 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea who Lewis is, and his relevancy to this article appears to be zero. Your or my opinions about this man (Khalidi) are irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on verifability, not truth, and as long as the article brings reliable and verifiable sources, that is what wikipedia requires. Now, by all means, the way to combat NPOV is to bring acceptable sources from the various sides. Bring more praise for Khalidi from Said, Massad, etc. It is sorrowfully obvious that the same cadre of people will be supporting each other (khalidi, massad, etc.) and the same cadre of people will be attacking them (pipes, kramer, etc.). The perception of extreme anti-zionistic, anti-Israel feeling, and strong suggestions of anti-Jewish opinion as well, is well documented and well sourced. It is a shame that it is true, for these people seem very intelligent and articulate, but they are on record as being accused of using their talents to disseminate a severe point of view. This is a fact. That they defend their interest group, Palestinian Arabs, with the same fervor is commendable, especially if you are a Palestinian, but it is in addition to their Israeli sentiment, not instead of it. --
Avi
21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I view my role as not writing the article, but verifying the citations others have brought, finding verifiable citations for statements that don't have and removing statements that cannot be proprly sourced. I leave it to you "experts" to bring new information, although I can google aswell as anyone
. My point is that your OPINION is as useful as mine in this matter; neither is acceptable as a source for wikipedia (see
WP:OR). Instead of vociferously trying to supress certain information, bring reputable information to confirm your point to the table instead and work to BUILD the article, not destroy it. Also, for that fuzzy feeling inside, I suggest
Alka-Seltzer and laying off the late-night pizza ;) --
Avi
21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I had to delete the section regarding PLO associations. I wanted to save it, but it's just too stretched. Friedman said that he worked for the Palestine Press Agency, Wafa. Good and fine. It was then stated here, however, that Wafa is the PLO press agency. This was not sourced. According to Wikipedia's Wafa entry, moreover, Wafa is not the PLO press agency, but rather the agency of the Palestinian National Authority. According to the Wikipedia on the Palestinian National Authority, the PNA and PLO are distinct. Now, of course, if this Wikipedia information is incorrect, a revert may be in order. Assuming it's correct, though, this left the option: say that Friedman alleged that Khalidi worked for Wafa, and that Wafa is run by the PNA, and then explain that the PNA isn't the PLO, but what, is also Palestinian? I don't see how that works. The next statement, then, was simply that Khalidi's wife had worked for the same organization. Newsworthy perhaps if this were really the PLO, but apparently it's not even that. So then below that, we simply had an explanation of how Khalidi represented the Palestinians in Madrid, not as part of the PLO, but with other people involved who did represent the PLO. We then had Khalidi denying the associations, followed by CAMERA admiting that they don't actually say he worked for the PLO. Put all this together, I don't see how a section on alleged PLO associations, which is basically an unexplained partisan attack to begin with, is justified. If I'm getting something wrong, though, please explain. Mackan79 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think whoever brought the Boyle quote is mising the point of the accusation. No one denies the rights of the Palestinans to resist. Their method, however, violates the 4th GC by not having set uniforms, signs, carrying weapons openly, etc. If they used a Palestinian military is one thing; what they are using is terrorist activities. So Boyle's quote, while perhaps accurate, is completely irrelevant in answering the misstatement accusation against Khalidi
. --
Avi
14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, a little research on the Boyle quote finds the book and book review on which it is based. If anyone can actually get their hands on the book and find the page number, we can dispense with the Gillespie review in its entirety. -- Avi 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope people aren't offended by my various changes. I think the critics still get their shots in with the controversial statements (the more important issue, I would think), without giving excessive attention to the more attenuated accusations or the apparently relatively petty plagiarism charge (but still mentioning even that). I'd almost suggest the disputed neutrality banner could be removed at this point? Mackan79 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The accusations are indeed exactly that - accusations - which is what the article says. Accusations are also interesting enough and encyclopedic to note when it comes from prominent figures or incidents like this one. Wikipedia is a source for ALL this information as long as it maintains accuracy which it did by saying these are accusations. There's no reason to censor this information. How can you say it's not notable when it's all over the net and many people had their say on this is not something I understand. As you can see in the article provided, the PLO allegations are also very abundant and should not be supressed in any way. Amoruso 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Mackan79 , please note you have violated WP:3RR on th article. Amoruso 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you haven't responded, and you didn't explain your original basis for reverting, I'm going to reinstate my edits to the accusations section. Please note again that I did not delete the plagiarism charge, but simply switched the order. I still think the PLO section needs to be much better explained, but I'll leave it there for now to see if anyone can tie it together. If you or anyone disagrees with the edits, the reasons for which are explained in detail above, I would much appreciate the attempt to explain that disagreement here before simply reverting to the prior version. Otherwise, I'm not sure how the mediation system works, but I'd be happy to try that. Thanks. Mackan79 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed:
Reason: This states the opinion of one person, but there are many other opinions that are not stated. In the law journals there is plenty of argument that occupied persons have a right of armed resistance. (One example: Adam Roberts, The American Journal of International Law, Jan 1990.) Nobody, for example, would challenge the notion that the residents of Poland had the right to violently resist the Nazi occupation and nobody would claim that only persons in uniform had that right. The argument is actually over the circumstances when armed resistance is allowed and the form the resistance can take. There seems to be no unanimity on that, and of course there is even less unanimity over whether any of this applies to Palestine. However we can't just quote one side of the argument as if it is the legal consensus. And we shouldn't open the general argument herte either, since it is off-topic. -- Zero talk 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Avraham, I object to various aspects of this quote and changes to the surrounding section.
