![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Statement of question Some editors wish to include a statement that the subject of this article, Rashid Khalidi, is believed / accused / described by some contemporary sources as a former "PLO spokesman" or a former "director" of the PLO's news agency. Others object to this designation.
Relevant policies
The Khalidi article in some ways represents a perfect storm of Wikipedia BLP/NPOV issues - the intersection of anti-Obama smears and the Arab / Israeli conflict. Khalidi has been the subject of edit wars, dispute, and occasional article protection and editor blocking, all over the issue of whether he is a Palestinian Liberation Organization operative or not.
Khalidi is an American university professor who has drawn significant controversy and criticism for his statements in support of Palestinian side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and, some would say, his ties to the PLO. There have been campus protests, speeches have been canceled, he is a frequent target of criticism (particularly in the blogosphere), and more recently he became a last-minute part of the Republican Party's "Obama palls around with terrorists" smear in the United States presidential election, 2008.
The tenuous logic for the campaign smear goes like this:
If you think this overstates the smear, just google it. You'll find gems like these [8] [9] (that's the dignified side of the smear - you should see the blogs).
The problem with connecting the dots here on Wikipedia is that we do not have sufficient sourcing to say that Khalidi ever worked for the PLO. Editors pursuing this issue for weeks and months have found several reliable sources that describe him as such, primarily as an attribution in an interview. There are other reliable sources that say flat out that this is not true. Khalidi himself denies it. Further, there are many hundreds and probably thousands of reliable sources that mention Khalidi, and describe who he is and his bio/history without mentioning that he was a PLO spokesman. To find the few stray sources that say he was you have to dig pretty hard. Under the circumstances there is simply not enough sourcing to say authoritatively in the encyclopedia that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman, something most in favor of the material acknowledge. Instead they want what they describe as a compromise statement that "several" sources believe / state that he was a PLO spokesman but others disagree. The problem with this is several fold.
If this RFC continues others will no doubt fill this out with sources and arguments. However, it looks like a very simple BLP case of weak sourcing used to call someone a terrorist. We cannot do that. We can report what we do know and can source solidly, but not that kind of smear. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There are four (there are now five) contemporary news reports that quote him as speaking on behalf of the PLO. Historicist ( talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=671334742&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1228232198&clientId=15403) Historicist ( talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM Special to The New York Times. New York Times Jun 11, 1979. p. A3 ) describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and the last (in German) identifies him as a professor.
From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. [3] I can't find any in the pre-campaign period mention the PLO connection in order to deny it.
Wikipedia should not be in the business of making dubious claims, scandalous in nature, about living people, so the exercise in weighing "evidence" is pointless. Several things ought to be clear here: (1) Khalidi, an American professor, is a controversial figure for his statements sympathetic with the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (2) the McCain campaign tried to connect Khalidi with PLO terrorism, and Obama with Khalidi, in the last days of its failed presidential bid; (3) Several reliable sources (which we can discuss) say that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO; (4) Other reliable sources directly say that Khlalidi was not a spokesman for the PLO (e.g. this Washington Post "fact checker" article [12] that concludes the accusation is "a case of guilt by association gone haywire."); (5) Khalidi denies that he was ever a spokesman (see the above Washington Post piece); and (6) Most sources describing Khalidi or his history do not state that he was a PLO spokesman, nor do they refute the claim, nor do they mention the issue as being a controversy.
Obviously we cannot say that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman. The sources are in conflict. Some say yes, some say no, and most are silent. It is also useless to report that he was called a PLO spokesman. There is simply not enough WP:WEIGHT to these scandalous claims to make it worthwhile. By analogy, suppose we have a thousand articles about Abraham Lincoln, of which four say he is was a bed wetter as a child, four refute that he was a bed wetter, and 992 do not reach the issue. Not only can we not fairly report that Lincoln wet his bed, we should not even discuss that there were a range of opinions on it because clearly, it is not a significant enough issue for most of the sources to note. In Khalidi's case the accusation is a lot more serious, that he was an employee of a terrorist organization, and he is alive so we have WP:BLP to contend with. One cannot say that his being a PLO spokesman is well-sourced, not if the sources are in conflict. That only several sources mention the issue at all means it is not a notable controversy or opinion about him.
In fact, few if any of the sources suggest that he formally an agent of the PLO, as the word "spokesman" implies. Per the Washington Post article, they appear to be making a semantic distinction - that Khalidi often spoke informally with the PLO. When he was a professor in Beirut he was an intermediary, conveying messages between his PLO contacts and people who would not or could not meet them. The Post says that calling that activity a spokesman or not may be a semantic distinction, not a real distinction as to what Khalidi did or did not do. Under the circumstances, using the word "spokesman" is misleading because it suggests he was a PLO agent when he was not. It is unnecessary and, frankly, a big POV waste of time for Wikipedia to delve into this detail and try to take sides. We should stick to what we know and can source, and not get into whether we can describe it in a way that sounds scandalous.
- Wikidemon ( talk) 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon refers to the Republican Party's "Obama palls around with terrorists" smear. The wikipedia article itself merely says that the Republican Party said that he had an anti-Israel foreign policy. Can you clarify whether you meant that the Republican Party itself explicitly said that Khalidi was a terrorist? Andjam ( talk) 15:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/khalidi.htm Asked about his Beriut period in 2005, Khalidi did not pretend to have been devoting his time exclusively to scholarship. He described PLO positions with the word "we" in published interviews. He demanded no correction from the newspapers that described him as a spokesman. Are we to bbelieve that an obscure young academic who grew up in Brooklyn was unaware that the New York Times was describing him as a PLO spokesman?
• "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa" (7:34)
• * "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa" (32:51)
There's no such consensus. All three proposals not only include the BLP vio we've been talking about in the first place, but by adding PLO headings or attempting to portray it as a career event would blow out of all proportion the occasional stray attribution, poorly sourced except as a American campaign smear, that Khalidi is a PLO "spokesman". This just started a few days ago, over an American holiday. Give it some time. Trying to conclude an RfC prematurely is not going to help. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. In 2004 Khalidi dismissed the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.” Historicist ( talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
How about the following as a rough attempt, and I'd request Historicist add the appropriate sources where necessary:
During the late 70s and early 80s, Khalidi was known throughout journalistic circles for having good contacts withing the Palestinian Liberation Organization as was often used as a source for information about the PLO and its activities. Whether Khalidi ever acted as an official representative of the PLO or Wafa has been a matter of debate, with Khalidi himself stating that there was no official relationship. [Insert Khalidi quote here].
It can be fleshed out, if necessary, with both the rebuttal of any official relationship and the "semantics" phrase from the FactChecker. Thoughts? -- Avi ( talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Historicist ( talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)HistoricistDuring the late 70s and early 80s, Khalidi was known throughout journalistic circles for having good contacts withing the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was often used as a source for information about the PLO and its activities. Whether Khalidi ever acted as an official representative of the PLO or Wafa has been a matter of debate, with Khalidi himself dismissing the idea, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.”
160.39.35.12 ( talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)HistoricistDuring the late 70s and early 80s, Khalidi was known throughout journalistic circles for having good contacts withing the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was often used as a source for information about the PLO and its activities. Reliable sources differ on the question of whether Khalidi ever acted as an official representative of the PLO or Wafa, with Khalidi himself dismissing the idea, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.”
Here is my modest suggestion:
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and many journalists turned to him as an unofficial or official PLO spokesman. Khalidi himself said he had no official position with the PLO, but "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 December 2008
I would be satisfied with RavPapa's wording, and I also could agree to removing the word "closely" from the first sentence. However, I agree with Historicist that removing it completely is a violation of WP:NPOV by suppressing reliably and verifiably sourced facts, about the subject of an article, which are important in understanding the very nature of what makes the subject notable: namely, his understanding and scholarship of Palestinian culture, history, and socio-political theory. -- Avi ( talk) 16:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has throughout his career interacted with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and many journalists turned to him as a source for information about the PLO. Khalidi himself said he had no official position with the organization, but "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
Here is the Los Angeles Times in 1985 describing Khalidi as "a former PLO official" "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by DOYLE McMANUS. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 20, 1984. p. A10 (1 page) “according to Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO official” (here's the link, but ProQuest Historical Newspapers may not be available from every computer: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=671334742&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1228232198&clientId=15403) Historicist ( talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM Special to The New York Times. New York Times Jun 11, 1979. p. A3 ) describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and the last (in German) identifies him as a professor.
There is a lot of bandying about in this discussion of NPOV, but I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what the sides are. It seems that people who oppose mentioning a Khalidi-PLO connection think that such a connection is bad, and it somehow delegitimizes him. Are these the proPalestinians or the antiPalestinians? On the other hand, those favoring mentioning the connection - who are they? Are they interested in discrediting him? It doesn't seem to me to be such a terrible thing to have been associated with the PLO; after all, the PLO is now the leader of a nascent state, has been recognized by the UN as a legitimate national representative for more than 30 years, and one of its leaders held the Nobel peace prize. I doubt very much that Khalidi himself would feel dishonored by having his name associated with that organization. Anyway, I sent him an email to ask him; maybe he will make a comment on this page.
No, the issue is not one of POV, but rather a simple determination of the facts. I refrain from making a comment about that, beyond my suggestion for wording. I am just pointing out that accusations of POV seem irrelevant to this discussion. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. In 2004, Kahalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
Historicist ( talk) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
While updating the refs I came across this: http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm.
As an aside, this is considered a reliable source for Kramer's own opinion, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.…Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Martin Kramer is an established expert, whose works on the Middle East have been published in reliable third-party publications, and if used, of this data would only be used to bring the opinion of an expert on the Middle East about Khalidi. Being that it is the expert's opinion supported, that is first-party not third party, as long as it is properly labeled in the article.
Thoughts? -- Avi ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that we bring Joseph Massad's opinion of Kramer in Kramer's article. See Martin Kramer#"Columbia Unbecoming". -- Avi ( talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there needs to be a lot of work done on Martin Kramer, then. Regardless, I think that Kramer's opinion of Khalidi is appropriate to be brought here, as is Massad's of Kramer brought there. -- Avi ( talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have supplied Kramer's opinions, as well as the fact that Ron Kampeas, who originally defended Khalidi, and made very similar arguments to people on this page, has himself conceded that Kramer is correct. In the interests of neutrality, I brought Kampeas's point afterwards that notwithstanding Khalidi's denial of fact, people should give more weight to Khalidi's recent statements and not past associations.
Once again, it should be noted that the sources brought do pass WP:RS as they are supporting the opinions of the people writing them, who are experts in their own right, and whose opinions' on Khalidi are germane. -- Avi ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, Thomas Lippman, the former Washington Post Middle East bureau chief, is on record saying that "Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict." This is not some "right-wing crazy Israeli blogger", this is a 30-year veteran reporter, and the fact that he too conflicts with Khalidi's denial is both fascinating and important. -- Avi ( talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is specifically geared to Wikidemon, G-Dett, and Khoikhoi. From our discussions on this page, I understood the reservations against using the sources originally brought to be based primarily on the following:
I believe very strongly that the sources I found and the edits I made this evening address all of those issues.
Also, to foster and promote the neutrality of the piece, I brought Kampeas's point about giving more weight to Khalidi's recent public statements than to his past, although, I must say, on a personal level, Kramer's analysis of Khalidi's statements in Arabic juxtaposed with those of his in English, are interesting. -- Avi ( talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, you have to say why you believe the new sources are a BLP violation instead of blanket edit warring. I have given you a detailed explanation above. Please have the courtesy to respond with logical arguments instead of edit-warring reversions. -- Avi ( talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of others who may not have had a chance to see the edits, I have removed them, for now, from the article, for discussion here. -- Avi ( talk) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. [4] [5] In 2004, Khalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." [6] From 1991 to 1993, Khalidi served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states. [7]
Khalidi's denial of any official relationship with the PLO became a matter of discussion among scholars and journalists who specialized in the Middle East. Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency originally defended Khalidi from the claims of his being an official PLO spokesman. [8]
However,
Dr.
Martin Kramer, the twentieth century Islamist intellectual and political history scholar, contested Khalidi's denial of any official role, and called into askance those who have testified "to Khalidi's bona fides without doing due diligence."
