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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
There are six contemporary news reports that cite him as speaking on behalf of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
(false?) Source # 1) describes him as "historian at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut" (this may be an error on my part. I cannot find such an article. I can only find this in regard ot Walid Khalidi.)
Source # 1 ("P.L.O., Shaken by Egypt-Israel Treaty, Seeks to Force U.S. to Accept Its Status; Threat to an Independent State Threat to American Interests Final Reserves of the P.L.O. Islamic Emphasis Is Tactical" 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"
Source # 2) (in German) identifies him as a professor. Politik ist keine Wissenschaft Karin Storch | © DIE ZEIT, 23.07.1982 Nr. 30 http://www.zeit.de/1982/30/Politik-ist-keine-Wissenschaft?page=all Historicist ( talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Source # 3) Diplomats urge Reagan planners to include PLO in Mideast options
By
Helena Cobban, The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 6, 1981
http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0106/010645.html Khalidi is describes as a "professor," as "a Palestinian with good access to the PLO leadership," and as " mustachioed."
From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, (New York Sun, Mideast Parley Takes Ugly Turn At Columbia U., By SOL STERN and FRED SIEGEL, February 4, 2005 http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mideast-parley-takes-ugly-turn-at-columbia-u/8725/) I cannot find any articles in the pre-campaign period mention the PLO connection in order to deny it.
I wont't cut-and-paste the entire background but the above is an incomplete summary. Reliable sources contradict each other as to whether Khalidi was or was not moonlighting in an official capacity with the PLO while working as a professor in Beirut, and most reliable sources that describe his biographical history do not make this claim. There are sources that flatly state Khalidi was never a PLO spokesman, and he denies that he is. It is therefore unverifiable and a WP:BLP vio to try to cobble together scattered sources to argue for an accusation like this that if believed could seriously damage his career. Further, there is no reliable sourcing to show that the question of his being an official representative or not is a bona fide controversy, dispute, or issue of sufficient weight to cover. A few of the sources above are unreliable - a partisan political blog, an editorial, and a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to stay away from this article for a bit, but I am compelled to remind you, Wikidemon, that you have no more right than anyone else to decide if the material stays in or out. You are still, in many of our opinions, improperly using the BLP policy to keep the information out of the article, despite the quality and reliability of the sources and their authors. Your position is known, as is ours. Your continued "slamming of the door" in the face of Historicist's evidence and patience does not contribute to the collaboration you seek. Collaboration means working together, not continued refusal. Perhaps you need a break, too. -- Avi ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
We appear to be approaching a renewed consensus (we have reached this point twice before) that this material belongs in the article. The question now is where to put it. Mackan does not want it in a sub-section of its own in the section on Khalidi's politicla views. He also does not want it included in the sub-section on Khalidi's views on the Israel/Atab conflict. I believe that it is inappropirate to put it into the section on the election since has recurred in reliable sources since at least 200 and, is discussed in academic books as a job that helped shaped Khalidi's scholarshp, and is therefore plainly more than an election issue.
Comment: I'm not sure on where this material fits but it certainly predates the electorial debates and should be added into some other section (possibly with a low level sub-heading). The elections issue seems like a silly fluff controversy while the PLO issue (affiliated or not) in itself is encyclopedic bigraphical content about the person. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A formal request for mediation has been filed here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. -- Avi ( talk) 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this discussion is going to mediation, I felt it would be appropriate for me to summarize what I think the article should say and why. I withdrew from this discussion because I could not understand Wikidemon's arguments, and felt I could not reach a compromise without understanding what the other side was saying. But, with mediation encroaching, I want to make my position clear.
My remarks relate specifically to the wording I suggested at Talk:Rashid_Khalidi#Another_attempt.
First, I want to address the issue of notability: Khalidi is notable primarily for his advocacy of the Palestinian cause. That advocacy has found its expression in scholarship, in public appearances and writing, and in direct political involvement. It is this third aspect - direct involvement - which is at issue here. Any biography of Khalidi must, to be accurate and complete, include details of the nature of that involvement. This is especially the case here, as there have been public accusations made regarding that involvement, and specifically regarding Khalidi's relationship to Fatah and the PLO. It therefore behooves us to present a complete and accurate account of what the sources say regarding that involvement.
What do the sources say?
What can we conclude from these sources? Nothing. Nor is it Wikipedia's role to draw conclusions. What we should do is present the sources, concisely and accurately, and let the reader draw conclusions if he or she so wishes.
The sources are not being cited, as Wikidemon has suggested, to present "how journalists covered the matter" but as direct evidence of what Khalidi was doing at the time. Nor is the discussion giving the topic undue weight - two sentences that present sources about Khalidi's activities in the 1970's does not seem undue to me, especially considering that that activity has been the subject of major public debate.