1. I do not find it noteworthy that Alan Dershowitz called Khalidi "hateful." Alan Dershowitz's fame rests largely on his inflammatory rhetoric. It is not important to Khalidi's life and work that Dershowitz called him "hateful," particularly under the circumstances. 1.a. If the "Godsend" quote is to stay in any form, it should not include Dershowitz' unexplained characterization that this is a hateful statement. It also should not include an explanation, however, as Dershowitz' attacks are politically suspect, and an explanation would require this further explanation, which would overwhelm the article. 1.b. This "hateful" characterization absolutely should not appear in the opening of the accusations section, which should require much more than a single use of the word by Alan Dershowitz. "Hateful" is a highly inflammatory word, similar to the previous characterization of Khalidi as a "reliable propagandist." Words of political opponents should not be quoted simply because they are inflammatory; this creates clear bias in the article. Very very few encyclopedia articles would quote opponents calling the subject of the article "hateful."
2. The Godsend quote is taken out of context, and fails to note that Khalidi was speaking of racists who thought that Muslims can only understand violence. If the quote is to stay, it needs to include the full paragraph.
3. I find this general style of including quotes like these, without explanation, highly problematic in an encyclopedia article. Without explanation, these quotes stand simply as an arsenal for critics to use against Khalidi. This is not what Encyclopedias do: "And now, we'll have a list of quotes that could be used out of context to damage this man's reputation." If you want to include a quote, you should explain the context of the quote, and how this represents a controversy. As I said earlier, this is the difference between explaining an accusation and making an accusation. In Biographies of Living People, my understanding is that we aren'tjust supposed to be making accusations, whether cited or not.
4. I disagree with your explanation that Dershowitz' charge was cleared by Harvard, and the explanation that he was trying to show a real infraction as opposed to a fake one. 4.a. This provides an excessive platform for Dershowitz to attack Khalidi in an article about Khalidi. It is an important point in the context of Dershowitz' accusation that Dershowitz made it in a response to accusations against himself. It is not important, in an article about Khalidi, to explain Dershowitz' full argument for doing so. 4.b. It's also made less important when the explanation is biased and incorrect. I strongly disagree that Dershowitz presented Khalidi to show real academic dishonesty as opposed to fake dishonesty. As he stated, he presented it as a /challenge/ to these scholars to be as critical of Khalidi as they were of him. Obviously the difference is huge; while the "challenge" explanation severely undercuts the idea that this was a serious infraction by Khalidi and suggests Dershowitz was trying to distract attention from himself, the explanation you've manufactured makes it look like he's singled out Khalidi as the worst example of plagiarism he could find to show what /real/ plagiarism looks like.
Now it's still very possible that the whole plagiarism charge shouldn't be there at all, for reasons already discussed. If it is, though, Dershowitz accusation should clearly be impeached with his obvious bias. This should not be an opportunity, however, for Dershowitz to counter-counter attack. If this counter-counter attack from Dershowitz is necessary, then the plagiarism charge simply should not be here. Of course, Dershowitz' article remains cited for anyone to see
I'll await your response before making changes. I hope you will see that I'm trying to be very straight forward here and explain the exact reasons why I object to aspects of this article. I'd appreciate any response in kind. Thanks. Mackan79 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Although this charge against an anti-Israel academic is far more serious than any leveled by the triumvirate against pro-Israel writers, I predict that Finkelstein will not examine it, Chomsky will not complain about it, and Cockburn will not publicize it. Nor will they demand sanctions against their ideological soul-mate, as they have against me and other pro-Israel writers. The same double standard that is directed against Israel by these selective condemners is also directed against pro-Israel academics. So here is my challenge to the triumvirate: apply the same standards to Khalidi that you have to pro-Israel writers. Apply the same scrutiny to his anti-Israel writings that you routinely apply to pro-Israel writers. Demand the same sanctions against Khalidi that you have against pro-Israel writers. Or admit that you are guilty of hypocrisy and a double standard. I await your response, but I am not holding my breath.