[9] Kramer concludes based on print and radio sources that to him there is no question that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut.Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
The Washington Post published a letter by Thomas Lippman, its veteran Middle East news correspondent and former Middle East bureau chief, which stated that Khalidi was "indeed 'a PLO spokesman,'" and suggesting that journalists need to "check the clips." [10]
Eventually, Kampeas conceded that Kramer's evidence and analysis is "irrefutable" and that he too believes that Khalidi was, in the past, a spokesman for the PLO. [11] Kampeas goes on to state, however, that while it may be regrettable that Khalidi has denied past truths, it must be seen that Khalidi's advocacy of a two-state solution, his calling attacks on civilians "war crimes," and his denunciations of anti-Semitism are important in understanding why he has denied his past association with the PLO. [11]
In reply to our questions, he wrote that between 1976 and 1983, "I was teaching full time as an Assistant Professor in the Political Studies and Public Administration Dept. at the American University of Beirut, published two books and several articles, and also was a research fellow at the independent Institute for Palestine Studies," and says he had no time for anything else. Mr. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The problem with the "spokesman" claim is that you can actually prove it's not true. In saner times, "prove it's not true" would be a phrase frowned on in an innocent until proven guilty culture. Khalidi's denial would be enough in the face of a lack of evidence as to same. Those promoting the claim cite a single 1982 article by Tom Friedman; Khalidi says Friedman got it wrong, and that the term "PLO spokesman" was used promiscuously in 1982 Beirut. But like I said, things ain't so sane. So here's the thing: What everyone acknowledges is that Khalidi was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid talks. That delegation - to a person - could not have had any formal affiliation with the PLO. Israel regarded the group as terrorist and its laws banned contact with its members; then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir made NOT being affiliated with the PLO it a condition of Israel's agreement to participate. The names of the Palestinian team would have been vetted by Israeli intelligence. This was something of a nudge and a wink, of course: Faisal Husseini, who headed the team, was in constant contact with PLO headquarters in Tunis. Still, it should put to rest the notion that Khalidi was ever a "spokesman" for the group.
The Post's defense of Rashid Khalidi ["An 'Idiot Wind,' " editorial, Oct. 31] was generally commendable, but in fairness to Sen. John McCain, it should be noted that Mr. Khalidi was indeed "a PLO spokesman." In the early years of the Lebanese civil war, Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict. As we used to say in the pre-electronic newspaper business: Check the clips.
It is going to take some time to go through this and I am not free to spend the rest of the evening (in America) doing it. But I'll get started on the first few parts. Wikidemon ( talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
In toto, every single part of the proposed addition has problems with POV, relevance, weight, BLP violations, and/or incorrectly supporting the sources. If we cut out all the impermissable statements there is nothing to report. It is a coatrack as well, accusing Khalidi not only of being a PLO operative but also lying about it. It repeats the language of the claim, PLO spokesman, eight times, which is gratuitous. Going into such detail about what three individuals believe, based on their editorials and opinions, is completely undue for weight. None of this material adds to the first paragraph, which was in process of a consensus agreement.
The proposed consensus version, without this edit, already contains the sentence "Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". It also states that the matter became an issue in the US presidential election, which is the context for all these blog sources. If we distill all of these additional paragraphs down to their encyclopedic core, it amounts to a simple statement that "Three individuals argued that Khalidi was a former PLO spokesman: a partisan political operative on his blog, a bureau correspondent of a Jewish paper on his editorial column, and a former correspondent via a letter to the editor." The simple response, other than pointing out this is a BLP vio, is so what? There is no reason given why the reader should care why yet three more unreliable sources out of hundreds of voices in the Obama/McCain presidential race, made this claim. This is a non-starter for this reason. I cannot see how the proposed material could be included in any shape, or rewritten to be worth including. Again, the consensus version is just fine. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
When discussing what I believe Wikidemon's misunderstandings and misapplications of wikipedia policy above, I will likely need to make mention of the same issues over and again, so for the interests of brevity I will bring them here and reference them.
I have explained this multiple times here, but I shall do so again. There are times, albeit infrequently, when blogs are considered reliable sources. Wiki policy reads: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources Firstly, Ron Kampeas's work is published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, it is not self published. Furthermore, it is not even considered a blog per Wiki guidelines. As the policy says: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." - Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. Also, both Kampeas and Martin Kramer are "established experts" in the "relevant fields" who each have copiously published previously in reliable sources. Therefore, these two "blogs" specifically are acceptable sources for this article.
Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Wikiepdia defines primary, secondary, and tertiary sources here: WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The operative definition here is that secondary sources are: accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Note that, per the wikipedia policies, for a writer to analyze primary sources and come to a conclusion is NOT a primary source (otherwise, everything ever written that is not a direct copy of something else is a primary source). In this case Kramer and Kampeas making an analytic or synthetic claim about writings about Khalidi is a CLASSIC example of a secondary source, not a primary source. Examples of the relevant primary sources would be the Freidman article and the radio interview. Thus, in this case, the sources brought above (Kramer and Kampeas) are all examples of secondary sources and the conclusions brought therein are perfectly acceptable to wikipedia.
At the risk of violating the policy of assume good faith, I am driven to wonder whether all of the participants are acting in good faith. I am willing to be persuaded by evidence. In fact, for years I dismissed the idea that Khalidi ever actually spoke for the PLO. There were no sources. Then sources appeared, and I was persuaded. Attempting to edit this article has increased my conviction that he most certainly did so. Certainly no one in this argument has ever presented evidence to the contrary. Instead of evidence, users present objections. This discussion has now been going on for over a month. During that time copious sources have been brought and consensus has appeared to have been reached three times. Each time a user then violates the consensus by removing the agreed-upon material from the page. The strategy appears to be to keep objecting and objecting and objecting until those who disagree with him get tired and go away. Over the period during which I have followed this. USER:79.181.230.41 USER: Andjam USER:Jaakobou USER:Glen Twenty and USER:RonCram have argued for a few days, then (apparently,) given up and gone away. Now we are back to square one, except that we have accumulated numerous, extremely reliable sources of all types. I begin to suspect thst the only real objection is WP:IDONTLIKEIT Historicist ( talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Martin Kramer has just turned up another reference from the mainstream press: a 1984 article in the Los Angeles Times that quotes Khalidi directly and identifies him as "a former PLO official." Here: http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_former_plo_official.htm
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. In 2004, Kahalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
Because the evidence brought by USER:Avraham is from reliable sources and is weighty and pertinent, we cannot simply ignore it without violating WP:POV On the other hand, as USER:Wikidemon has pointed out, it is important not to allow this section to grow out of proportion. I therefore propose a compromise similar to the compromise reached on the other sources.
Scholars and journalists who have examined the evidence and concluded that it supports the assertion that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut include Martin Kramer and Ron Kampeas. Thomas Lippman, the Washington Post Middle East correspondent who interviewed Khalidi in Beirut confirms that he was a “PLO spokesman.”
USER:Avraham could then include footnote for Kramer and Kampeas that would include quotations. Historicist ( talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Commment: It seems that some progress has been made since my last visit to this discussion and that's a nice thing to see. On a general tone, BLP is misapplied here though there is room to give slightly less room to the "he is" perspective to make it closer in size to the "he isn't" perspective. Regardless of how the final version looks like, this content (he is and he isn't) needs to be in article since the 'he is' version is fairly mainstream and since the 'isn't' can be used to give a chance for 'rebuttal'. I would suggest starting with the 'is' and ending with the 'isn't' response and keeping it succinct in regards to the details of the claims. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the language upon which consensus was reached.
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. In 2004, Kahalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
USER:Wikidemon has just posted altered language disingenuously claiming that it is consensus language. I am going to put up the consensus language. If Wikidemon or anyone else wants to change this, it ought to be discussed first. Historicist ( talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Can someone clarify what's meant by "throughout his career"? The latest point discussed here is 15 years ago, in 1993, while the conflation of Wafa and the PLO remained unsupported last time I looked at this. Unless there is a secondary source that recently supports this statement about a connection "throughout his career," I'm quite sure it should not be there. Aside from that, all of the support I see added in Historicist's recent change looks like primary source based original research, when used in this way, and thus inappropriate, particularly in a WP:BLP. Am I missing something? I am going to undo the change for now as I'm quite sure the "throughout his career" language is unsupported and should not be there. (I also don't believe there was consensus; I saw Wikidemon contest the sentence, KhoiKhoi suggested removing it, and I agreed that it shouldn't be there). Mackan79 ( talk) 03:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose a civilized discussion of the material now on the page with the well-sourced, pertinent material from Thomas Lippman Martin Kramer and Ron Kampeas introduced on Dec. 2 by USER:Avraham. I am in favor of posting this material and hope that Avraham will suggest wording. Historicist ( talk) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Yes, you are rock solid in your continued assertions of our error, as we are of yours. Not to mention that Kampeas is not self published, and he references Kramer, so your "which part of..." point can be deemed irrelevant anyway.
I have asked for guidance at WT:BLP#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue and at WT:RS#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue. Let us see what fresh opinions say. -- Avi ( talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The article now says, "Khalidi has been, reportedly, affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) but has rejected the association." I find this surprising. When did Khalidi reject his association with the PLO? Do you have a source for this? I believe it is wrong. The best we have is the statement that he held no official position with the PLO.
On the face of it, I would say that this is a pretty severe BLP violation. Someone who was politically active in Beirut, who provided reporters with background briefings and who was described repeatedly as a PLO spokesman, who served as adviser to the PLO in 1991, and who, in all his writings, has publicly espoused support for the political policies and goals of the PLO - to say with no reference that I know of that that person rejects any association with the PLO seems a serious distortion of the facts. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are referring to this quote: "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."
That doesn't look to me to be anything like a blanket rejection of association with the PLO. It is merely a statement that in 1976 he was not employed by the PLO. In order to support the statement in the article, you need a quote something like this: "I have never had any association with the PLO." I have never seen a quote like that, nor does it seem plausible that Khalidi would ever want to say such a thing.
By misrepresenting Khalidi's relationship (ideological or formal) with the PLO (or by ignoring it completely), this article is exposing the Wikipedia to complaints, and perhaps even legal action, by Khalidi himself. Excuses like "when I said affiliation, I didn't mean association" don't cut it. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps an acceptable solution for everyone is to leave what is there now and add wording similar to the following sentence: This dismissal has been repudiated by various academics and journalists active during that time.[cite Kramer/Kampeas/Lippman] We don't have to bring names or details, but we need to have the fact that Khalidi's dismissal is considered inaccurate. Perhaps "repudiated" can be replaced, but "questioned" is too weak. Thoughts? -- Avi ( talk) 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Following some changes, I think the current paragraph has at least two problems. First, even without "throughout this career," the sentence about "has been affiliated" fails to recognize that this is a historical debate, not one about anything he has done in the last one, two, or three decades. I see the L.A. Times piece cited by Kramer refers to him as a "former P.L.O. official" as of 24 years ago in 1984. Accordingly, I am quite uncomfortable with anything which fails to acknowledge that this is a historical debate (Kramer says the references fall between '76 and '84, although even in '84 it says "former"). Second, I'm concerned with the extent we are even presenting this as a back-and-forth debate, when as people are pointing out, it's not entirely clear what exactly is being responded to, or denied, and the sourcing seems to be predominantly primary sources or self-published.
I have not recently examined all of these sources as closely as some of you, but my impression is that if the first sentence is cleared up to acknowledge that this is a question of what he did while teaching in Beirut, the paragraph would be ok. As to the final sentence, I don't think it's correct to say that it was "notwithstanding his denial" for a few reasons, but I'd like to look at that a little more closely. Mackan79 ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a version which, I think, stays absolutely close to the facts:
Khalidi has not only been an observer; at different stages of his career he was actively involved in the politics of the Palestinian liberation movement. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. [1]. At that time, several leading media, including the New York Times [2], The Los Angeles Times [3], and Pacifica Radio [4] identified him as an official PLO spokesman, though Khalidi later denied he had any official role with the organization. "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source" he said in an interview with the Washington Times in 2004. [5] "If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."
From 1991 to 1993, Khalidi was a member of the Palestinian delegation to negotiations between Palestinians, Israel and the United States in Madrid and in Washington [6].