The fear that Wikidemon raises that quoting these sources could do harm to Khalidi and lead to legal action against the Wikipedia seems so unbased that I don't know how to address it. It seems that Wikidemon thinks that, by citing (conflicting) reliable sources on a controversial topic, the Wikipedia is taking a position on that topic. I simply don't see how Wikidemon reached that conclusion.
In summary, by omitting discussion of Khalidi's direct involvement in Palestinian politics over the last 40 years, we are presenting an incomplete and distorted view of Khalidi's life work. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ravpapa, looking over your proposal again, and surmising that this is intended to go into the biographical section (though I have not clarified where), here is something I might suggest:
There may be issues still, but perhaps it suggests another way to cover the issue. Mackan79 ( talk) 11:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackan, firstly, Kampeas's post is not considered a blog under wikipedia rules. Please see WP:SELFPUB. Secondly, you feel that Kampeas's post is reliable enough to discuss Khalidi's distancing himself, but nit reliable enough to bring his concession that the scholarly analysis performed by Martin Kramer whose conclusion is that Khalidi was acting officially for the PLO is irrefutable?! I'm not certain I understand that. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 07:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I had not seen this article (The PLO's Professor, Philip Klein, The American Spectator October 31, 2008 http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professor) before and thank Mackan for bringing it to my attention. It is a reliable (albeit right-wing) secondary source assessing the evidence re: Khalidi's relationship with the PLO. It should therefore be addes to Kampeas, Kramer and Lippman as a fourth reliable source on this point. Historicist ( talk) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Another attempt, based on Macken’s recent proposed language. Footnotes to follow every sentence. (I intended this to be four paragraphs, not four bullet points.)
*Khalidi has at different stages of his career been actively involved in the politics of the Palestinian cause. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In some of these interviews, Khalidi spoke on behalf of the PLO using the pronoun “we.” 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.” Other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO.
- 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.
- According to Khalidi, as his academic career made increasing demands on his time, his direct involvement in Palestinian politics has diminished. "I am a political being," he said in a recent speech, but "I can't do all those things [teaching, writing and lecturing] and be involved in politics."
- The issue was raised in the 2008 United States presidential election due to an acknowledged friendship with the Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
Historicist ( talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, I would be satisfied with the above. However, I forsee Wikidemon disagreeing with Other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO. However, I would think that if everyone but Wikidemon agrees, we would have our consensus. -- Avi ( talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The American Spectator October 31, 2008 http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professor Historicist ( talk) 03:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2.) Which sources are being used to support Khalidi's dismissal of the claim?
3.) Why have Lassner and Troen been removed, along with the questions raised by Ron Kampeas, to be replaced with this other material?
People continue to ask for attempt at consensus / compromise. So here is a version that gets around the BLP problem by avoiding questionable sources, and conveys the issue with due WP:WEIGHT as a career involvement rather than a controversy, act of prevarication, dispute among sources, etc. It also tries to avoid synthesis, commentary, or analysis of the sources. It is culled from Historicist's December 14 proposal and Ravpapa's December 4 proposal. It would go in the public life section, just under the first paragraph, with a suitable neutral subheading like "Participation in Palestinian politics". - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. [1] Khalidi was cited by several sources during this period as conveying the Palestinian Liberation Organization's official position, [2] [3] [4] [5] and subsequent sources disagree on the nature of his formal relationship with the organization, if any. [6] Khalidi denies any official role with the organization. [7] "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. [8] "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. [9] As his academic careerin the United States progressed his direct involvement in Palestinian politics diminished [10] [11] and he became increasingly critical of the PLO. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing." [12] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." [13]
That is actually not that bad. I am a bit uncertain about the placement of the last two sentences in the first paragraph, as it implies that the dispute as to the nature of the relationship occurred solely prior to the denial, as opposed to what happened subsequent to the denial. It is definitely movement in the right direction, however. Kudos. -- Avi ( talk) 01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. [22] Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. ,[23][24][25][26] In a 2004 interview Khalidi denied any official role with the organization.[28] "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." Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of his formal relationship with the organization, if any.[27]
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.[30] As his academic career in the United States progressed his direct involvement in Palestinian politics diminished[31][32] and he became increasingly critical of the PLO. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing."[33] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators."[34]
Historicist ( talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the sources again, the denial may still be an issue, as I don't believe he said he had no official position. Even the sources for Wikidemon's proposal only say he denies having been a spokesman (this is also what the Washington Times piece said). This would be a minor fix in one way, simply to substitute "Khalidi has denied having been a spokesman for the PLO," but then this would be a little odd without having included the direct allegation. It could work.