This category was added, but it strikes me as controversial and unsourced, so I removed it. Has Khalidi said that he is an anti-Zionist? I don't know of a statement to this effect. Mackan79 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see his rant quoted here -- Avi 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
More info here. -- Avi 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And here. -- Avi 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And more background here. -- Avi 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
More background -- Avi 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The two middle paragraphs (Controversial Statements and Accusations) are hopelessly biased against Khalidi. There is barely a sentence in them which allows Khalidi to rebut the charges. Plus, there is nothing that expounds upon what his substantive views are on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Except for the first paragraph & the list of Khalidi's publications, this is a "hit job." I am embarrassed that this article doesn't have a POV warning at the very least.
There is NO evidence that Khalidi is "anti-Israel" except in the mind of hardline Zionists. I just heard him on a conference call sponsored by Brit Tzedek, an American Jewish peace group. He wants to same things for Israel & the Palestinians that liberal American Jews want. His views about Israel are entirely within the mainstream of the Israeli liberal discourse. To say anything otherwise is to entirey distort reality. richards1052 Richard 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The first para of "criticisms", as observed many months ago above, was absolute garbage. The entire paragraph replicated one random blogger's tendentious interpretation of an offhand comment. Khalidi used the term "occupied", which has all sorts of meanings and does not necessarily refer to military occupation. Some yahoo decides it's a "GOTCHA!", because he can twist it to mean that Khalidi wants to drive the Jews into the sea. Well, good for him. The fact that Wikipedia editors would keep this kind of crap featured prominently is disturbing. Even outside of a WP:BLP, it would fail WP:V and WP:NPOV blatantly. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in reference to the above, the terrible paragraph referencing 'occupation' was removed again. It doesn't matter if material is well cited if the original article cited is ITSELF not well-cited. The criticisms section does not cite any work from respected scholars or authors, it merely refers to inflammatory pages from the far right on the political spectrum, and the original articles are often the result of faulty scholarship on top of that. THIS ARTICLE IS IN DIRE NEED OF A MORE BALANCED VIEW. While Professor Khalidi's views are controversial in some circles, the article must reference the controversy (i.e. all sides of the debate, to the extent that is possible), and not one side. He is a highly regarded scholar among Middle Eastern historians and is widely cited by many writers who come from a variety of backgrounds and political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.243.252 ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In trying to navigate between the refs and notes, it appears they stop working around number 7 on the Albert Hourani Prize. I tried to fix this, even by converting the second reference back to Refname MEICV into a ref of its own, but it still didn't seem to work on preview. I'm wondering if maybe once you put some in the templates, then they all have to be in the template in order to function. If you're familiar with this, Avi, maybe you can take a look. Thanks. Mackan79 ( talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe something similar was removed in 2006, but I think the following sentence still isn't accurate: "In the 1980s, Khalidi's alleged associations with Palestinian organizations, such as the Palestinian News Agency came under scrutiny; the PNA had connections to the PLO.[12]" Ref 12 goes to Thomas Friedman's column, which refers to Khalidi as a former writer for "the Palestinian press agency, Wafa." The connection to the PLO appears in turn to derive from the Washington Times editorial also mentioned in the ref, which I find here. However, any other references I can find refer to Wafa as the press agency of the Palestinian National Authority rather than the PLO as it states in the Times editorial. As such, it seems this should at least be changed to reference the Times editorial rather than Friedman, but even then, I'm not sure the statement is correct. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the LA Times piece about speaking on behalf of the PLO, I don't know if you saw it DKalkin, but I agree with its removal considering it just came out today. It could be accurate, and I almost readded it to the end of the paragraph, but I think with new specific claims such as this, it makes more sense to wait and see. Mackan79 ( talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Relating to the changes here, I'm concerned that many of these statements were quote mined, and some were presented inaccurately (attributed to the school board, when it appears to have been the Chancellor's press secretary). I think people need to be more careful when adding negative material to this article. All in all, I'm not sure the issue is worth discussing at all, relating to an apparently minor issue in 2005, but even if so, these types of provocative headlines ("Barred from NYC teacher training program") filled with negative material should be avoided. Mackan79 ( talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a source for this. Whig historian ( talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
It is incorrect to refer to the PA in the 1980's since the PA was created at the time of the Olso accords. To refer to the PA in the 1980's is anachronistic and incorrect. Whig historian ( talk) 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50A14FA3D5C12728DDDAB0A94D1405B898BF1D3
The “Palestine commando press agency, Wafa” http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F00B13FD395E127A93CAA91782D85F468785F9
more http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=FA0A14FC3E54137A93C0AB178FD85F478785F9
there are a slew of articles confirming that wafa was the PLO press agensy in the early seventies, and ever since Whig historian ( talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
A statement made by the Los Angeles Times is a very different thn-ing thqan a statement made by the World Net Daily. This is a significant news article making a serious allegation. and it merits inclusion in the article. Perhaps the rest of this section can now be abbreviated. But this source merits inclusion. Whig historian ( talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
According to the Los Angeles Times, at a farewell dinner given for Khalidi by "local Arab Americans" in Chicago in 2003, "a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians, " and "One speaker likened 'Zionist settlers on the West Bank' to Osama bin Laden." [1]
Let me preface my remarks by stating that my edits to this page do indicate that I could not be considered a supporter of Mr. Khalidi or his politics. However, the main points of the PLO connection are already brought via the Washington Post article. The LA times article is written from the perspective that Palestinian/Arab leaders believe that Obama, notwithstanding his stated support for Israel, is potentially a better ally for them due to his past relationships with people such as Khalidi. The presence of some unnamed poem reader at a farewell dinner, while personally disturbing, does not tell us anything new. To state that that creates a connection with th ePLO is original research and unacceptable. To say that it indicates Khalidi's feelings about Israel and its continued existence or lack thereof is unnecessary; the article makes his stance clear earlier, and, regardless, there are better sources.