As his academic career made increasing demands on his time, Khalidi said, his direct involvement in Palestinian politics has diminished. "I am a political being," he said in a recent speech [7], but "I can't do all those things [teaching, writing and lecturing] and be involved in politics." [8]
If Khalidi was identified by the news media in the 1970's with the PLO, he has been increasingly critical of that organization. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing." [9] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." [10]
-- Ravpapa ( talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The question seems to be whether we should present the claimed PLO connection as a major point, or if the sourcing only supports our mentioning it incidentally. I tend to like this framework, but I'm still left thinking that a more disinterested summary would not illustrate his political involvements in Beirut by listing the news organizations at the time that connected him to the PLO. I think this is close to Wikidemon's point. E.g., it would seem to make more sense to illustrate his political involvement, if this is an important point, with facts presented by a secondary source that notes the issue. If we then add that he was reported to have been a spokesman for the PLO, then the context may be more natural and less contentious. I should say I surmise this is a new proposal, though, and I am not sure where exactly it goes and under what heading, each of which would seem to be important. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Expanding on my point above, one issue we seem to be skipping is the connection with WAFA, rather than with the PLO. Some of these sources (primary, though they are), seem to refer to him as a spokesman for WAFA. Thomas Friedman referred to him as a director of WAFA, in the column that seems to be at the center of much of this. Has this been reconciled, whether these were considered the same thing, whether they were confused, whether he is thought to have been both, or something else? The proposed wordings here have been to say that he has been alleged to work for the PLO, but seem to ignore the statements that he worked for WAFA, or to treat the latter as evidence of the former when it is not clear to me that these are the same. Mackan79 ( talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
==Wafa and the Plo+
Answering Mackan's question. The PLO in the late 1970’s early 80’s was not an organization with a large, formal infrastructure. It was a semi-underground Army of National Liberation employing tactics regarded by the International Community as terrorism. It had a fledgling press office called Wafa. The purpose was to broadcast radio (TV was beyond the capacity of the PLO at that phase) to Palestinians. There were competing media, especially in the Israeli-controlled West Bank where under Israeli control a lively free press existed in Arabic. The Communist party newspapers were in lively competition with the PLO controlled newspaper. Wafa was a weapon in this competition for the hearts and minds of Palestinians, (An interesting literature exists on the eradication of the non-PLO Palestinian press after Oslo, it involves smashing printing presses, kneecapping and murder. Only the Muslim Brotherhood newspapers survived. The Communist and centrist news papers did not.) In Jordan, Wafa had to compete with Jordanian newspapers attempting to integrate Palestinian refugees into a new, Jordanian identity. In addition to its primary mission of promoting the PLO within the Palestinian population, Wafa had a secondary mission of getting the PLO perspective out to the world. It was, in other words, the Press Office of the PLO. This was not CNN. It was not even the Voice of America which has a large degree of editorial independence and represents not the Republican or Democratic parties, but America. Wafa’s job was to get the PLO’s point of view out to the world, and to drown out the voices of the competing Communist, Islamist and moderate Palestinian national movements. It did not promote the messages of rival Palestinian groups. Nor the message of the Palestinian nation as a whole. The PLO’s message was the point of its existence. Wafa was the PLO’s press office. To say Wafa is to say PLO. Historicist ( talk) 23:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I see now that Kampeas addresses this. [17]
Accordingly, Kampeas actually appears to question the assessment of "PLO spokesman," saying that the PLO relation comes through his connection to Wafa, saying that he would think to work for the agency would have been different from being a direct spokesman, and that Khalidi's statements though not definitive are more consistent with working for the agency than being a spokesman. Of course this is still a blog (and the type of speculation one would expect to see on such), but when it is what's being offered that seems to throw a kink in things. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So far, if I have followed the recent discussions properly, the recent contributors to the discussion can be segregated as follows:
Is the above accurate? -- Avi ( talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that you believe some form of the information belongs in there. If anything, unless there are more people going to speak their minds, Wikidemon is in the minority here and a consensus that some form of the information belongs in the article is forming. How to best phrase it to ensure that we balance BLP with NPOV. -- Avi ( talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
With footnotes to Kramer, Kampeas and Lippman. this will be a parallel solution to the statement of the PLO affiliation supported by footnoted sources about which consensus was reached above. Historicist ( talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)HistoricistDespite Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO.
I will not revert you, Historicist, but I would counsel waiting a bit more for more comment before putting that sentence in the article. even though I agree to it. -- Avi ( talk) 18:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Should I take it out? Historicist ( talk) 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
(Offtopic:) I believe that there was no malintent on either side here and it would be best to try and assume good faith rather than focus/suggest bad ones. H wanted to respond to the notability issue only and WD wanted to note that the used source was of a certain perspective and possibly not a wiki-reliable source. These two issues shouldn't draw a heated response on either side. Keep cool, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, would you mind summarizing what you think should happen to the current section, "Relationship to the PLO"? My impression is that all of this could be included, much more briefly, in the section on the 2008 election. Potentially this could say that the Khalidi was said during the election to have been affiliated with the PLO while in Beirut between 1976 and 1983. That would seem more relevant than, for instance, the statement about Obama saying his commitment to Israel is unshakable. Not having followed all of this discussion, though, I am not certain what exactly you are contesting. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, the issues here are not to understand why Khalidi did what he did, Kramer did what he did, and various wiki editors do what they do. The issue is is the information both sufficiently sourced and important enough to appear in the article, and the consensus is shaping up pretty clearly that both properties are fulfilled. The sentence as suggested above is properly sourced, it is not overly informative (no direct mention of any analysis) and it is important as it sheds light on Khalidi's earlier years. Again, the fact that you, I, or anyone may not LIKE it is completely irrelevant, it is the fact that there is NO BLP violation and BO Undue weight violation having the sentence, and there IS an NPOV violation keeping it out. -- Avi ( talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, you are currently the only one involved in the discussion who does not want any of the information in the article, while there are multiple editors who agree that it should be in the article. A consensus does not mean unanimity, Wikidemon, and you are in the distinct minority. What makes this more of a consensus is that is has approval by editors from both sides of the P/I discussions. Furthermore, the current suggested sentence does take into account issues you have raised. At this point, it does appear that the consensus is that this is not a BLP violation, and that you are wrong about that, and that this should be in the article. If only one editor claims that there is no consensus, when multiple other discussion participants from multiple viewpoints agree that there is, there is a consensus. -- Avi ( talk) 06:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The consensus is forming that there is no BLP violation, Wikidemon. Nobody wants to have a BLP vio in this article, just as I am certain no one wants NPOV censorship either. Please read the top and see that of those who have been talking here recently, the majority believe that there is no BLP violation with the sentence suggested above: "Despite Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO." Even though "Despite" is accurate, we can use another construction such as: "In response to Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO."[cite Kramer, Kampeas, Lippman] Again, the consensus is forming that the prior is NOT a BLP violation, and that you are mistaken in your application of the policy. However, personally, I am willing to hold off and see what you can formulate, as while consensus does not require unanimity, unanimity is a nice thing to have. -- Avi ( talk) 06:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section per WP:BLP, as there are several problems with it, and I see no consensus for including it. A read of WP:BLP shows it requires "strict" compliance with all content policies, a "high degree of sensitivity," and that biographies of living people be "written conservatively." Based on the discussion above, I think it is clear this material needs much stronger support, or needs to be treated significantly differently. Mackan79 ( talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A fundamental point in this discussion is that should people conclude that Khalidi was formally affiliated with the PLO while he was teaching in Beirut in the 1970s, it is reasonably likely to hurt his career today as an American academic. This seems so obvious to one familiar American politics that it does not need saying, but some have expressed doubt or challenged the premise.
I describe, below, why it would WP:HARM Khalidi's career should people believe that he was an agent of the PLO. If we say it, and people believe what we say, it will harm Khalidi professionally. Harm is an essential element to both WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. We set a very high bar before printing statements we know will harm people.
As things stand Khalidi has already lost professional opportunities due to the controversy over his positions and statements relating to Palestine. As the article already reports, for example, his invitation to participate in a New York City teacher training program was revoked by the Chancellor of the New York Department of Education because he did not agree with statements Khalidi made critical of Israel. [18] Various people then, as well as at the time of his appointment [19] said that he was unsuitable as a Columbia professor. In another incident, "media pundits, elected officials, real estate developers and wealthy donors began demanding that Columbia dismiss" Khalidi (among others), and Columbia launched a formal investigation. [20] His candidacy to chair a department at Princeton was opposed both within and outside the school because of his statements in support of Palestine and alleged anti-semitism. [21] [22] [23] In none of these incidents was Khalidi's supposed professional association with the PLO raised because it was simply not an issue - people at the time were not making the claim. It was merely for his making statements in support of the Palestinians and against Israel.
Khalidi's supposedly being a "spokesman" for the PLO, an issue that surfaced in the 2008 US presidential campaign, was, objectively, used as a disparagement to smear Obama. McCain and Palin, as well as many conservative bloggers, repeated the term "spokesman" in statements designed to cast doubt on Obama's trustworthiness because he associated with a PLO "spokesman". [24] The bloggers went a lot farther, of course, variously describing Khalidi as a "terorist spokesman", a terrorist himself, and so on. [25] [26] One such blog explains why pinning Khalidi as a "spokesman" rather than merely a "sympathizer" is a "smoking gun". [27] As a mere sympathizer or supporter, Khalidi was merely voicing his own opinion. An official spokesman of a group America at the time to be terrorist (for understandable reasons - arms of the organization were blowing up buses, massacring children at schools, hijacking airplanes, etc), is doing more than praising the terrorism, he is aiding it. Because of the attacks on Obama, Khalidi had to "keep his head down". [28]
McCain obviously thought that being a "spokesman" is so disparaging that even knowing such a person would hurt Obama's election chances. The charge hurts Khalidi in several other ways. First, there are repeated calls for Khalidi to be investiated or fired from Columbia. He has tenure there but tenured professors do get drummed out of institutions. The profession of being an academic implies more than keeping a tenured job at a university. It involves making speeches, participating in conferences, collaborating, researching, travel, publishing papers, and often (as int he case of Khalidi's unsuccessful application at Princeton), moving to more prestigious jobs. There is already pressure on every front against Khalidi. A belief that he was the agent of the PLO can only increase this pressure. Third, within academic the charge against Khalidi is that he puts politics before academics - he is an unabashed advocate. As the infamous Washington Times editorial claimed, [29] as of 2004 he is still a "de facto" spokesman of Arafat, pursuing "spin" over scholarship.
It is hard to imagine that a conclusion Khaledi was a PLO agent would not hurt him in the US. We ought to accept this as a premise of the discussion and not try to deny the obvious.
- Wikidemon ( talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: There's been an honest attempt to find a neutral and encyclopedic phrasing of a reasonably notable issue. Unless more sources appear that suggest this info to be false, then it would seem that the reportings are real and their removal falls within WP:TE. Claims that a 'PLO affiliate' association is equal to something sinister (e.g. major felony) is false and for what it's worth, there's certainly room to consider possible re-writes but wikipedia doesn't censor mainstream content on the basis of ' it sounds like an allegation' (not a quote). I'm open to some form of dispute resolution on the matter though if we cannot find a policy based consensus. Cordially, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) tone down 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
he was never a PLO spokesman. There is insufficient sourcing to claim that he was a PLO spokesman, something quite possibly untrue, and no reliable sourcing at all to show that journalists reporting him as a spokesman is a notable issue. Wikidemon ( talk) 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on the discussion to date, another editor and I have removed this sentence on BLP grounds, and it has been re-inserted twice. Please do not introduce content that has been disputed on BLP grounds as inadequately sourced material potentially harmful to a living biographical subject, or without consensus. Do not edit war, and please respect that we have an RfC in process on the subject. One of the editors reverting the material invited edits that would remove the BLP violation rather than a simple removal, so that is what I will do. I cannot represent that this has consensus but avoiding BLP violations is a more immediate concern than consensus. By normal process the material should stay out entirely until there is a consensus that does not violate BLP. Ongoing edit warring becomes a behavioral issue that could result in the breakdown of this RfC, the article being locked, and blocking of editors to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Please use the discussion process instead. Wikidemon ( talk) 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
My summary understanding of the current issue is as follows:
1.) Under discussion is material which would discuss alleged connections between Khalidi and the PLO between 1976 and 1983 when Khalidi was teaching at the American University of Beirut. A recent version of the paragraph can be seen here.
2.) Support for recent versions of this material has come generally from two places: a.) news reports during the 1976 to 1983 period in what are recognized to be reliable sources, some of which refer to Khalidi as a PLO spokesman, and b.) recent commentary on the blogs of Martin Kramer [31] and Ron Kampeas [32], and in one letter to the editor by Thomas Lippman [33], which discusses the issue.
3.) The material is disputed as sourced under WP:BLP, which requires strict compliance with Wikipedia's content policies among other things. The first category of sources is disputed under WP:NOR as primary sources that do not establish the significance of any connection that they make. Moreover, while some of these refer to him as a PLO spokesman, others of these sources refer to him as "director of Wafa" or as spokesman for Wafa. Accordingly, there is not "consensus" among these sources in referring to him as a PLO spokesman. Wikidemon, I and potentially others have argued that to assemble these nevertheless into a paragraph discussing his alleged connection to the PLO is a contentious use of original research which violates WP:BLP.
The second category of sources is disputed first because they are not reliable sources (two blogs and a letter to the editor), and second because even they do not suggest a significance of this issue to Khalidi's career. Kramer, writing on his blog, says that he will "leave it to others to determine whether or not it matters (or matters enough) to the Khalidi-Obama connection." [35] Lippman prefaces his comments by offering them "in fairness to Sen. John McCain...." [36] Kampeas first prefaces his comments by saying "[i]t's still not clear to me what the significance is of Khalidi's PLO past and how it refracts on his friendship with Barack Obama...." [37] After saying that Kramer has established a connection to the PLO, Kampeas then goes on to question that the relationship in fact was as "spokesman" for the PLO, saying that "Khalidi is referred to as a spokesman for the PLO by virtue of his employment by [Wafa]," and then questioning whether the relationship was in fact as spokesman or rather as a representative of Wafa.