The other issue is that it still seems overly focused on this issue, however. One small fix would be to swich "...and subsequent sources disagree..." (emphasis added) to "although", since the second half provides a contradiction. Either way, this is why I proposed leaving out the denial, and instead added Lassner and Troen's comments, which move on rather than stopping everything on this point (especially at a point in the bio, chronologically speaking, when nobody noted the point at all). I remain most sympathetic to this approach that I attempted, though I concede there could be something here as well. Mackan79 ( talk) 08:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In earlier consensus agreements on this, the approach agreed upon was to include the language used by the newspapers as brief quotations in the footnotes. The idea was that readers would have the facts and could judge for themselves. This was particularly necessary because these old articles are not readily available online, it is not possible to put up a link and let the reader click through and read the article. In the Dec. 15 proposal, User:Wikidemon has removed the quotatinos from the footnotes. I only just noticed this - in every previous proposal the footnotes have had the quotes included. We had also agreed to group the footnotes to avoid long strings fo numbers, at the cols, of course, of paragraph-length footnotes. I do wish Wikidemon had thougt to mention that he was making this significant change. I suggest that we put the fotnotes back the way they were, with the quotations. Historicist ( talk) 13:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that these four are the issues still to be resolved. Historicist ( talk) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[Cite WashTimes] Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[Cite Lassner et al with few quotes] In a 2004 interview Khalidi denied any official role with the organization.[WashTimes, IIRC] "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."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of his formal relationship with the organization, if any.[Kampeas, Kramer, Lippman]
One or two editors claiming that sourced content is a BLP violation is a lousy way to try to push personal POV. If there are sources that say he wasn't PLO spokesperson and didn't speak on their behalf, let's see them. Claiming that the LA Times and other reliable sources don't count, and that no one else can put in any content that you personally disagree with or think might harm the guy's career (with no evidence to support that wild claim) is disruptive. The good faith editors working on this article have been patient and willing to compromise, they've made numerous suggestions and efforts to word the content appropriately. The delaying tactics and obstruction have gone on long enough. We don't write articles to suit our POV, we write them based on the best sources. I will be adding the sourced content to the article soon. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] During that time, Khalidi was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source.[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
I absolutely reject Wikidemon's assertion that no additional information or sources can ever be added. This is the type of ultimatum that has no place on Wikipedia. Stop grandstanding and move forward with the good faith compromise. Editors are always free to change their minds. No one has to sign in blood or agree to your conditions. Enough is enough, you should thank these editors for their incredible patience and willingness to put up with objection after objection with little in the way of counterproposals and counter sourcing. Their sources supported their original version. It is a testament to their good faith that they were willing to collaborate endlessly with editors who use ultimatums and threats in such an inappropriate way. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] During that time, Khalidi was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source.[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
with your second paragraph? Historicist ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There's no BLP violation in content sourced to the LA Times as well as other established and reliable media sources. Stop making debunked arguments that serve no purpose but disruption. I came here because I saw the dispute on the third opinion board. I've mostly stayed out of the dispute except to try and move it forward to a conclusion. If the proposed content is agreed to by the parties involved, I have no intention of changing it. If you're going to make ultimatums and continue endless delaying tactics, I'm going to move ahead with what I think is a reasonable consensus version. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we're doing reasonably, at least when we're focusing on the content (incidentally, I'd like to think Wikidemon was delaying a little so I could comment, which I appreciate). I'm sure everyone else is off now, but my issues with this proposal are basically two: 1.) I would need quite clear sourcing to support the language that he "was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization." I am skeptical for the same reasons as Kampeas, that the statements do not seem like "official policy positions." The first source for Wikidemon's proposal is Markham in the New York Times, quoting Khalidi's statement on how Israel "could split us"; this was one of the statements Kampeas considered inconsistent with the role of a spokesman. The second was Morris in the L.A. Times, highlighted for the same reason by Kampeas, where Khalidi is quoted as "PLO spokesman" to say "I see no change except that more people will be killed for no reason." The third is the Radio Pacifica interview, which I'm listening to at the moment, but doesn't seem likely to shed additional light. Then there is Lassner and Troen, and then the more recent sources, but I don't believe any of these support the specific statement. The problem is that of course a person who is a "source for official policy positions" is a spokesman, which is the disputed issue here. 2.) "Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman..." This leaves out that he is repeatedly characterized as denying that he was a spokesman, and accordingly results in the appearance of an incomplete answer. Also it needs to be more precise, as we don't know what he was responding to (a question, more likely than a "depiction"). This is one reason I included reference to the 2008 elections, because it's one place where we know he has been alleged to be a PLO spokesman, and the only time to my knowledge that his denial has been made notable.