The fact that the article is one day old is irrelevant; au contraire it is current and in a reliable source. But no one, whether we agree or disagree with them, should be subject to cherry-picked attempt to paint them in the worst possible light. There is enough attributable to Khalidi himself, or to discussions about him, that obviate the need for picking out a sentence or two. I did add the article as another source for Palestinian connections vis-a-vis acting as an adviser during negotiations. I also removed the Berman quote, as the "wildly distorting" statements were not in relation to the depictions of Khalidi, but to the depictions of OBAMA as a Palestinian sympathizer, etc. -- Avi ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor has recently deleted sourced material on notable material elaborating on the relationship of Khalidi to Obama, claiming it was redundant. I would like to assume good faith of the deletion, but the fact is that the material was more specific and different from the brief mention of Obama in the PLO connections. Also the material deserves a separate section from the PLO section, since the point of the material is not to discuss Obama's connection to PLO but to discuss the Khalidi/Obama relationship. This material should be restored, but rather than have an edit war, perhaps others could comment besides myself and the deleting editor. Best regards. Cuvette ( talk) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In general, blogs are not considered reliable sources, that is true. However, there are exceptions. The known blog of a recognized expert in a field is usually considered reliable, at least vis-a-vis that expert's opinion. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). However, after further searching, at least as of current, we do not allow any self-published sources in actual biography articles as per above and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources so I am going to self-revert. -- Avi ( talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, a number of issues centering around Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. First, the article states only that Khalidi "reportedly" represented the PLO, which is a rather important qualification. Second, the article would need to be established as a reliable source for this type of claim about a living individual. Third, contentious material doesn't just get added to the introductory paragraph, and in fact this issue is discussed later in the article. Please address these points if it's believed that the article should be included, considering particularly the care Wikipedia takes with biographies of living people. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 08:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
How could such an esteemed university as Columbia University hire an anti-semite? I highly doubt editor Avraham's unsubstantiated claim that Khalidi is an anti-semite. He provided no reference to his claim. He merely put him in that category. Being critical of Israel does not make one an anti-semite. Dogru144 02:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going through the citations and updating where necessary. If the evidence does not prove anti-Semitism, I'll be glad to leave it out. As for universities hiring anti-semites, I sadly direct you to Leonard Jeffries and Joseph Massad. -- Avi 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have verified the citations for everything with a reference entry, and I have re-written the text to be more faithful to the citations and less sensationalistic for those areas I have edited. It should not be removed, as it is verified from reliable sources and should be weasel-word-free, at least the parts that I have gotten to so far. -- Avi 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they are reliable sources for 1) when they bring quotations of people and 2) to show an opinion exists. No one is making an allegation BASED on an editorial, rather we are bringing the allegations MADE IN the editorials.
Further, the way to handle NPOV is not to remove cited and referenced material (if the material meets WP:RS) but to bring all sides, as I have done with Khalidi's denial of teh claim of "brainwashing" etc.