4.) Those who have contested these paragraphs under WP:BLP have acknowledged that the connection was notable in the context of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, a topic which is already given a section. I have noted that Kramer, Lippman and Kampeas all discuss the issue in that context, and at least three editors including myself have suggested that this is where any discussion should go, although any such discussion would still need to satisfy WP:Undue and WP:BLP.
That is the status so far as I can see, and I invite others to show where this is incorrect. Until that is shown or these issues are resolved, however, I intend to follow WP:BLP and remove offending material accordingly, and ask that others be very careful in what they replace prior to this discussion being resolved. Mackan79 ( talk) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
To suggest Palin made it up was not my intention, but is there a way to improve on that? The language I suggested was made to fit the existing paragraph, so it would be as follows:
Clearly this is an outline, and I think most would assume that when a vice presidential candidate is saying something, probably there is related discussion below that level. One could add another sentence about the PLO, but in truth my impression is that most of this discussion was not about Khalidi being a PLO spokesman, but more on the general assumption that Khalidi was a radical, about how well he and Obama knew each other, and if maybe McCain did not have a connection as well. As such, an additional sentence here would seem to me gratuitous. If that means adding another section, then I think we are back to the question of how that can be done appropriately in keeping with WP:BLP. Mackan79 ( talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I said I was dropping out of this discussion, but I feel it behooves me to correct one misconception that has been dogging us since the beginning. A newspaper article is not a primary source - it is a secondary source. The primary sources in this case are Khalidi himself, and the PLO or WAFA.
Wikipedia policy on this matter is perfectly clear. I quote:
and later,
It could be argued that Kampeas and Kramer are tertiary sources, as they, at least to some extent, rely on the same news articles that we have quoted in this discussion, and are therefore inadmissible, or at least of less value.
In any case, reliance on newspaper accounts (secondary sources) cannot be construed as original research, and is precisely the course of action recommended by the policy in this case. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 07:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Are you referring to this proposed text "Consequent to publication by the Los Angeles Times of an article about Obama's attendance at a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, their relationship became a minor issue in the campaign.[27] Some opponents of Barack Obama claimed that the relationship between Obama and Khalidi was evidence that Obama would not maintain a pro-Israel foreign policy if elected.[27] In a speech, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin contended that Obama had 'spent a lot of time' with Khalidi, whom she characterized as a 'former PLO spokesman.' Khalidi said that he would not respond at the time, although he had previously denied having spoken for the PLO in the seven years while he taught in Beirut. Obama called his own commitment to Israel "unshakeable."[28] Opponents of Republican candidate John McCain pointed out that he had served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) during the 1990s which provided grants worth $500,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies for the purpose of polling the views of the Palestinian people. The Center was co-founded by Khalidi.[29] "?
Views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict section to solve Mackan's suggestion
|
---|
Khalidi has written that the establishment of the state of Israel resulted in "the uprooting of the world's oldest and most secure Jewish communities, which had found in the Arab lands a tolerance that, albeit imperfect, was nonexistent in the often genocidal, Jew-hating Christian West." Regarding the proposed two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Khalidi has written that "the now universally applauded two-state solution faces the juggernaut of Israel's actions in the occupied territories over more than forty years, actions that have been expressly designed to make its realization in any meaningful form impossible." However, Khalidi also noted that "there are also flaws in the alternatives, grouped under the rubric of the one-state solution". [11] In the 1970s and 80s, Khalidi was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by newspapers as a Palestine Liberation Organization source. [12] [13] In 2004, Khalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying he was often cited without attribution as a "well-informed Palestinian source." [14] In response to Khalidi's denial, various scholars and journalists active at the time, such as the Washington Post's Thomas Lippman, maintain that Khalidi had an official role. [15] From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states. [16]
A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. [18] For example, in a speech given to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Khalidi said that “[k]illing civilians is a war crime. It’s a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They’re civilians, they’re unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance.” [18] [19] The Sun editorial argued that by failing to distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, Khalidi implies that all Palestinians have this right to resist, which it argued was incorrect under international law. [18] In an interview discussing this editorial, Khalidi objected to this characterization as incorrect and taken out of the context of his statements on international law. [18] Khalidi has described discussions of Arab restitution for property confiscated from Jewish refugees forced to flee Middle Eastern and North African countries after the creation of Israel as “insidious”, "because the advocates of Jewish refugees are not working to get those legitimate assets back but are in fact trying to cancel out the debt of Israel toward Palestinian refugees." [20] Khalidi opposes the Iraq War and has said that “we owe reparations to the Iraqi people.” [21] References
|
OK, Mackan, it is no longer its own section, but under views on P/I issue, where I thought it always belonged anyway. Opinions are attributed to ensure clarity (Khalidi and Lippman) and to prevent BLP issues of the article appearing to make a comment (see WT:BLP#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue), and the sources are reliable as the Kampeas piece is NOT considered a blog as per WP:SELFPUB as it is published by the JTA, and the Lippman letter is published by the organization he worked for for 30 years, so it is reliably Lippman, who is germane to the subject. What issues would you have now, other than what I believe is Wikidemon's persistence in misunderstanding the BLP policy here? -- Avi ( talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I will wait a while, as a courtesy, to hear Mackan's et al.s thoughts. However, this is not a BLP violation and continued reverts claiming "BLP" violation without express descriptions as to exactly which parts of the policy are being violated, in light of the numerous explanations above, will be reverted and disruptive editing will be addressed. -- Avi ( talk) 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
As you yourself pointed out above, IIRC, the RfC is not bringing any new editors other than those going around in circles here. Secondly, there are no threats, just indications that dispute resolution will be followed if disruptive edits continue. Thirdly, you have yet to demonstrate why the non-self-published Kampeas and Kramer are inappropriate, other than your calling them "blogs". Where is it shown that letters to the editor are inappropriate if the letter writer is an established expert and the publishing authority is a reliable source? -- Avi ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are acceptable if made by experts and attributed as such. See Joseph Massad's piece against Martin Kramer in Kramer's article here: Martin Kramer#"Columbia Unbecoming", or is there a valid reason why you think the two are different? Same with letters to the editor, if published in a reliable source by an expert. So, you may not have to explain why a self-published blog is not acceptable, but being that we are not discussing self-published blogs here, your continued raising of red herrings only serves to confuse the issue. Please discuss the sources brought, not sources that are not brought. -- Avi ( talk) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record: Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources applies to Lippman and Kampeas. They are not "readers," they are professionals, and so WP:BLP specifically ALLOWS them both. -- Avi ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It applies to the Lippman letter as well. Lippman's letter is an opinion of an expert and professional with direct knowledge of the situation published in a reliable source. As for the weight, if Khalidi's denial is relevant, so should the denial of that denial be relevant. I understand that there are those who wish not to have any mention of the relationship, the denial, and the subsequent controversy in the article. The issue is that as Khalidi is a respected and notable Palestinian scholar with distinct views about the Palestine/Israel issue, any reliable information about a relationship with the PLO is relevant. Which this is. -- Avi ( talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
First, thanks Avi and others for waiting, as I think is appropriate under the circumstances. I must say that these sources are still being used contentiously, however, in a way that does not show the sensitivity required under WP:BLP. There may be a disagreement here about WP:BLP; however, I am confident enough that if we pursue dispute resolution, the answer will not be that we have been overly cautious in resolving this issue correctly, but if anything the opposite, that no contentious and potentially damaging material should be (or have been) in the article until it is thoroughly ironed out into something fair, accurate, and completely supported by reliable sources. I think we are potentially still making progress, however.
In any case, this proposal improves certain issues, but not others. Possibly the primary problem is that this is not material on Khalidi's views, and has not been presented as such by reliable sources. The ways I have seen it presented are: 1. as biographical material, or 2. as an election issue. This is especially distracting when Khalidi's denial is introduced, still in a section on his views, throwing a large wrench (and a lot of contentiousness) into the explanation of Khalidi's views on the conflict. That is an issue under WP:BLP, as anyone who reads the first few sentences of the policy will realize. I think there are other problems, including the sourcing and the specific wording, but it seems to me the first step is figuring out where to put this. The section on his views on the conflict, at least based on this proposal, does not seem to me an acceptable solution, particularly when its inclusion in the context of the election is much better supported.
For one additional thought, re Historicist and some others: of course it may well be that this issue outlasts the recent election and discussion related to it. I would personally be surprised if Khalidi does not at some point address this, considering the extent he was thrust into the election. However, the fact as of yet is that this was part of the election, which already has a section here. Making more of it at this point, as if we are able to speak knowledgeably about this aspect of his career based solely on the sources we have, but not even yet any response from Khalidi, strikes me as quite a poorly supported approach to this issue. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the past week or two of edits, I am somewhat disappointed in myself that I let frustration get in theway of civility at times, and made statements I now regret, especially to Wikidemon. I need to step back from the article and take a deep breath. I am not changing my opinions about anything (including the proper applications of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV) but I should have phrased things better. My apologies to all. -- Avi ( talk) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph of Rashid_Khalidi#Views_on_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict is seriously flawed. The second sentence - the quote by Khalidi - is presented as support for the first sentence ("A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation.") However, the quote is on an unrelated topic. In the quote, Khalidi distinguishes between combatants and noncombatants. But the next sentence ("The Sun editorial argued that by failing to distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants...") says the exact opposite.
Someone familiar with the editorial needs to fix this. The editorial is no longer on line. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 11:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Right of Resistance?
by New York Sun Staff Editorial New York Sun March 14, 2005
http://www.nysun.com/article/10510
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 Print Send RSS
One of the more positive developments related to the controversy over Middle Eastern studies at Columbia University is that professors who teach in the field no longer enjoy immunity from criticism. Without checks and balances or, as Columbia law school dean David Schizer put it, when controversial opinions are "encrusted as orthodoxy," professors are given license to misrepresent contested or weak ideas as undisputed fact. Such a state of affairs at Columbia helps to explain why the director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, Rashid Khalidi, has felt free to misstate international law as relates to the killing of Israeli soldiers.
On at least four occasions, Mr. Khalidi has publicly stated that Palestinians have the legal right under international law to resist Israel's occupation. In a June 7, 2002 speech he delivered before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Mr. Khalidi said: "Killing civilians is a war crime. It's a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They're civilians, they're unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance." The following year he was quoted as saying, "Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it. But resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law."
Queried for an October 23, 2003, article in the Sun reporting that Israel's education minister had lodged a formal protest with Columbia over the Khalidi remarks, Mr. Khalidi responded by saying in an e-mail to the Sun that it is "disgraceful that a minister in a government that commits similar war crimes against civilians on a far greater scale - with complete impunity and without the slightest remorse - should have the gall to protest my reported comments on legitimate resistance to an unlawful and violent occupation now in its 37th year." To the New York Times, in an article that appeared on February 28, 2005, Mr. Khalidi said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate."
The time is overdue to challenge Mr. Khalidi's statements in respect of international law. Going by his 2002 speech quoted above, Mr. Khalidi is arguing that Israeli soldiers serving in the West Bank are belligerent combatants and thus legitimate targets of violence. The key question that Mr. Khalidi omits is who is entitled to attack the soldiers under international law, or, in other words, under the Geneva and Hague conventions and the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and binding treaties. Mr. Khalidi doesn't distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, which suggests that in Mr. Khalidi's view all Palestinians have the right of "resistance."
According to the Geneva conventions, however, only lawful combatants are given permission to kill other combatants in the course of armed conflict. Or as Nicholas Kittrie, a university professor at American University law school, says, "If you are not a law belligerent, you are not given that license to kill anybody." Who is a lawful combatant? It turns out that in international law - we speak of Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention - the particulars are spelled out, including carrying arms openly and having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. The "resistance" carried out by the Palestinians against Israeli soldiers flagrantly violates those conditions. A suicide bomber who blows up soldiers at a checkpoint does not qualify. Or, as Alan Baker, legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, put it in a report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "There is no such right of resistance to occupation in international law."
If it weren't for a Columbia law professor, George Fletcher, who last month challenged Mr. Khalidi to a debate, one might have assumed that either everyone at Columbia either agreed with Mr. Khalidi or simply did not care that he was wrong. President Bollinger has rattled on about the fine points of First Amendment law, but his employee is running around misrepresenting the particulars of international law. It seems that if it concerns the murder of Israeli soldiers, Mr. Bollinger is not going to confront the head of his Middle East Institute. It is the great tragedy of the situation at Columbia, which has become a college at which the authorities seem indifferent to the substance of the arguments made by those who teach the students.
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 (the campus-watch archive is propably the best place to search for articles on academics speaking about the Middle East)````
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Statement of question Some editors wish to include a statement that the subject of this article, Rashid Khalidi, is believed / accused / described by some contemporary sources as a former "PLO spokesman" or a former "director" of the PLO's news agency. Others object to this designation.