Listening to the Pacifica interview, I am struck by a few points. One is that none of these attributions appear to have been in his presence, contrary to the impression I had received. In fact, the program compiles multiple interviews, and as one can hear, only spliced over the narrative afterward. Second, the attribution as "PLO spokesman" is only offered quickly in the middle of the program, after Khalidi had already been introduced formally as "official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa." To rely only on these shorter attributions in the middle of the program would accordingly seem to lack support.
This also raises the previous point, that it strikes me oddly to suggest that he spoke for the PLO, when if anything it appears much more supported that he had some relationship with Wafa (where his wife is recognized to have worked). My impression remains that some are glossing the distinction between a news agency or press agency and a press office or communications office, when even if all are "official", these are not the same thing. I looked over this a bit earlier, and there seems to be a fair deal to indicate that the official PLO spokesperson during this time was Mahmoud Labadi, discussed at length in From Beirut to Jerusalem. On page 67, "The most sought-after spokesman was the PLO's Mahmoud Labadi, whom I've described above. During the summer of '82, Labadi could often be found outside his office, sitting like a vacationing tourist in a lawn chair..." On page 88, "The PLO spokesman's office in Beirut has often been depicted by the Israelis as a slick Madison Avenue public-relations machine. It was anything but that. One tended to cover the PLO more in spite of Labadi's office than because of it." Reading the description of Labadi is reading the description of a "spokesman," and very unlike the descriptions of Khalidi.
This is of course also original research, but I think similar to that which started much of this. It is in any case why I suggested acknowledging a potential relationship with Wafa, since the position seems significantly stronger, especially considering Kampeas' statement that "Khalidi is referred to as a spokesman for the PLO by virtue of his employment by [Wafa]." [12] I am not insisting that this be noted, but it seemed to me a reasonable and better supported way to cover the issue. Mackan79 ( talk) 07:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. Khalidi was cited in the media during this period, sometimes as an official with the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was critical of the PLO leadership, and has become increasingly so over time; after the issue was raised in the 2008 United States presidential election due to a reported friendship with the Democratic candidate Barack Obama, the nature of Khalidi's affiliations during this time remain unsettled. In 2007, Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage."
My hesitation about Mackan's latest proposal is this part: He was critical of the PLO leadership… It seems Chronologically misleading. There is lots of evidence that Khalidi later became critical of PLO policies. None that he was critical at the time when he was a Wafa/PLO spokesman/official in Beirut. I find Wikidemon's second paragraph much more accurate. I have added Mackan’s Troen/Lassner quote to it. Moreover, User:Wikidemon has been adamant about including the Khalidi dismissal of the spokesman role. I therefore think the compromise/consensus version is this:
Khalidi has participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] Khalidi was cited in the media during this period, sometimes as an official with the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. [CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source.[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
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.[30] As his academic career in the United States progressed his direct involvement in Palestinian politics diminished[31][32] and he became increasingly critical of the PLO. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing."[33] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators."[34] In 2007, Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage."
Historicist ( talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
My statement was based precisely on Lassner and Troen in their book. Their broader paragraph may be worth reading: [13]
The Khalidis are not only men of letters. This family, which traces its Jerusalem roots back generations upon generations, also takes seriously the notion of public service. They are true exemplars of Arab notables if one thinks of notables in the best sense of the term. The son of a diplomat, Rashid Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of hte Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The experience exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage. After leaving politics, his energies went into research and teaching, primarily at the University of Chicago where for some years he served as director of its prestigious Center for Middle East Studies. (He is now situated at Columbia). A most eloquent and effective spokesman for the Palestinian cause, his frequently sought commentary on regional issues is always informed by a historian's perspective.
You are saying that it is not clear when Khalidi was critical, but my proposal is no more or less specific. Nevertheless, they clearly considered this a relevant point, and placed it before going on with "After leaving politics...."
There may be some merits to your proposal, but besides leaving the issue of whether Khalidi was in fact a "source for official policy positions" (see my long post a few hours ago) it raises other issues: 1.) You now present both of these paragraphs as an extended discussion about Khalidi and the PLO when I don't believe that is supported (perhaps because you intended it to be an independent section on the topic, but I do not see the support for that either), 2.) You presume that it was only "as his academic career progressed" that he became "increasingly critical," but this is if anything contravened by the source, and controversially phrased, 3.) The proposal still does not actually include a denial on the point where it was reportedly given, and finally 4.) I'm not sure how the quotes you included were chosen, but their meaning isn't particularly clear, other than that they are sharply worded. For instance, this omits his statement that suicide bombing is a war crime.
So, I appreciate that changes are being suggested, but I don't see how it presents a fair representation of the material, compared to some of the other options that we have. Mackan79 ( talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackan, on your wording that Khalidi criticized the PLO whle in Lebanon.
I cannot discover that Khalidi was criticizing the PLO in the Beirut years.