As for the hnn quote, I'll look into that further as well. Thank you. -- Avi 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, please see Some definitions under opinions. If the opinions are attributed to the proper source (to prevent weasel wording) than the fact that they exist are facts, and the organizations own website is always the best place for that. To use CAMERA's site to say unequivacably that he is an anti-semite, for example, would be wrong, I agree. But to say that CAMERA, who makes it their business to monitor teh middle east, feels that khalidi is X, Y, and Z, is NOT an issue of WP:V or WP:RS or WP:NPOV. By all means, bring work from organizations that disagree so that the reader can make their own decision based on the evidence. -- Avi 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
These quotations, whether verified or not, are a blatant skew of Khalidi's political beliefs. They are simply a compilation of the least representative quotes possible, clearly designed to advance an agenda against Professor Khalidi. They ought to be tempered with rhetoric reflecting the majority of Khalidi's sentiments. cjs 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are calling the Washington Times, PBS, and the Chicago Tribune gutter press? I don't understand. -- Avi 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, I am removing the POV tag. If you have opposing views in verifiable and reliable sources, please bring them, but the evidence is what the evidence is. -- Avi 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I cut the last part of the Washington Times slander, because the quotation implied that Khalidi had stated what was in fact part of the article by "Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris". There is plenty of substance already from the WT editorial, and if the reader wants to go check it out, they certainly can.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.208.22.2 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, October 16, 2006 (UTC)
I just changed the title to "Controversial Statements," since the statements appear to have been chosen primarily for their controversiality. "Controversial Political Statements" would be another option. This section could also be combined with the "Criticism" under a larger heading of "Controversy." One problem with simply titling it "Political Views" is that it suggests they are typical and broadly representative, which doesn't appear to be why they were chosen. Being that they seem to have been culled to show his extremism by critics, they might also simply be included under Criticism. Mackan79 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. The fact you don't like it is not a wikipedia policy. It's all sourced and verifiable, and very researched and comprehensive, and it will all obviously stay. How on earth will you think that citing things he said about Israel or the allegations made agaisnt him about plagriasm and international law issues all sourced is "cherrypicked and a violation of wikipedia rules" - don't be ridicilous. Amoruso 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It is in plain violation of Wikipedia policy to fail to include the article subject's denial if he is accused of something. I am in the process of correcting this, but the article is still rather unbalanced. The only substantive section is on criticism of Khalidi. Kalkin 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
By all means add his rebuttal, but do not delete verifiably and reliably sourced accusations. -- Avi 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Kalkin, it pays to follow the entire edit history before making accusations
. GO back, check, and then come back and state your case. Thanks --
Avi
00:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I disagree with you. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America also known as CAMERA is a reliable source for bringing opinions regarding people with philosophies similar to Rashidi. I direct you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions where it states "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion." CAMERA is reliable enough to demonstrate the strong opinion and substantiating evidence that Khalidi is biased and holds extreme views regarding Israel, Zionism, and perhaps Jews in general. -- Avi 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea who Lewis is, and his relevancy to this article appears to be zero. Your or my opinions about this man (Khalidi) are irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on verifability, not truth, and as long as the article brings reliable and verifiable sources, that is what wikipedia requires. Now, by all means, the way to combat NPOV is to bring acceptable sources from the various sides. Bring more praise for Khalidi from Said, Massad, etc. It is sorrowfully obvious that the same cadre of people will be supporting each other (khalidi, massad, etc.) and the same cadre of people will be attacking them (pipes, kramer, etc.). The perception of extreme anti-zionistic, anti-Israel feeling, and strong suggestions of anti-Jewish opinion as well, is well documented and well sourced. It is a shame that it is true, for these people seem very intelligent and articulate, but they are on record as being accused of using their talents to disseminate a severe point of view. This is a fact. That they defend their interest group, Palestinian Arabs, with the same fervor is commendable, especially if you are a Palestinian, but it is in addition to their Israeli sentiment, not instead of it. --
Avi
21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I view my role as not writing the article, but verifying the citations others have brought, finding verifiable citations for statements that don't have and removing statements that cannot be proprly sourced. I leave it to you "experts" to bring new information, although I can google aswell as anyone
. My point is that your OPINION is as useful as mine in this matter; neither is acceptable as a source for wikipedia (see
WP:OR). Instead of vociferously trying to supress certain information, bring reputable information to confirm your point to the table instead and work to BUILD the article, not destroy it. Also, for that fuzzy feeling inside, I suggest
Alka-Seltzer and laying off the late-night pizza ;) --
Avi