Relevant policies
The Khalidi article in some ways represents a perfect storm of Wikipedia BLP/NPOV issues - the intersection of anti-Obama smears and the Arab / Israeli conflict. Khalidi has been the subject of edit wars, dispute, and occasional article protection and editor blocking, all over the issue of whether he is a Palestinian Liberation Organization operative or not.
Khalidi is an American university professor who has drawn significant controversy and criticism for his statements in support of Palestinian side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and, some would say, his ties to the PLO. There have been campus protests, speeches have been canceled, he is a frequent target of criticism (particularly in the blogosphere), and more recently he became a last-minute part of the Republican Party's "Obama palls around with terrorists" smear in the United States presidential election, 2008.
The tenuous logic for the campaign smear goes like this:
If you think this overstates the smear, just google it. You'll find gems like these [8] [9] (that's the dignified side of the smear - you should see the blogs).
The problem with connecting the dots here on Wikipedia is that we do not have sufficient sourcing to say that Khalidi ever worked for the PLO. Editors pursuing this issue for weeks and months have found several reliable sources that describe him as such, primarily as an attribution in an interview. There are other reliable sources that say flat out that this is not true. Khalidi himself denies it. Further, there are many hundreds and probably thousands of reliable sources that mention Khalidi, and describe who he is and his bio/history without mentioning that he was a PLO spokesman. To find the few stray sources that say he was you have to dig pretty hard. Under the circumstances there is simply not enough sourcing to say authoritatively in the encyclopedia that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman, something most in favor of the material acknowledge. Instead they want what they describe as a compromise statement that "several" sources believe / state that he was a PLO spokesman but others disagree. The problem with this is several fold.
If this RFC continues others will no doubt fill this out with sources and arguments. However, it looks like a very simple BLP case of weak sourcing used to call someone a terrorist. We cannot do that. We can report what we do know and can source solidly, but not that kind of smear. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There are four (there are now five) contemporary news reports that quote him as speaking on behalf of the PLO. Historicist ( talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=671334742&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1228232198&clientId=15403) Historicist ( talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM Special to The New York Times. New York Times Jun 11, 1979. p. A3 ) describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and the last (in German) identifies him as a professor.
From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. [3] I can't find any in the pre-campaign period mention the PLO connection in order to deny it.
Wikipedia should not be in the business of making dubious claims, scandalous in nature, about living people, so the exercise in weighing "evidence" is pointless. Several things ought to be clear here: (1) Khalidi, an American professor, is a controversial figure for his statements sympathetic with the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (2) the McCain campaign tried to connect Khalidi with PLO terrorism, and Obama with Khalidi, in the last days of its failed presidential bid; (3) Several reliable sources (which we can discuss) say that Khalidi was a "spokesman" for the PLO; (4) Other reliable sources directly say that Khlalidi was not a spokesman for the PLO (e.g. this Washington Post "fact checker" article [12] that concludes the accusation is "a case of guilt by association gone haywire."); (5) Khalidi denies that he was ever a spokesman (see the above Washington Post piece); and (6) Most sources describing Khalidi or his history do not state that he was a PLO spokesman, nor do they refute the claim, nor do they mention the issue as being a controversy.
Obviously we cannot say that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman. The sources are in conflict. Some say yes, some say no, and most are silent. It is also useless to report that he was called a PLO spokesman. There is simply not enough WP:WEIGHT to these scandalous claims to make it worthwhile. By analogy, suppose we have a thousand articles about Abraham Lincoln, of which four say he is was a bed wetter as a child, four refute that he was a bed wetter, and 992 do not reach the issue. Not only can we not fairly report that Lincoln wet his bed, we should not even discuss that there were a range of opinions on it because clearly, it is not a significant enough issue for most of the sources to note. In Khalidi's case the accusation is a lot more serious, that he was an employee of a terrorist organization, and he is alive so we have WP:BLP to contend with. One cannot say that his being a PLO spokesman is well-sourced, not if the sources are in conflict. That only several sources mention the issue at all means it is not a notable controversy or opinion about him.
In fact, few if any of the sources suggest that he formally an agent of the PLO, as the word "spokesman" implies. Per the Washington Post article, they appear to be making a semantic distinction - that Khalidi often spoke informally with the PLO. When he was a professor in Beirut he was an intermediary, conveying messages between his PLO contacts and people who would not or could not meet them. The Post says that calling that activity a spokesman or not may be a semantic distinction, not a real distinction as to what Khalidi did or did not do. Under the circumstances, using the word "spokesman" is misleading because it suggests he was a PLO agent when he was not. It is unnecessary and, frankly, a big POV waste of time for Wikipedia to delve into this detail and try to take sides. We should stick to what we know and can source, and not get into whether we can describe it in a way that sounds scandalous.
- Wikidemon ( talk) 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon refers to the Republican Party's "Obama palls around with terrorists" smear. The wikipedia article itself merely says that the Republican Party said that he had an anti-Israel foreign policy. Can you clarify whether you meant that the Republican Party itself explicitly said that Khalidi was a terrorist? Andjam ( talk) 15:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut." http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/khalidi.htm Asked about his Beriut period in 2005, Khalidi did not pretend to have been devoting his time exclusively to scholarship. He described PLO positions with the word "we" in published interviews. He demanded no correction from the newspapers that described him as a spokesman. Are we to bbelieve that an obscure young academic who grew up in Brooklyn was unaware that the New York Times was describing him as a PLO spokesman?
• "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa" (7:34)
• * "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa" (32:51)
There's no such consensus. All three proposals not only include the BLP vio we've been talking about in the first place, but by adding PLO headings or attempting to portray it as a career event would blow out of all proportion the occasional stray attribution, poorly sourced except as a American campaign smear, that Khalidi is a PLO "spokesman". This just started a few days ago, over an American holiday. Give it some time. Trying to conclude an RfC prematurely is not going to help. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. In 2004 Khalidi dismissed the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.” Historicist ( talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
How about the following as a rough attempt, and I'd request Historicist add the appropriate sources where necessary:
During the late 70s and early 80s, Khalidi was known throughout journalistic circles for having good contacts withing the Palestinian Liberation Organization as was often used as a source for information about the PLO and its activities. Whether Khalidi ever acted as an official representative of the PLO or Wafa has been a matter of debate, with Khalidi himself stating that there was no official relationship. [Insert Khalidi quote here].
It can be fleshed out, if necessary, with both the rebuttal of any official relationship and the "semantics" phrase from the FactChecker. Thoughts? -- Avi ( talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Historicist ( talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)HistoricistDuring the late 70s and early 80s, Khalidi was known throughout journalistic circles for having good contacts withing the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was often used as a source for information about the PLO and its activities. Whether Khalidi ever acted as an official representative of the PLO or Wafa has been a matter of debate, with Khalidi himself dismissing the idea, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.”
160.39.35.12 ( talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)HistoricistDuring the late 70s and early 80s, Khalidi was known throughout journalistic circles for having good contacts withing the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was often used as a source for information about the PLO and its activities. Reliable sources differ on the question of whether Khalidi ever acted as an official representative of the PLO or Wafa, with Khalidi himself dismissing the idea, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.”
Here is my modest suggestion:
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and many journalists turned to him as an unofficial or official PLO spokesman. Khalidi himself said he had no official position with the PLO, but "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 December 2008
I would be satisfied with RavPapa's wording, and I also could agree to removing the word "closely" from the first sentence. However, I agree with Historicist that removing it completely is a violation of WP:NPOV by suppressing reliably and verifiably sourced facts, about the subject of an article, which are important in understanding the very nature of what makes the subject notable: namely, his understanding and scholarship of Palestinian culture, history, and socio-political theory. -- Avi ( talk) 16:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has throughout his career interacted with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and many journalists turned to him as a source for information about the PLO. Khalidi himself said he had no official position with the organization, but "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
Here is the Los Angeles Times in 1985 describing Khalidi as "a former PLO official" "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by DOYLE McMANUS. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 20, 1984. p. A10 (1 page) “according to Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO official” (here's the link, but ProQuest Historical Newspapers may not be available from every computer: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=671334742&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1228232198&clientId=15403) Historicist ( talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
By YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM Special to The New York Times. New York Times Jun 11, 1979. p. A3 ) describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and the last (in German) identifies him as a professor.
There is a lot of bandying about in this discussion of NPOV, but I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what the sides are. It seems that people who oppose mentioning a Khalidi-PLO connection think that such a connection is bad, and it somehow delegitimizes him. Are these the proPalestinians or the antiPalestinians? On the other hand, those favoring mentioning the connection - who are they? Are they interested in discrediting him? It doesn't seem to me to be such a terrible thing to have been associated with the PLO; after all, the PLO is now the leader of a nascent state, has been recognized by the UN as a legitimate national representative for more than 30 years, and one of its leaders held the Nobel peace prize. I doubt very much that Khalidi himself would feel dishonored by having his name associated with that organization. Anyway, I sent him an email to ask him; maybe he will make a comment on this page.
No, the issue is not one of POV, but rather a simple determination of the facts. I refrain from making a comment about that, beyond my suggestion for wording. I am just pointing out that accusations of POV seem irrelevant to this discussion. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. In 2004, Kahalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
Historicist ( talk) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
While updating the refs I came across this: http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm.
As an aside, this is considered a reliable source for Kramer's own opinion, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.…Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Martin Kramer is an established expert, whose works on the Middle East have been published in reliable third-party publications, and if used, of this data would only be used to bring the opinion of an expert on the Middle East about Khalidi. Being that it is the expert's opinion supported, that is first-party not third party, as long as it is properly labeled in the article.
Thoughts? -- Avi ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that we bring Joseph Massad's opinion of Kramer in Kramer's article. See Martin Kramer#"Columbia Unbecoming". -- Avi ( talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there needs to be a lot of work done on Martin Kramer, then. Regardless, I think that Kramer's opinion of Khalidi is appropriate to be brought here, as is Massad's of Kramer brought there. -- Avi ( talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have supplied Kramer's opinions, as well as the fact that Ron Kampeas, who originally defended Khalidi, and made very similar arguments to people on this page, has himself conceded that Kramer is correct. In the interests of neutrality, I brought Kampeas's point afterwards that notwithstanding Khalidi's denial of fact, people should give more weight to Khalidi's recent statements and not past associations.
Once again, it should be noted that the sources brought do pass WP:RS as they are supporting the opinions of the people writing them, who are experts in their own right, and whose opinions' on Khalidi are germane. -- Avi ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, Thomas Lippman, the former Washington Post Middle East bureau chief, is on record saying that "Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict." This is not some "right-wing crazy Israeli blogger", this is a 30-year veteran reporter, and the fact that he too conflicts with Khalidi's denial is both fascinating and important. -- Avi ( talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is specifically geared to Wikidemon, G-Dett, and Khoikhoi. From our discussions on this page, I understood the reservations against using the sources originally brought to be based primarily on the following:
I believe very strongly that the sources I found and the edits I made this evening address all of those issues.
Also, to foster and promote the neutrality of the piece, I brought Kampeas's point about giving more weight to Khalidi's recent public statements than to his past, although, I must say, on a personal level, Kramer's analysis of Khalidi's statements in Arabic juxtaposed with those of his in English, are interesting. -- Avi ( talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, you have to say why you believe the new sources are a BLP violation instead of blanket edit warring. I have given you a detailed explanation above. Please have the courtesy to respond with logical arguments instead of edit-warring reversions. -- Avi ( talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of others who may not have had a chance to see the edits, I have removed them, for now, from the article, for discussion here. -- Avi ( talk) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. [4] [5] In 2004, Khalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." [6] From 1991 to 1993, Khalidi served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states. [7]
Khalidi's denial of any official relationship with the PLO became a matter of discussion among scholars and journalists who specialized in the Middle East. Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency originally defended Khalidi from the claims of his being an official PLO spokesman. [8]
However,
Dr.
Martin Kramer, the twentieth century Islamist intellectual and political history scholar, contested Khalidi's denial of any official role, and called into askance those who have testified "to Khalidi's bona fides without doing due diligence."