He published only two books in the Beirut period. Palestine and the Gulf. A collection Camille Mansour. Khalidi’s chapter discusses Soviet policy. British Policy towards Syria and Palestine, 1906-1914 has nothing to do with the PLO.
I checked JSTOR, nothing but a couple of book reviews of books on the 1948 and earlier. Nothing about contemporary policy in them.
Then I found this:
Review: A Self-Made Quagmire Author(s): Rashid Khalidi Reviewed work(s): Going All the Way: Christian Warlords, Israeli Adventurers, and the War in Lebanon. by Jonathan C. Randal Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Summer, 1983), pp. 81-85 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2536248
The topic would allow Khalidi to criticize the PLO. He doesn’t.
We really cannot assert that he was critical of the PLO in this period unless we find somewhere he criticized the PLO pre 1983. Historicist ( talk) 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] During that time, Khalidi was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source."[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
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.[30] He has become increasingly critical of the PLO. He has said that in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing."[33] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators."[34] (Mackan, can you put the suicide bomb quote here) In 2007, Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage."
Historicist ( talk) 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Query: Who came up with the "if any" phrasing? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 10:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
How about we drop "if any" and instead say "Subsequent sources disagree on the nature or existence of Khalidi's official relationship…" While many believe the evidence is irrefutable, others believe not that way, so perhaps this would be acceptable? -- Avi ( talk) 16:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
There are six contemporary news reports that cite him as speaking on behalf of the PLO.Historicist (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
(false?) Source # 1) describes him as "historian at the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut" (this may be an error on my part. I cannot find such an article. I can only find this in regard ot Walid Khalidi.)
Source # 1 ("P.L.O., Shaken by Egypt-Israel Treaty, Seeks to Force U.S. to Accept Its Status; Threat to an Independent State Threat to American Interests Final Reserves of the P.L.O. Islamic Emphasis Is Tactical" 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"
Source # 2) (in German) identifies him as a professor. Politik ist keine Wissenschaft Karin Storch | © DIE ZEIT, 23.07.1982 Nr. 30 http://www.zeit.de/1982/30/Politik-ist-keine-Wissenschaft?page=all Historicist ( talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Source # 3) Diplomats urge Reagan planners to include PLO in Mideast options
By
Helena Cobban, The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 6, 1981
http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0106/010645.html Khalidi is describes as a "professor," as "a Palestinian with good access to the PLO leadership," and as " mustachioed."
From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, (New York Sun, Mideast Parley Takes Ugly Turn At Columbia U., By SOL STERN and FRED SIEGEL, February 4, 2005 http://www.nysun.com/new-york/mideast-parley-takes-ugly-turn-at-columbia-u/8725/) I cannot find any articles in the pre-campaign period mention the PLO connection in order to deny it.
I wont't cut-and-paste the entire background but the above is an incomplete summary. Reliable sources contradict each other as to whether Khalidi was or was not moonlighting in an official capacity with the PLO while working as a professor in Beirut, and most reliable sources that describe his biographical history do not make this claim. There are sources that flatly state Khalidi was never a PLO spokesman, and he denies that he is. It is therefore unverifiable and a WP:BLP vio to try to cobble together scattered sources to argue for an accusation like this that if believed could seriously damage his career. Further, there is no reliable sourcing to show that the question of his being an official representative or not is a bona fide controversy, dispute, or issue of sufficient weight to cover. A few of the sources above are unreliable - a partisan political blog, an editorial, and a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to stay away from this article for a bit, but I am compelled to remind you, Wikidemon, that you have no more right than anyone else to decide if the material stays in or out. You are still, in many of our opinions, improperly using the BLP policy to keep the information out of the article, despite the quality and reliability of the sources and their authors. Your position is known, as is ours. Your continued "slamming of the door" in the face of Historicist's evidence and patience does not contribute to the collaboration you seek. Collaboration means working together, not continued refusal. Perhaps you need a break, too. -- Avi ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
We appear to be approaching a renewed consensus (we have reached this point twice before) that this material belongs in the article. The question now is where to put it. Mackan does not want it in a sub-section of its own in the section on Khalidi's politicla views. He also does not want it included in the sub-section on Khalidi's views on the Israel/Atab conflict. I believe that it is inappropirate to put it into the section on the election since has recurred in reliable sources since at least 200 and, is discussed in academic books as a job that helped shaped Khalidi's scholarshp, and is therefore plainly more than an election issue.
Comment: I'm not sure on where this material fits but it certainly predates the electorial debates and should be added into some other section (possibly with a low level sub-heading). The elections issue seems like a silly fluff controversy while the PLO issue (affiliated or not) in itself is encyclopedic bigraphical content about the person. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A formal request for mediation has been filed here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. -- Avi ( talk) 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this discussion is going to mediation, I felt it would be appropriate for me to summarize what I think the article should say and why. I withdrew from this discussion because I could not understand Wikidemon's arguments, and felt I could not reach a compromise without understanding what the other side was saying. But, with mediation encroaching, I want to make my position clear.