21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I had to delete the section regarding PLO associations. I wanted to save it, but it's just too stretched. Friedman said that he worked for the Palestine Press Agency, Wafa. Good and fine. It was then stated here, however, that Wafa is the PLO press agency. This was not sourced. According to Wikipedia's Wafa entry, moreover, Wafa is not the PLO press agency, but rather the agency of the Palestinian National Authority. According to the Wikipedia on the Palestinian National Authority, the PNA and PLO are distinct. Now, of course, if this Wikipedia information is incorrect, a revert may be in order. Assuming it's correct, though, this left the option: say that Friedman alleged that Khalidi worked for Wafa, and that Wafa is run by the PNA, and then explain that the PNA isn't the PLO, but what, is also Palestinian? I don't see how that works. The next statement, then, was simply that Khalidi's wife had worked for the same organization. Newsworthy perhaps if this were really the PLO, but apparently it's not even that. So then below that, we simply had an explanation of how Khalidi represented the Palestinians in Madrid, not as part of the PLO, but with other people involved who did represent the PLO. We then had Khalidi denying the associations, followed by CAMERA admiting that they don't actually say he worked for the PLO. Put all this together, I don't see how a section on alleged PLO associations, which is basically an unexplained partisan attack to begin with, is justified. If I'm getting something wrong, though, please explain. Mackan79 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think whoever brought the Boyle quote is mising the point of the accusation. No one denies the rights of the Palestinans to resist. Their method, however, violates the 4th GC by not having set uniforms, signs, carrying weapons openly, etc. If they used a Palestinian military is one thing; what they are using is terrorist activities. So Boyle's quote, while perhaps accurate, is completely irrelevant in answering the misstatement accusation against Khalidi
. --
Avi
14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, a little research on the Boyle quote finds the book and book review on which it is based. If anyone can actually get their hands on the book and find the page number, we can dispense with the Gillespie review in its entirety. -- Avi 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope people aren't offended by my various changes. I think the critics still get their shots in with the controversial statements (the more important issue, I would think), without giving excessive attention to the more attenuated accusations or the apparently relatively petty plagiarism charge (but still mentioning even that). I'd almost suggest the disputed neutrality banner could be removed at this point? Mackan79 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The accusations are indeed exactly that - accusations - which is what the article says. Accusations are also interesting enough and encyclopedic to note when it comes from prominent figures or incidents like this one. Wikipedia is a source for ALL this information as long as it maintains accuracy which it did by saying these are accusations. There's no reason to censor this information. How can you say it's not notable when it's all over the net and many people had their say on this is not something I understand. As you can see in the article provided, the PLO allegations are also very abundant and should not be supressed in any way. Amoruso 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Mackan79 , please note you have violated WP:3RR on th article. Amoruso 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you haven't responded, and you didn't explain your original basis for reverting, I'm going to reinstate my edits to the accusations section. Please note again that I did not delete the plagiarism charge, but simply switched the order. I still think the PLO section needs to be much better explained, but I'll leave it there for now to see if anyone can tie it together. If you or anyone disagrees with the edits, the reasons for which are explained in detail above, I would much appreciate the attempt to explain that disagreement here before simply reverting to the prior version. Otherwise, I'm not sure how the mediation system works, but I'd be happy to try that. Thanks. Mackan79 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed:
Reason: This states the opinion of one person, but there are many other opinions that are not stated. In the law journals there is plenty of argument that occupied persons have a right of armed resistance. (One example: Adam Roberts, The American Journal of International Law, Jan 1990.) Nobody, for example, would challenge the notion that the residents of Poland had the right to violently resist the Nazi occupation and nobody would claim that only persons in uniform had that right. The argument is actually over the circumstances when armed resistance is allowed and the form the resistance can take. There seems to be no unanimity on that, and of course there is even less unanimity over whether any of this applies to Palestine. However we can't just quote one side of the argument as if it is the legal consensus. And we shouldn't open the general argument herte either, since it is off-topic. -- Zero talk 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Avraham, I object to various aspects of this quote and changes to the surrounding section.
1. I do not find it noteworthy that Alan Dershowitz called Khalidi "hateful." Alan Dershowitz's fame rests largely on his inflammatory rhetoric. It is not important to Khalidi's life and work that Dershowitz called him "hateful," particularly under the circumstances. 1.a. If the "Godsend" quote is to stay in any form, it should not include Dershowitz' unexplained characterization that this is a hateful statement. It also should not include an explanation, however, as Dershowitz' attacks are politically suspect, and an explanation would require this further explanation, which would overwhelm the article. 1.b. This "hateful" characterization absolutely should not appear in the opening of the accusations section, which should require much more than a single use of the word by Alan Dershowitz. "Hateful" is a highly inflammatory word, similar to the previous characterization of Khalidi as a "reliable propagandist." Words of political opponents should not be quoted simply because they are inflammatory; this creates clear bias in the article. Very very few encyclopedia articles would quote opponents calling the subject of the article "hateful."
2. The Godsend quote is taken out of context, and fails to note that Khalidi was speaking of racists who thought that Muslims can only understand violence. If the quote is to stay, it needs to include the full paragraph.
3. I find this general style of including quotes like these, without explanation, highly problematic in an encyclopedia article. Without explanation, these quotes stand simply as an arsenal for critics to use against Khalidi. This is not what Encyclopedias do: "And now, we'll have a list of quotes that could be used out of context to damage this man's reputation." If you want to include a quote, you should explain the context of the quote, and how this represents a controversy. As I said earlier, this is the difference between explaining an accusation and making an accusation. In Biographies of Living People, my understanding is that we aren'tjust supposed to be making accusations, whether cited or not.