[9] Kramer concludes based on print and radio sources that to him there is no question that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut.Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
The Washington Post published a letter by Thomas Lippman, its veteran Middle East news correspondent and former Middle East bureau chief, which stated that Khalidi was "indeed 'a PLO spokesman,'" and suggesting that journalists need to "check the clips." [10]
Eventually, Kampeas conceded that Kramer's evidence and analysis is "irrefutable" and that he too believes that Khalidi was, in the past, a spokesman for the PLO. [11] Kampeas goes on to state, however, that while it may be regrettable that Khalidi has denied past truths, it must be seen that Khalidi's advocacy of a two-state solution, his calling attacks on civilians "war crimes," and his denunciations of anti-Semitism are important in understanding why he has denied his past association with the PLO. [11]
In reply to our questions, he wrote that between 1976 and 1983, "I was teaching full time as an Assistant Professor in the Political Studies and Public Administration Dept. at the American University of Beirut, published two books and several articles, and also was a research fellow at the independent Institute for Palestine Studies," and says he had no time for anything else. Mr. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The problem with the "spokesman" claim is that you can actually prove it's not true. In saner times, "prove it's not true" would be a phrase frowned on in an innocent until proven guilty culture. Khalidi's denial would be enough in the face of a lack of evidence as to same. Those promoting the claim cite a single 1982 article by Tom Friedman; Khalidi says Friedman got it wrong, and that the term "PLO spokesman" was used promiscuously in 1982 Beirut. But like I said, things ain't so sane. So here's the thing: What everyone acknowledges is that Khalidi was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid talks. That delegation - to a person - could not have had any formal affiliation with the PLO. Israel regarded the group as terrorist and its laws banned contact with its members; then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir made NOT being affiliated with the PLO it a condition of Israel's agreement to participate. The names of the Palestinian team would have been vetted by Israeli intelligence. This was something of a nudge and a wink, of course: Faisal Husseini, who headed the team, was in constant contact with PLO headquarters in Tunis. Still, it should put to rest the notion that Khalidi was ever a "spokesman" for the group.
The Post's defense of Rashid Khalidi ["An 'Idiot Wind,' " editorial, Oct. 31] was generally commendable, but in fairness to Sen. John McCain, it should be noted that Mr. Khalidi was indeed "a PLO spokesman." In the early years of the Lebanese civil war, Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict. As we used to say in the pre-electronic newspaper business: Check the clips.
It is going to take some time to go through this and I am not free to spend the rest of the evening (in America) doing it. But I'll get started on the first few parts. Wikidemon ( talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
In toto, every single part of the proposed addition has problems with POV, relevance, weight, BLP violations, and/or incorrectly supporting the sources. If we cut out all the impermissable statements there is nothing to report. It is a coatrack as well, accusing Khalidi not only of being a PLO operative but also lying about it. It repeats the language of the claim, PLO spokesman, eight times, which is gratuitous. Going into such detail about what three individuals believe, based on their editorials and opinions, is completely undue for weight. None of this material adds to the first paragraph, which was in process of a consensus agreement.
The proposed consensus version, without this edit, already contains the sentence "Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". It also states that the matter became an issue in the US presidential election, which is the context for all these blog sources. If we distill all of these additional paragraphs down to their encyclopedic core, it amounts to a simple statement that "Three individuals argued that Khalidi was a former PLO spokesman: a partisan political operative on his blog, a bureau correspondent of a Jewish paper on his editorial column, and a former correspondent via a letter to the editor." The simple response, other than pointing out this is a BLP vio, is so what? There is no reason given why the reader should care why yet three more unreliable sources out of hundreds of voices in the Obama/McCain presidential race, made this claim. This is a non-starter for this reason. I cannot see how the proposed material could be included in any shape, or rewritten to be worth including. Again, the consensus version is just fine. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
When discussing what I believe Wikidemon's misunderstandings and misapplications of wikipedia policy above, I will likely need to make mention of the same issues over and again, so for the interests of brevity I will bring them here and reference them.
I have explained this multiple times here, but I shall do so again. There are times, albeit infrequently, when blogs are considered reliable sources. Wiki policy reads: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources Firstly, Ron Kampeas's work is published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, it is not self published. Furthermore, it is not even considered a blog per Wiki guidelines. As the policy says: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." - Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. Also, both Kampeas and Martin Kramer are "established experts" in the "relevant fields" who each have copiously published previously in reliable sources. Therefore, these two "blogs" specifically are acceptable sources for this article.
Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
Wikiepdia defines primary, secondary, and tertiary sources here: WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The operative definition here is that secondary sources are: accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Note that, per the wikipedia policies, for a writer to analyze primary sources and come to a conclusion is NOT a primary source (otherwise, everything ever written that is not a direct copy of something else is a primary source). In this case Kramer and Kampeas making an analytic or synthetic claim about writings about Khalidi is a CLASSIC example of a secondary source, not a primary source. Examples of the relevant primary sources would be the Freidman article and the radio interview. Thus, in this case, the sources brought above (Kramer and Kampeas) are all examples of secondary sources and the conclusions brought therein are perfectly acceptable to wikipedia.
At the risk of violating the policy of assume good faith, I am driven to wonder whether all of the participants are acting in good faith. I am willing to be persuaded by evidence. In fact, for years I dismissed the idea that Khalidi ever actually spoke for the PLO. There were no sources. Then sources appeared, and I was persuaded. Attempting to edit this article has increased my conviction that he most certainly did so. Certainly no one in this argument has ever presented evidence to the contrary. Instead of evidence, users present objections. This discussion has now been going on for over a month. During that time copious sources have been brought and consensus has appeared to have been reached three times. Each time a user then violates the consensus by removing the agreed-upon material from the page. The strategy appears to be to keep objecting and objecting and objecting until those who disagree with him get tired and go away. Over the period during which I have followed this. USER:79.181.230.41 USER: Andjam USER:Jaakobou USER:Glen Twenty and USER:RonCram have argued for a few days, then (apparently,) given up and gone away. Now we are back to square one, except that we have accumulated numerous, extremely reliable sources of all types. I begin to suspect thst the only real objection is WP:IDONTLIKEIT Historicist ( talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Martin Kramer has just turned up another reference from the mainstream press: a 1984 article in the Los Angeles Times that quotes Khalidi directly and identifies him as "a former PLO official." Here: http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_former_plo_official.htm
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. In 2004, Kahalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
Because the evidence brought by USER:Avraham is from reliable sources and is weighty and pertinent, we cannot simply ignore it without violating WP:POV On the other hand, as USER:Wikidemon has pointed out, it is important not to allow this section to grow out of proportion. I therefore propose a compromise similar to the compromise reached on the other sources.
Scholars and journalists who have examined the evidence and concluded that it supports the assertion that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman in Beirut include Martin Kramer and Ron Kampeas. Thomas Lippman, the Washington Post Middle East correspondent who interviewed Khalidi in Beirut confirms that he was a “PLO spokesman.”
USER:Avraham could then include footnote for Kramer and Kampeas that would include quotations. Historicist ( talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Commment: It seems that some progress has been made since my last visit to this discussion and that's a nice thing to see. On a general tone, BLP is misapplied here though there is room to give slightly less room to the "he is" perspective to make it closer in size to the "he isn't" perspective. Regardless of how the final version looks like, this content (he is and he isn't) needs to be in article since the 'he is' version is fairly mainstream and since the 'isn't' can be used to give a chance for 'rebuttal'. I would suggest starting with the 'is' and ending with the 'isn't' response and keeping it succinct in regards to the details of the claims. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the language upon which consensus was reached.
Khalidi has throughout his career been closely associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the 1970s and 80s, he was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by major newspapers as speaking on behalf of the PLO. In 2004, Kahalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source." From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states.
USER:Wikidemon has just posted altered language disingenuously claiming that it is consensus language. I am going to put up the consensus language. If Wikidemon or anyone else wants to change this, it ought to be discussed first. Historicist ( talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Can someone clarify what's meant by "throughout his career"? The latest point discussed here is 15 years ago, in 1993, while the conflation of Wafa and the PLO remained unsupported last time I looked at this. Unless there is a secondary source that recently supports this statement about a connection "throughout his career," I'm quite sure it should not be there. Aside from that, all of the support I see added in Historicist's recent change looks like primary source based original research, when used in this way, and thus inappropriate, particularly in a WP:BLP. Am I missing something? I am going to undo the change for now as I'm quite sure the "throughout his career" language is unsupported and should not be there. (I also don't believe there was consensus; I saw Wikidemon contest the sentence, KhoiKhoi suggested removing it, and I agreed that it shouldn't be there). Mackan79 ( talk) 03:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose a civilized discussion of the material now on the page with the well-sourced, pertinent material from Thomas Lippman Martin Kramer and Ron Kampeas introduced on Dec. 2 by USER:Avraham. I am in favor of posting this material and hope that Avraham will suggest wording. Historicist ( talk) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Yes, you are rock solid in your continued assertions of our error, as we are of yours. Not to mention that Kampeas is not self published, and he references Kramer, so your "which part of..." point can be deemed irrelevant anyway.
I have asked for guidance at WT:BLP#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue and at WT:RS#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue. Let us see what fresh opinions say. -- Avi ( talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The article now says, "Khalidi has been, reportedly, affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) but has rejected the association." I find this surprising. When did Khalidi reject his association with the PLO? Do you have a source for this? I believe it is wrong. The best we have is the statement that he held no official position with the PLO.
On the face of it, I would say that this is a pretty severe BLP violation. Someone who was politically active in Beirut, who provided reporters with background briefings and who was described repeatedly as a PLO spokesman, who served as adviser to the PLO in 1991, and who, in all his writings, has publicly espoused support for the political policies and goals of the PLO - to say with no reference that I know of that that person rejects any association with the PLO seems a serious distortion of the facts. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are referring to this quote: "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."
That doesn't look to me to be anything like a blanket rejection of association with the PLO. It is merely a statement that in 1976 he was not employed by the PLO. In order to support the statement in the article, you need a quote something like this: "I have never had any association with the PLO." I have never seen a quote like that, nor does it seem plausible that Khalidi would ever want to say such a thing.
By misrepresenting Khalidi's relationship (ideological or formal) with the PLO (or by ignoring it completely), this article is exposing the Wikipedia to complaints, and perhaps even legal action, by Khalidi himself. Excuses like "when I said affiliation, I didn't mean association" don't cut it. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps an acceptable solution for everyone is to leave what is there now and add wording similar to the following sentence: This dismissal has been repudiated by various academics and journalists active during that time.[cite Kramer/Kampeas/Lippman] We don't have to bring names or details, but we need to have the fact that Khalidi's dismissal is considered inaccurate. Perhaps "repudiated" can be replaced, but "questioned" is too weak. Thoughts? -- Avi ( talk) 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Following some changes, I think the current paragraph has at least two problems. First, even without "throughout this career," the sentence about "has been affiliated" fails to recognize that this is a historical debate, not one about anything he has done in the last one, two, or three decades. I see the L.A. Times piece cited by Kramer refers to him as a "former P.L.O. official" as of 24 years ago in 1984. Accordingly, I am quite uncomfortable with anything which fails to acknowledge that this is a historical debate (Kramer says the references fall between '76 and '84, although even in '84 it says "former"). Second, I'm concerned with the extent we are even presenting this as a back-and-forth debate, when as people are pointing out, it's not entirely clear what exactly is being responded to, or denied, and the sourcing seems to be predominantly primary sources or self-published.
I have not recently examined all of these sources as closely as some of you, but my impression is that if the first sentence is cleared up to acknowledge that this is a question of what he did while teaching in Beirut, the paragraph would be ok. As to the final sentence, I don't think it's correct to say that it was "notwithstanding his denial" for a few reasons, but I'd like to look at that a little more closely. Mackan79 ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a version which, I think, stays absolutely close to the facts:
Khalidi has not only been an observer; at different stages of his career he was actively involved in the politics of the Palestinian liberation movement. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. [1]. At that time, several leading media, including the New York Times [2], The Los Angeles Times [3], and Pacifica Radio [4] identified him as an official PLO spokesman, though Khalidi later denied he had any official role with the organization. "I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source" he said in an interview with the Washington Times in 2004. [5] "If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."
From 1991 to 1993, Khalidi was a member of the Palestinian delegation to negotiations between Palestinians, Israel and the United States in Madrid and in Washington [6].