My remarks relate specifically to the wording I suggested at Talk:Rashid_Khalidi#Another_attempt.
First, I want to address the issue of notability: Khalidi is notable primarily for his advocacy of the Palestinian cause. That advocacy has found its expression in scholarship, in public appearances and writing, and in direct political involvement. It is this third aspect - direct involvement - which is at issue here. Any biography of Khalidi must, to be accurate and complete, include details of the nature of that involvement. This is especially the case here, as there have been public accusations made regarding that involvement, and specifically regarding Khalidi's relationship to Fatah and the PLO. It therefore behooves us to present a complete and accurate account of what the sources say regarding that involvement.
What do the sources say?
What can we conclude from these sources? Nothing. Nor is it Wikipedia's role to draw conclusions. What we should do is present the sources, concisely and accurately, and let the reader draw conclusions if he or she so wishes.
The sources are not being cited, as Wikidemon has suggested, to present "how journalists covered the matter" but as direct evidence of what Khalidi was doing at the time. Nor is the discussion giving the topic undue weight - two sentences that present sources about Khalidi's activities in the 1970's does not seem undue to me, especially considering that that activity has been the subject of major public debate.
The fear that Wikidemon raises that quoting these sources could do harm to Khalidi and lead to legal action against the Wikipedia seems so unbased that I don't know how to address it. It seems that Wikidemon thinks that, by citing (conflicting) reliable sources on a controversial topic, the Wikipedia is taking a position on that topic. I simply don't see how Wikidemon reached that conclusion.
In summary, by omitting discussion of Khalidi's direct involvement in Palestinian politics over the last 40 years, we are presenting an incomplete and distorted view of Khalidi's life work. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ravpapa, looking over your proposal again, and surmising that this is intended to go into the biographical section (though I have not clarified where), here is something I might suggest:
There may be issues still, but perhaps it suggests another way to cover the issue. Mackan79 ( talk) 11:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackan, firstly, Kampeas's post is not considered a blog under wikipedia rules. Please see WP:SELFPUB. Secondly, you feel that Kampeas's post is reliable enough to discuss Khalidi's distancing himself, but nit reliable enough to bring his concession that the scholarly analysis performed by Martin Kramer whose conclusion is that Khalidi was acting officially for the PLO is irrefutable?! I'm not certain I understand that. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 07:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I had not seen this article (The PLO's Professor, Philip Klein, The American Spectator October 31, 2008 http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professor) before and thank Mackan for bringing it to my attention. It is a reliable (albeit right-wing) secondary source assessing the evidence re: Khalidi's relationship with the PLO. It should therefore be addes to Kampeas, Kramer and Lippman as a fourth reliable source on this point. Historicist ( talk) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Another attempt, based on Macken’s recent proposed language. Footnotes to follow every sentence. (I intended this to be four paragraphs, not four bullet points.)
*Khalidi has at different stages of his career been actively involved in the politics of the Palestinian cause. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In some of these interviews, Khalidi spoke on behalf of the PLO using the pronoun “we.” 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.” Other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO.
- 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.
- According to Khalidi, as his academic career made increasing demands on his time, his direct involvement in Palestinian politics has diminished. "I am a political being," he said in a recent speech, but "I can't do all those things [teaching, writing and lecturing] and be involved in politics."
- The issue was raised in the 2008 United States presidential election due to an acknowledged friendship with the Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
Historicist ( talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, I would be satisfied with the above. However, I forsee Wikidemon disagreeing with Other academics and journalists active at that time maintain that Khalidi was affiliated with the PLO. However, I would think that if everyone but Wikidemon agrees, we would have our consensus. -- Avi ( talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The American Spectator October 31, 2008 http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/31/the-plos-professor Historicist ( talk) 03:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2.) Which sources are being used to support Khalidi's dismissal of the claim?
3.) Why have Lassner and Troen been removed, along with the questions raised by Ron Kampeas, to be replaced with this other material?