4. I disagree with your explanation that Dershowitz' charge was cleared by Harvard, and the explanation that he was trying to show a real infraction as opposed to a fake one. 4.a. This provides an excessive platform for Dershowitz to attack Khalidi in an article about Khalidi. It is an important point in the context of Dershowitz' accusation that Dershowitz made it in a response to accusations against himself. It is not important, in an article about Khalidi, to explain Dershowitz' full argument for doing so. 4.b. It's also made less important when the explanation is biased and incorrect. I strongly disagree that Dershowitz presented Khalidi to show real academic dishonesty as opposed to fake dishonesty. As he stated, he presented it as a /challenge/ to these scholars to be as critical of Khalidi as they were of him. Obviously the difference is huge; while the "challenge" explanation severely undercuts the idea that this was a serious infraction by Khalidi and suggests Dershowitz was trying to distract attention from himself, the explanation you've manufactured makes it look like he's singled out Khalidi as the worst example of plagiarism he could find to show what /real/ plagiarism looks like.
Now it's still very possible that the whole plagiarism charge shouldn't be there at all, for reasons already discussed. If it is, though, Dershowitz accusation should clearly be impeached with his obvious bias. This should not be an opportunity, however, for Dershowitz to counter-counter attack. If this counter-counter attack from Dershowitz is necessary, then the plagiarism charge simply should not be here. Of course, Dershowitz' article remains cited for anyone to see
I'll await your response before making changes. I hope you will see that I'm trying to be very straight forward here and explain the exact reasons why I object to aspects of this article. I'd appreciate any response in kind. Thanks. Mackan79 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Although this charge against an anti-Israel academic is far more serious than any leveled by the triumvirate against pro-Israel writers, I predict that Finkelstein will not examine it, Chomsky will not complain about it, and Cockburn will not publicize it. Nor will they demand sanctions against their ideological soul-mate, as they have against me and other pro-Israel writers. The same double standard that is directed against Israel by these selective condemners is also directed against pro-Israel academics. So here is my challenge to the triumvirate: apply the same standards to Khalidi that you have to pro-Israel writers. Apply the same scrutiny to his anti-Israel writings that you routinely apply to pro-Israel writers. Demand the same sanctions against Khalidi that you have against pro-Israel writers. Or admit that you are guilty of hypocrisy and a double standard. I await your response, but I am not holding my breath.
This category was added, but it strikes me as controversial and unsourced, so I removed it. Has Khalidi said that he is an anti-Zionist? I don't know of a statement to this effect. Mackan79 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see his rant quoted here -- Avi 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
More info here. -- Avi 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And here. -- Avi 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And more background here. -- Avi 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
More background -- Avi 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The two middle paragraphs (Controversial Statements and Accusations) are hopelessly biased against Khalidi. There is barely a sentence in them which allows Khalidi to rebut the charges. Plus, there is nothing that expounds upon what his substantive views are on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Except for the first paragraph & the list of Khalidi's publications, this is a "hit job." I am embarrassed that this article doesn't have a POV warning at the very least.
There is NO evidence that Khalidi is "anti-Israel" except in the mind of hardline Zionists. I just heard him on a conference call sponsored by Brit Tzedek, an American Jewish peace group. He wants to same things for Israel & the Palestinians that liberal American Jews want. His views about Israel are entirely within the mainstream of the Israeli liberal discourse. To say anything otherwise is to entirey distort reality. richards1052 Richard 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The first para of "criticisms", as observed many months ago above, was absolute garbage. The entire paragraph replicated one random blogger's tendentious interpretation of an offhand comment. Khalidi used the term "occupied", which has all sorts of meanings and does not necessarily refer to military occupation. Some yahoo decides it's a "GOTCHA!", because he can twist it to mean that Khalidi wants to drive the Jews into the sea. Well, good for him. The fact that Wikipedia editors would keep this kind of crap featured prominently is disturbing. Even outside of a WP:BLP, it would fail WP:V and WP:NPOV blatantly. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in reference to the above, the terrible paragraph referencing 'occupation' was removed again. It doesn't matter if material is well cited if the original article cited is ITSELF not well-cited. The criticisms section does not cite any work from respected scholars or authors, it merely refers to inflammatory pages from the far right on the political spectrum, and the original articles are often the result of faulty scholarship on top of that. THIS ARTICLE IS IN DIRE NEED OF A MORE BALANCED VIEW. While Professor Khalidi's views are controversial in some circles, the article must reference the controversy (i.e. all sides of the debate, to the extent that is possible), and not one side. He is a highly regarded scholar among Middle Eastern historians and is widely cited by many writers who come from a variety of backgrounds and political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.243.252 ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In trying to navigate between the refs and notes, it appears they stop working around number 7 on the Albert Hourani Prize. I tried to fix this, even by converting the second reference back to Refname MEICV into a ref of its own, but it still didn't seem to work on preview. I'm wondering if maybe once you put some in the templates, then they all have to be in the template in order to function. If you're familiar with this, Avi, maybe you can take a look. Thanks. Mackan79 ( talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe something similar was removed in 2006, but I think the following sentence still isn't accurate: "In the 1980s, Khalidi's alleged associations with Palestinian organizations, such as the Palestinian News Agency came under scrutiny; the PNA had connections to the PLO.