As his academic career made increasing demands on his time, Khalidi said, his direct involvement in Palestinian politics has diminished. "I am a political being," he said in a recent speech [7], but "I can't do all those things [teaching, writing and lecturing] and be involved in politics." [8]
If Khalidi was identified by the news media in the 1970's with the PLO, he has been increasingly critical of that organization. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing." [9] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." [10]
-- Ravpapa ( talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The question seems to be whether we should present the claimed PLO connection as a major point, or if the sourcing only supports our mentioning it incidentally. I tend to like this framework, but I'm still left thinking that a more disinterested summary would not illustrate his political involvements in Beirut by listing the news organizations at the time that connected him to the PLO. I think this is close to Wikidemon's point. E.g., it would seem to make more sense to illustrate his political involvement, if this is an important point, with facts presented by a secondary source that notes the issue. If we then add that he was reported to have been a spokesman for the PLO, then the context may be more natural and less contentious. I should say I surmise this is a new proposal, though, and I am not sure where exactly it goes and under what heading, each of which would seem to be important. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Expanding on my point above, one issue we seem to be skipping is the connection with WAFA, rather than with the PLO. Some of these sources (primary, though they are), seem to refer to him as a spokesman for WAFA. Thomas Friedman referred to him as a director of WAFA, in the column that seems to be at the center of much of this. Has this been reconciled, whether these were considered the same thing, whether they were confused, whether he is thought to have been both, or something else? The proposed wordings here have been to say that he has been alleged to work for the PLO, but seem to ignore the statements that he worked for WAFA, or to treat the latter as evidence of the former when it is not clear to me that these are the same. Mackan79 ( talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
==Wafa and the Plo+
Answering Mackan's question. The PLO in the late 1970’s early 80’s was not an organization with a large, formal infrastructure. It was a semi-underground Army of National Liberation employing tactics regarded by the International Community as terrorism. It had a fledgling press office called Wafa. The purpose was to broadcast radio (TV was beyond the capacity of the PLO at that phase) to Palestinians. There were competing media, especially in the Israeli-controlled West Bank where under Israeli control a lively free press existed in Arabic. The Communist party newspapers were in lively competition with the PLO controlled newspaper. Wafa was a weapon in this competition for the hearts and minds of Palestinians, (An interesting literature exists on the eradication of the non-PLO Palestinian press after Oslo, it involves smashing printing presses, kneecapping and murder. Only the Muslim Brotherhood newspapers survived. The Communist and centrist news papers did not.) In Jordan, Wafa had to compete with Jordanian newspapers attempting to integrate Palestinian refugees into a new, Jordanian identity. In addition to its primary mission of promoting the PLO within the Palestinian population, Wafa had a secondary mission of getting the PLO perspective out to the world. It was, in other words, the Press Office of the PLO. This was not CNN. It was not even the Voice of America which has a large degree of editorial independence and represents not the Republican or Democratic parties, but America. Wafa’s job was to get the PLO’s point of view out to the world, and to drown out the voices of the competing Communist, Islamist and moderate Palestinian national movements. It did not promote the messages of rival Palestinian groups. Nor the message of the Palestinian nation as a whole. The PLO’s message was the point of its existence. Wafa was the PLO’s press office. To say Wafa is to say PLO. Historicist ( talk) 23:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I see now that Kampeas addresses this. [17]
Accordingly, Kampeas actually appears to question the assessment of "PLO spokesman," saying that the PLO relation comes through his connection to Wafa, saying that he would think to work for the agency would have been different from being a direct spokesman, and that Khalidi's statements though not definitive are more consistent with working for the agency than being a spokesman. Of course this is still a blog (and the type of speculation one would expect to see on such), but when it is what's being offered that seems to throw a kink in things. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So far, if I have followed the recent discussions properly, the recent contributors to the discussion can be segregated as follows:
Is the above accurate? -- Avi ( talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that you believe some form of the information belongs in there. If anything, unless there are more people going to speak their minds, Wikidemon is in the minority here and a consensus that some form of the information belongs in the article is forming. How to best phrase it to ensure that we balance BLP with NPOV. -- Avi ( talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
With footnotes to Kramer, Kampeas and Lippman. this will be a parallel solution to the statement of the PLO affiliation supported by footnoted sources about which consensus was reached above. Historicist ( talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)HistoricistDespite Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO.
I will not revert you, Historicist, but I would counsel waiting a bit more for more comment before putting that sentence in the article. even though I agree to it. -- Avi ( talk) 18:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Should I take it out? Historicist ( talk) 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
(Offtopic:) I believe that there was no malintent on either side here and it would be best to try and assume good faith rather than focus/suggest bad ones. H wanted to respond to the notability issue only and WD wanted to note that the used source was of a certain perspective and possibly not a wiki-reliable source. These two issues shouldn't draw a heated response on either side. Keep cool, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, would you mind summarizing what you think should happen to the current section, "Relationship to the PLO"? My impression is that all of this could be included, much more briefly, in the section on the 2008 election. Potentially this could say that the Khalidi was said during the election to have been affiliated with the PLO while in Beirut between 1976 and 1983. That would seem more relevant than, for instance, the statement about Obama saying his commitment to Israel is unshakable. Not having followed all of this discussion, though, I am not certain what exactly you are contesting. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, the issues here are not to understand why Khalidi did what he did, Kramer did what he did, and various wiki editors do what they do. The issue is is the information both sufficiently sourced and important enough to appear in the article, and the consensus is shaping up pretty clearly that both properties are fulfilled. The sentence as suggested above is properly sourced, it is not overly informative (no direct mention of any analysis) and it is important as it sheds light on Khalidi's earlier years. Again, the fact that you, I, or anyone may not LIKE it is completely irrelevant, it is the fact that there is NO BLP violation and BO Undue weight violation having the sentence, and there IS an NPOV violation keeping it out. -- Avi ( talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, you are currently the only one involved in the discussion who does not want any of the information in the article, while there are multiple editors who agree that it should be in the article. A consensus does not mean unanimity, Wikidemon, and you are in the distinct minority. What makes this more of a consensus is that is has approval by editors from both sides of the P/I discussions. Furthermore, the current suggested sentence does take into account issues you have raised. At this point, it does appear that the consensus is that this is not a BLP violation, and that you are wrong about that, and that this should be in the article. If only one editor claims that there is no consensus, when multiple other discussion participants from multiple viewpoints agree that there is, there is a consensus. -- Avi ( talk) 06:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The consensus is forming that there is no BLP violation, Wikidemon. Nobody wants to have a BLP vio in this article, just as I am certain no one wants NPOV censorship either. Please read the top and see that of those who have been talking here recently, the majority believe that there is no BLP violation with the sentence suggested above: "Despite Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO." Even though "Despite" is accurate, we can use another construction such as: "In response to Khalidi's denial, other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO."[cite Kramer, Kampeas, Lippman] Again, the consensus is forming that the prior is NOT a BLP violation, and that you are mistaken in your application of the policy. However, personally, I am willing to hold off and see what you can formulate, as while consensus does not require unanimity, unanimity is a nice thing to have. -- Avi ( talk) 06:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section per WP:BLP, as there are several problems with it, and I see no consensus for including it. A read of WP:BLP shows it requires "strict" compliance with all content policies, a "high degree of sensitivity," and that biographies of living people be "written conservatively." Based on the discussion above, I think it is clear this material needs much stronger support, or needs to be treated significantly differently. Mackan79 ( talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A fundamental point in this discussion is that should people conclude that Khalidi was formally affiliated with the PLO while he was teaching in Beirut in the 1970s, it is reasonably likely to hurt his career today as an American academic. This seems so obvious to one familiar American politics that it does not need saying, but some have expressed doubt or challenged the premise.
I describe, below, why it would WP:HARM Khalidi's career should people believe that he was an agent of the PLO. If we say it, and people believe what we say, it will harm Khalidi professionally. Harm is an essential element to both WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. We set a very high bar before printing statements we know will harm people.
As things stand Khalidi has already lost professional opportunities due to the controversy over his positions and statements relating to Palestine. As the article already reports, for example, his invitation to participate in a New York City teacher training program was revoked by the Chancellor of the New York Department of Education because he did not agree with statements Khalidi made critical of Israel. [18] Various people then, as well as at the time of his appointment [19] said that he was unsuitable as a Columbia professor. In another incident, "media pundits, elected officials, real estate developers and wealthy donors began demanding that Columbia dismiss" Khalidi (among others), and Columbia launched a formal investigation. [20] His candidacy to chair a department at Princeton was opposed both within and outside the school because of his statements in support of Palestine and alleged anti-semitism. [21] [22] [23] In none of these incidents was Khalidi's supposed professional association with the PLO raised because it was simply not an issue - people at the time were not making the claim. It was merely for his making statements in support of the Palestinians and against Israel.
Khalidi's supposedly being a "spokesman" for the PLO, an issue that surfaced in the 2008 US presidential campaign, was, objectively, used as a disparagement to smear Obama. McCain and Palin, as well as many conservative bloggers, repeated the term "spokesman" in statements designed to cast doubt on Obama's trustworthiness because he associated with a PLO "spokesman". [24] The bloggers went a lot farther, of course, variously describing Khalidi as a "terorist spokesman", a terrorist himself, and so on. [25] [26] One such blog explains why pinning Khalidi as a "spokesman" rather than merely a "sympathizer" is a "smoking gun". [27] As a mere sympathizer or supporter, Khalidi was merely voicing his own opinion. An official spokesman of a group America at the time to be terrorist (for understandable reasons - arms of the organization were blowing up buses, massacring children at schools, hijacking airplanes, etc), is doing more than praising the terrorism, he is aiding it. Because of the attacks on Obama, Khalidi had to "keep his head down". [28]
McCain obviously thought that being a "spokesman" is so disparaging that even knowing such a person would hurt Obama's election chances. The charge hurts Khalidi in several other ways. First, there are repeated calls for Khalidi to be investiated or fired from Columbia. He has tenure there but tenured professors do get drummed out of institutions. The profession of being an academic implies more than keeping a tenured job at a university. It involves making speeches, participating in conferences, collaborating, researching, travel, publishing papers, and often (as int he case of Khalidi's unsuccessful application at Princeton), moving to more prestigious jobs. There is already pressure on every front against Khalidi. A belief that he was the agent of the PLO can only increase this pressure. Third, within academic the charge against Khalidi is that he puts politics before academics - he is an unabashed advocate. As the infamous Washington Times editorial claimed, [29] as of 2004 he is still a "de facto" spokesman of Arafat, pursuing "spin" over scholarship.
It is hard to imagine that a conclusion Khaledi was a PLO agent would not hurt him in the US. We ought to accept this as a premise of the discussion and not try to deny the obvious.
- Wikidemon ( talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: There's been an honest attempt to find a neutral and encyclopedic phrasing of a reasonably notable issue. Unless more sources appear that suggest this info to be false, then it would seem that the reportings are real and their removal falls within WP:TE. Claims that a 'PLO affiliate' association is equal to something sinister (e.g. major felony) is false and for what it's worth, there's certainly room to consider possible re-writes but wikipedia doesn't censor mainstream content on the basis of ' it sounds like an allegation' (not a quote). I'm open to some form of dispute resolution on the matter though if we cannot find a policy based consensus. Cordially, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) tone down 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
he was never a PLO spokesman. There is insufficient sourcing to claim that he was a PLO spokesman, something quite possibly untrue, and no reliable sourcing at all to show that journalists reporting him as a spokesman is a notable issue. Wikidemon ( talk) 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on the discussion to date, another editor and I have removed this sentence on BLP grounds, and it has been re-inserted twice. Please do not introduce content that has been disputed on BLP grounds as inadequately sourced material potentially harmful to a living biographical subject, or without consensus. Do not edit war, and please respect that we have an RfC in process on the subject. One of the editors reverting the material invited edits that would remove the BLP violation rather than a simple removal, so that is what I will do. I cannot represent that this has consensus but avoiding BLP violations is a more immediate concern than consensus. By normal process the material should stay out entirely until there is a consensus that does not violate BLP. Ongoing edit warring becomes a behavioral issue that could result in the breakdown of this RfC, the article being locked, and blocking of editors to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Please use the discussion process instead. Wikidemon ( talk) 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
My summary understanding of the current issue is as follows:
1.) Under discussion is material which would discuss alleged connections between Khalidi and the PLO between 1976 and 1983 when Khalidi was teaching at the American University of Beirut. A recent version of the paragraph can be seen here.
2.) Support for recent versions of this material has come generally from two places: a.) news reports during the 1976 to 1983 period in what are recognized to be reliable sources, some of which refer to Khalidi as a PLO spokesman, and b.) recent commentary on the blogs of Martin Kramer [31] and Ron Kampeas [32], and in one letter to the editor by Thomas Lippman [33], which discusses the issue.
3.) The material is disputed as sourced under WP:BLP, which requires strict compliance with Wikipedia's content policies among other things. The first category of sources is disputed under WP:NOR as primary sources that do not establish the significance of any connection that they make. Moreover, while some of these refer to him as a PLO spokesman, others of these sources refer to him as "director of Wafa" or as spokesman for Wafa. Accordingly, there is not "consensus" among these sources in referring to him as a PLO spokesman. Wikidemon, I and potentially others have argued that to assemble these nevertheless into a paragraph discussing his alleged connection to the PLO is a contentious use of original research which violates WP:BLP.
The second category of sources is disputed first because they are not reliable sources (two blogs and a letter to the editor), and second because even they do not suggest a significance of this issue to Khalidi's career. Kramer, writing on his blog, says that he will "leave it to others to determine whether or not it matters (or matters enough) to the Khalidi-Obama connection." [35] Lippman prefaces his comments by offering them "in fairness to Sen. John McCain...." [36] Kampeas first prefaces his comments by saying "[i]t's still not clear to me what the significance is of Khalidi's PLO past and how it refracts on his friendship with Barack Obama...." [37] After saying that Kramer has established a connection to the PLO, Kampeas then goes on to question that the relationship in fact was as "spokesman" for the PLO, saying that "Khalidi is referred to as a spokesman for the PLO by virtue of his employment by [Wafa]," and then questioning whether the relationship was in fact as spokesman or rather as a representative of Wafa.