People continue to ask for attempt at consensus / compromise. So here is a version that gets around the BLP problem by avoiding questionable sources, and conveys the issue with due WP:WEIGHT as a career involvement rather than a controversy, act of prevarication, dispute among sources, etc. It also tries to avoid synthesis, commentary, or analysis of the sources. It is culled from Historicist's December 14 proposal and Ravpapa's December 4 proposal. It would go in the public life section, just under the first paragraph, with a suitable neutral subheading like "Participation in Palestinian politics". - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. [1] Khalidi was cited by several sources during this period as conveying the Palestinian Liberation Organization's official position, [2] [3] [4] [5] and subsequent sources disagree on the nature of his formal relationship with the organization, if any. [6] Khalidi denies any official role with the organization. [7] "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. [8] "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. [9] As his academic careerin the United States progressed his direct involvement in Palestinian politics diminished [10] [11] and he became increasingly critical of the PLO. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing." [12] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." [13]
That is actually not that bad. I am a bit uncertain about the placement of the last two sentences in the first paragraph, as it implies that the dispute as to the nature of the relationship occurred solely prior to the denial, as opposed to what happened subsequent to the denial. It is definitely movement in the right direction, however. Kudos. -- Avi ( talk) 01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. [22] Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. ,[23][24][25][26] In a 2004 interview Khalidi denied any official role with the organization.[28] "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." Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of his formal relationship with the organization, if any.[27]
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.[30] As his academic career in the United States progressed his direct involvement in Palestinian politics diminished[31][32] and he became increasingly critical of the PLO. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing."[33] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators."[34]
Historicist ( talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the sources again, the denial may still be an issue, as I don't believe he said he had no official position. Even the sources for Wikidemon's proposal only say he denies having been a spokesman (this is also what the Washington Times piece said). This would be a minor fix in one way, simply to substitute "Khalidi has denied having been a spokesman for the PLO," but then this would be a little odd without having included the direct allegation. It could work.
The other issue is that it still seems overly focused on this issue, however. One small fix would be to swich "...and subsequent sources disagree..." (emphasis added) to "although", since the second half provides a contradiction. Either way, this is why I proposed leaving out the denial, and instead added Lassner and Troen's comments, which move on rather than stopping everything on this point (especially at a point in the bio, chronologically speaking, when nobody noted the point at all). I remain most sympathetic to this approach that I attempted, though I concede there could be something here as well. Mackan79 ( talk) 08:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In earlier consensus agreements on this, the approach agreed upon was to include the language used by the newspapers as brief quotations in the footnotes. The idea was that readers would have the facts and could judge for themselves. This was particularly necessary because these old articles are not readily available online, it is not possible to put up a link and let the reader click through and read the article. In the Dec. 15 proposal, User:Wikidemon has removed the quotatinos from the footnotes. I only just noticed this - in every previous proposal the footnotes have had the quotes included. We had also agreed to group the footnotes to avoid long strings fo numbers, at the cols, of course, of paragraph-length footnotes. I do wish Wikidemon had thougt to mention that he was making this significant change. I suggest that we put the fotnotes back the way they were, with the quotations. Historicist ( talk) 13:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that these four are the issues still to be resolved. Historicist ( talk) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[Cite WashTimes] Khalidi was cited in the media during this period as an official of or spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[Cite Lassner et al with few quotes] In a 2004 interview Khalidi denied any official role with the organization.[WashTimes, IIRC] "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."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of his formal relationship with the organization, if any.[Kampeas, Kramer, Lippman]
One or two editors claiming that sourced content is a BLP violation is a lousy way to try to push personal POV. If there are sources that say he wasn't PLO spokesperson and didn't speak on their behalf, let's see them. Claiming that the LA Times and other reliable sources don't count, and that no one else can put in any content that you personally disagree with or think might harm the guy's career (with no evidence to support that wild claim) is disruptive. The good faith editors working on this article have been patient and willing to compromise, they've made numerous suggestions and efforts to word the content appropriately. The delaying tactics and obstruction have gone on long enough. We don't write articles to suit our POV, we write them based on the best sources. I will be adding the sourced content to the article soon. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] During that time, Khalidi was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source.[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
I absolutely reject Wikidemon's assertion that no additional information or sources can ever be added. This is the type of ultimatum that has no place on Wikipedia. Stop grandstanding and move forward with the good faith compromise. Editors are always free to change their minds. No one has to sign in blood or agree to your conditions. Enough is enough, you should thank these editors for their incredible patience and willingness to put up with objection after objection with little in the way of counterproposals and counter sourcing. Their sources supported their original version. It is a testament to their good faith that they were willing to collaborate endlessly with editors who use ultimatums and threats in such an inappropriate way. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] During that time, Khalidi was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source.[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
with your second paragraph? Historicist ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There's no BLP violation in content sourced to the LA Times as well as other established and reliable media sources. Stop making debunked arguments that serve no purpose but disruption. I came here because I saw the dispute on the third opinion board. I've mostly stayed out of the dispute except to try and move it forward to a conclusion. If the proposed content is agreed to by the parties involved, I have no intention of changing it. If you're going to make ultimatums and continue endless delaying tactics, I'm going to move ahead with what I think is a reasonable consensus version. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we're doing reasonably, at least when we're focusing on the content (incidentally, I'd like to think Wikidemon was delaying a little so I could comment, which I appreciate). I'm sure everyone else is off now, but my issues with this proposal are basically two: 1.) I would need quite clear sourcing to support the language that he "was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization." I am skeptical for the same reasons as Kampeas, that the statements do not seem like "official policy positions." The first source for Wikidemon's proposal is Markham in the New York Times, quoting Khalidi's statement on how Israel "could split us"; this was one of the statements Kampeas considered inconsistent with the role of a spokesman. The second was Morris in the L.A. Times, highlighted for the same reason by Kampeas, where Khalidi is quoted as "PLO spokesman" to say "I see no change except that more people will be killed for no reason." The third is the Radio Pacifica interview, which I'm listening to at the moment, but doesn't seem likely to shed additional light. Then there is Lassner and Troen, and then the more recent sources, but I don't believe any of these support the specific statement. The problem is that of course a person who is a "source for official policy positions" is a spokesman, which is the disputed issue here. 2.) "Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman..." This leaves out that he is repeatedly characterized as denying that he was a spokesman, and accordingly results in the appearance of an incomplete answer. Also it needs to be more precise, as we don't know what he was responding to (a question, more likely than a "depiction"). This is one reason I included reference to the 2008 elections, because it's one place where we know he has been alleged to be a PLO spokesman, and the only time to my knowledge that his denial has been made notable.