[12]" Ref 12 goes to Thomas Friedman's column, which refers to Khalidi as a former writer for "the Palestinian press agency, Wafa." The connection to the PLO appears in turn to derive from the Washington Times editorial also mentioned in the ref, which I find here. However, any other references I can find refer to Wafa as the press agency of the Palestinian National Authority rather than the PLO as it states in the Times editorial. As such, it seems this should at least be changed to reference the Times editorial rather than Friedman, but even then, I'm not sure the statement is correct. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the LA Times piece about speaking on behalf of the PLO, I don't know if you saw it DKalkin, but I agree with its removal considering it just came out today. It could be accurate, and I almost readded it to the end of the paragraph, but I think with new specific claims such as this, it makes more sense to wait and see. Mackan79 ( talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Relating to the changes here, I'm concerned that many of these statements were quote mined, and some were presented inaccurately (attributed to the school board, when it appears to have been the Chancellor's press secretary). I think people need to be more careful when adding negative material to this article. All in all, I'm not sure the issue is worth discussing at all, relating to an apparently minor issue in 2005, but even if so, these types of provocative headlines ("Barred from NYC teacher training program") filled with negative material should be avoided. Mackan79 ( talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a source for this. Whig historian ( talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
It is incorrect to refer to the PA in the 1980's since the PA was created at the time of the Olso accords. To refer to the PA in the 1980's is anachronistic and incorrect. Whig historian ( talk) 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50A14FA3D5C12728DDDAB0A94D1405B898BF1D3
The “Palestine commando press agency, Wafa” http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F00B13FD395E127A93CAA91782D85F468785F9
more http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=FA0A14FC3E54137A93C0AB178FD85F478785F9
there are a slew of articles confirming that wafa was the PLO press agensy in the early seventies, and ever since Whig historian ( talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
A statement made by the Los Angeles Times is a very different thn-ing thqan a statement made by the World Net Daily. This is a significant news article making a serious allegation. and it merits inclusion in the article. Perhaps the rest of this section can now be abbreviated. But this source merits inclusion. Whig historian ( talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Whig historian
According to the Los Angeles Times, at a farewell dinner given for Khalidi by "local Arab Americans" in Chicago in 2003, "a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians, " and "One speaker likened 'Zionist settlers on the West Bank' to Osama bin Laden." [1]
Let me preface my remarks by stating that my edits to this page do indicate that I could not be considered a supporter of Mr. Khalidi or his politics. However, the main points of the PLO connection are already brought via the Washington Post article. The LA times article is written from the perspective that Palestinian/Arab leaders believe that Obama, notwithstanding his stated support for Israel, is potentially a better ally for them due to his past relationships with people such as Khalidi. The presence of some unnamed poem reader at a farewell dinner, while personally disturbing, does not tell us anything new. To state that that creates a connection with th ePLO is original research and unacceptable. To say that it indicates Khalidi's feelings about Israel and its continued existence or lack thereof is unnecessary; the article makes his stance clear earlier, and, regardless, there are better sources.
The fact that the article is one day old is irrelevant; au contraire it is current and in a reliable source. But no one, whether we agree or disagree with them, should be subject to cherry-picked attempt to paint them in the worst possible light. There is enough attributable to Khalidi himself, or to discussions about him, that obviate the need for picking out a sentence or two. I did add the article as another source for Palestinian connections vis-a-vis acting as an adviser during negotiations. I also removed the Berman quote, as the "wildly distorting" statements were not in relation to the depictions of Khalidi, but to the depictions of OBAMA as a Palestinian sympathizer, etc. -- Avi ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor has recently deleted sourced material on notable material elaborating on the relationship of Khalidi to Obama, claiming it was redundant. I would like to assume good faith of the deletion, but the fact is that the material was more specific and different from the brief mention of Obama in the PLO connections. Also the material deserves a separate section from the PLO section, since the point of the material is not to discuss Obama's connection to PLO but to discuss the Khalidi/Obama relationship. This material should be restored, but rather than have an edit war, perhaps others could comment besides myself and the deleting editor. Best regards. Cuvette ( talk) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In general, blogs are not considered reliable sources, that is true. However, there are exceptions. The known blog of a recognized expert in a field is usually considered reliable, at least vis-a-vis that expert's opinion. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). However, after further searching, at least as of current, we do not allow any self-published sources in actual biography articles as per above and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources so I am going to self-revert. -- Avi ( talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, a number of issues centering around Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. First, the article states only that Khalidi "reportedly" represented the PLO, which is a rather important qualification. Second, the article would need to be established as a reliable source for this type of claim about a living individual. Third, contentious material doesn't just get added to the introductory paragraph, and in fact this issue is discussed later in the article. Please address these points if it's believed that the article should be included, considering particularly the care Wikipedia takes with biographies of living people. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 08:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)