4.) Those who have contested these paragraphs under WP:BLP have acknowledged that the connection was notable in the context of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, a topic which is already given a section. I have noted that Kramer, Lippman and Kampeas all discuss the issue in that context, and at least three editors including myself have suggested that this is where any discussion should go, although any such discussion would still need to satisfy WP:Undue and WP:BLP.
That is the status so far as I can see, and I invite others to show where this is incorrect. Until that is shown or these issues are resolved, however, I intend to follow WP:BLP and remove offending material accordingly, and ask that others be very careful in what they replace prior to this discussion being resolved. Mackan79 ( talk) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
To suggest Palin made it up was not my intention, but is there a way to improve on that? The language I suggested was made to fit the existing paragraph, so it would be as follows:
Clearly this is an outline, and I think most would assume that when a vice presidential candidate is saying something, probably there is related discussion below that level. One could add another sentence about the PLO, but in truth my impression is that most of this discussion was not about Khalidi being a PLO spokesman, but more on the general assumption that Khalidi was a radical, about how well he and Obama knew each other, and if maybe McCain did not have a connection as well. As such, an additional sentence here would seem to me gratuitous. If that means adding another section, then I think we are back to the question of how that can be done appropriately in keeping with WP:BLP. Mackan79 ( talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I said I was dropping out of this discussion, but I feel it behooves me to correct one misconception that has been dogging us since the beginning. A newspaper article is not a primary source - it is a secondary source. The primary sources in this case are Khalidi himself, and the PLO or WAFA.
Wikipedia policy on this matter is perfectly clear. I quote:
and later,
It could be argued that Kampeas and Kramer are tertiary sources, as they, at least to some extent, rely on the same news articles that we have quoted in this discussion, and are therefore inadmissible, or at least of less value.
In any case, reliance on newspaper accounts (secondary sources) cannot be construed as original research, and is precisely the course of action recommended by the policy in this case. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 07:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Are you referring to this proposed text "Consequent to publication by the Los Angeles Times of an article about Obama's attendance at a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, their relationship became a minor issue in the campaign.[27] Some opponents of Barack Obama claimed that the relationship between Obama and Khalidi was evidence that Obama would not maintain a pro-Israel foreign policy if elected.[27] In a speech, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin contended that Obama had 'spent a lot of time' with Khalidi, whom she characterized as a 'former PLO spokesman.' Khalidi said that he would not respond at the time, although he had previously denied having spoken for the PLO in the seven years while he taught in Beirut. Obama called his own commitment to Israel "unshakeable."[28] Opponents of Republican candidate John McCain pointed out that he had served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) during the 1990s which provided grants worth $500,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies for the purpose of polling the views of the Palestinian people. The Center was co-founded by Khalidi.[29] "?
Views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict section to solve Mackan's suggestion
|
---|
Khalidi has written that the establishment of the state of Israel resulted in "the uprooting of the world's oldest and most secure Jewish communities, which had found in the Arab lands a tolerance that, albeit imperfect, was nonexistent in the often genocidal, Jew-hating Christian West." Regarding the proposed two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Khalidi has written that "the now universally applauded two-state solution faces the juggernaut of Israel's actions in the occupied territories over more than forty years, actions that have been expressly designed to make its realization in any meaningful form impossible." However, Khalidi also noted that "there are also flaws in the alternatives, grouped under the rubric of the one-state solution". [11] In the 1970s and 80s, Khalidi was politically active in Beirut, and was cited by newspapers as a Palestine Liberation Organization source. [12] [13] In 2004, Khalidi dismissed the idea that he had once had an official position with the PLO, saying he was often cited without attribution as a "well-informed Palestinian source." [14] In response to Khalidi's denial, various scholars and journalists active at the time, such as the Washington Post's Thomas Lippman, maintain that Khalidi had an official role. [15] From 1991 to 1993, he served as adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states. [16]
A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. [18] For example, in a speech given to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Khalidi said that “[k]illing civilians is a war crime. It’s a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They’re civilians, they’re unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance.” [18] [19] The Sun editorial argued that by failing to distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, Khalidi implies that all Palestinians have this right to resist, which it argued was incorrect under international law. [18] In an interview discussing this editorial, Khalidi objected to this characterization as incorrect and taken out of the context of his statements on international law. [18] Khalidi has described discussions of Arab restitution for property confiscated from Jewish refugees forced to flee Middle Eastern and North African countries after the creation of Israel as “insidious”, "because the advocates of Jewish refugees are not working to get those legitimate assets back but are in fact trying to cancel out the debt of Israel toward Palestinian refugees." [20] Khalidi opposes the Iraq War and has said that “we owe reparations to the Iraqi people.” [21] References
|
OK, Mackan, it is no longer its own section, but under views on P/I issue, where I thought it always belonged anyway. Opinions are attributed to ensure clarity (Khalidi and Lippman) and to prevent BLP issues of the article appearing to make a comment (see WT:BLP#Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue), and the sources are reliable as the Kampeas piece is NOT considered a blog as per WP:SELFPUB as it is published by the JTA, and the Lippman letter is published by the organization he worked for for 30 years, so it is reliably Lippman, who is germane to the subject. What issues would you have now, other than what I believe is Wikidemon's persistence in misunderstanding the BLP policy here? -- Avi ( talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I will wait a while, as a courtesy, to hear Mackan's et al.s thoughts. However, this is not a BLP violation and continued reverts claiming "BLP" violation without express descriptions as to exactly which parts of the policy are being violated, in light of the numerous explanations above, will be reverted and disruptive editing will be addressed. -- Avi ( talk) 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
As you yourself pointed out above, IIRC, the RfC is not bringing any new editors other than those going around in circles here. Secondly, there are no threats, just indications that dispute resolution will be followed if disruptive edits continue. Thirdly, you have yet to demonstrate why the non-self-published Kampeas and Kramer are inappropriate, other than your calling them "blogs". Where is it shown that letters to the editor are inappropriate if the letter writer is an established expert and the publishing authority is a reliable source? -- Avi ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are acceptable if made by experts and attributed as such. See Joseph Massad's piece against Martin Kramer in Kramer's article here: Martin Kramer#"Columbia Unbecoming", or is there a valid reason why you think the two are different? Same with letters to the editor, if published in a reliable source by an expert. So, you may not have to explain why a self-published blog is not acceptable, but being that we are not discussing self-published blogs here, your continued raising of red herrings only serves to confuse the issue. Please discuss the sources brought, not sources that are not brought. -- Avi ( talk) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record: Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources applies to Lippman and Kampeas. They are not "readers," they are professionals, and so WP:BLP specifically ALLOWS them both. -- Avi ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It applies to the Lippman letter as well. Lippman's letter is an opinion of an expert and professional with direct knowledge of the situation published in a reliable source. As for the weight, if Khalidi's denial is relevant, so should the denial of that denial be relevant. I understand that there are those who wish not to have any mention of the relationship, the denial, and the subsequent controversy in the article. The issue is that as Khalidi is a respected and notable Palestinian scholar with distinct views about the Palestine/Israel issue, any reliable information about a relationship with the PLO is relevant. Which this is. -- Avi ( talk) 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
First, thanks Avi and others for waiting, as I think is appropriate under the circumstances. I must say that these sources are still being used contentiously, however, in a way that does not show the sensitivity required under WP:BLP. There may be a disagreement here about WP:BLP; however, I am confident enough that if we pursue dispute resolution, the answer will not be that we have been overly cautious in resolving this issue correctly, but if anything the opposite, that no contentious and potentially damaging material should be (or have been) in the article until it is thoroughly ironed out into something fair, accurate, and completely supported by reliable sources. I think we are potentially still making progress, however.
In any case, this proposal improves certain issues, but not others. Possibly the primary problem is that this is not material on Khalidi's views, and has not been presented as such by reliable sources. The ways I have seen it presented are: 1. as biographical material, or 2. as an election issue. This is especially distracting when Khalidi's denial is introduced, still in a section on his views, throwing a large wrench (and a lot of contentiousness) into the explanation of Khalidi's views on the conflict. That is an issue under WP:BLP, as anyone who reads the first few sentences of the policy will realize. I think there are other problems, including the sourcing and the specific wording, but it seems to me the first step is figuring out where to put this. The section on his views on the conflict, at least based on this proposal, does not seem to me an acceptable solution, particularly when its inclusion in the context of the election is much better supported.
For one additional thought, re Historicist and some others: of course it may well be that this issue outlasts the recent election and discussion related to it. I would personally be surprised if Khalidi does not at some point address this, considering the extent he was thrust into the election. However, the fact as of yet is that this was part of the election, which already has a section here. Making more of it at this point, as if we are able to speak knowledgeably about this aspect of his career based solely on the sources we have, but not even yet any response from Khalidi, strikes me as quite a poorly supported approach to this issue. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the past week or two of edits, I am somewhat disappointed in myself that I let frustration get in theway of civility at times, and made statements I now regret, especially to Wikidemon. I need to step back from the article and take a deep breath. I am not changing my opinions about anything (including the proper applications of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV) but I should have phrased things better. My apologies to all. -- Avi ( talk) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph of Rashid_Khalidi#Views_on_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict is seriously flawed. The second sentence - the quote by Khalidi - is presented as support for the first sentence ("A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation.") However, the quote is on an unrelated topic. In the quote, Khalidi distinguishes between combatants and noncombatants. But the next sentence ("The Sun editorial argued that by failing to distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants...") says the exact opposite.
Someone familiar with the editorial needs to fix this. The editorial is no longer on line. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 11:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Right of Resistance?
by New York Sun Staff Editorial New York Sun March 14, 2005
http://www.nysun.com/article/10510
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 Print Send RSS
One of the more positive developments related to the controversy over Middle Eastern studies at Columbia University is that professors who teach in the field no longer enjoy immunity from criticism. Without checks and balances or, as Columbia law school dean David Schizer put it, when controversial opinions are "encrusted as orthodoxy," professors are given license to misrepresent contested or weak ideas as undisputed fact. Such a state of affairs at Columbia helps to explain why the director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, Rashid Khalidi, has felt free to misstate international law as relates to the killing of Israeli soldiers.
On at least four occasions, Mr. Khalidi has publicly stated that Palestinians have the legal right under international law to resist Israel's occupation. In a June 7, 2002 speech he delivered before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Mr. Khalidi said: "Killing civilians is a war crime. It's a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They're civilians, they're unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that's different. That's resistance." The following year he was quoted as saying, "Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it. But resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law."
Queried for an October 23, 2003, article in the Sun reporting that Israel's education minister had lodged a formal protest with Columbia over the Khalidi remarks, Mr. Khalidi responded by saying in an e-mail to the Sun that it is "disgraceful that a minister in a government that commits similar war crimes against civilians on a far greater scale - with complete impunity and without the slightest remorse - should have the gall to protest my reported comments on legitimate resistance to an unlawful and violent occupation now in its 37th year." To the New York Times, in an article that appeared on February 28, 2005, Mr. Khalidi said: "Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate."
The time is overdue to challenge Mr. Khalidi's statements in respect of international law. Going by his 2002 speech quoted above, Mr. Khalidi is arguing that Israeli soldiers serving in the West Bank are belligerent combatants and thus legitimate targets of violence. The key question that Mr. Khalidi omits is who is entitled to attack the soldiers under international law, or, in other words, under the Geneva and Hague conventions and the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and binding treaties. Mr. Khalidi doesn't distinguish between Palestinian combatants and noncombatants, which suggests that in Mr. Khalidi's view all Palestinians have the right of "resistance."
According to the Geneva conventions, however, only lawful combatants are given permission to kill other combatants in the course of armed conflict. Or as Nicholas Kittrie, a university professor at American University law school, says, "If you are not a law belligerent, you are not given that license to kill anybody." Who is a lawful combatant? It turns out that in international law - we speak of Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention - the particulars are spelled out, including carrying arms openly and having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. The "resistance" carried out by the Palestinians against Israeli soldiers flagrantly violates those conditions. A suicide bomber who blows up soldiers at a checkpoint does not qualify. Or, as Alan Baker, legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, put it in a report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "There is no such right of resistance to occupation in international law."
If it weren't for a Columbia law professor, George Fletcher, who last month challenged Mr. Khalidi to a debate, one might have assumed that either everyone at Columbia either agreed with Mr. Khalidi or simply did not care that he was wrong. President Bollinger has rattled on about the fine points of First Amendment law, but his employee is running around misrepresenting the particulars of international law. It seems that if it concerns the murder of Israeli soldiers, Mr. Bollinger is not going to confront the head of his Middle East Institute. It is the great tragedy of the situation at Columbia, which has become a college at which the authorities seem indifferent to the substance of the arguments made by those who teach the students.
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1740 (the campus-watch archive is propably the best place to search for articles on academics speaking about the Middle East)````