Listening to the Pacifica interview, I am struck by a few points. One is that none of these attributions appear to have been in his presence, contrary to the impression I had received. In fact, the program compiles multiple interviews, and as one can hear, only spliced over the narrative afterward. Second, the attribution as "PLO spokesman" is only offered quickly in the middle of the program, after Khalidi had already been introduced formally as "official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa." To rely only on these shorter attributions in the middle of the program would accordingly seem to lack support.
This also raises the previous point, that it strikes me oddly to suggest that he spoke for the PLO, when if anything it appears much more supported that he had some relationship with Wafa (where his wife is recognized to have worked). My impression remains that some are glossing the distinction between a news agency or press agency and a press office or communications office, when even if all are "official", these are not the same thing. I looked over this a bit earlier, and there seems to be a fair deal to indicate that the official PLO spokesperson during this time was Mahmoud Labadi, discussed at length in From Beirut to Jerusalem. On page 67, "The most sought-after spokesman was the PLO's Mahmoud Labadi, whom I've described above. During the summer of '82, Labadi could often be found outside his office, sitting like a vacationing tourist in a lawn chair..." On page 88, "The PLO spokesman's office in Beirut has often been depicted by the Israelis as a slick Madison Avenue public-relations machine. It was anything but that. One tended to cover the PLO more in spite of Labadi's office than because of it." Reading the description of Labadi is reading the description of a "spokesman," and very unlike the descriptions of Khalidi.
This is of course also original research, but I think similar to that which started much of this. It is in any case why I suggested acknowledging a potential relationship with Wafa, since the position seems significantly stronger, especially considering Kampeas' statement that "Khalidi is referred to as a spokesman for the PLO by virtue of his employment by [Wafa]." [12] I am not insisting that this be noted, but it seemed to me a reasonable and better supported way to cover the issue. Mackan79 ( talk) 07:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview. Khalidi was cited in the media during this period, sometimes as an official with the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was critical of the PLO leadership, and has become increasingly so over time; after the issue was raised in the 2008 United States presidential election due to a reported friendship with the Democratic candidate Barack Obama, the nature of Khalidi's affiliations during this time remain unsettled. In 2007, Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage."
My hesitation about Mackan's latest proposal is this part: He was critical of the PLO leadership… It seems Chronologically misleading. There is lots of evidence that Khalidi later became critical of PLO policies. None that he was critical at the time when he was a Wafa/PLO spokesman/official in Beirut. I find Wikidemon's second paragraph much more accurate. I have added Mackan’s Troen/Lassner quote to it. Moreover, User:Wikidemon has been adamant about including the Khalidi dismissal of the spokesman role. I therefore think the compromise/consensus version is this:
Khalidi has participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] Khalidi was cited in the media during this period, sometimes as an official with the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. [CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source.[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
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.[30] As his academic career in the United States progressed his direct involvement in Palestinian politics diminished[31][32] and he became increasingly critical of the PLO. He said that, in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing."[33] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators."[34] In 2007, Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage."
Historicist ( talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
My statement was based precisely on Lassner and Troen in their book. Their broader paragraph may be worth reading: [13]
The Khalidis are not only men of letters. This family, which traces its Jerusalem roots back generations upon generations, also takes seriously the notion of public service. They are true exemplars of Arab notables if one thinks of notables in the best sense of the term. The son of a diplomat, Rashid Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of hte Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The experience exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage. After leaving politics, his energies went into research and teaching, primarily at the University of Chicago where for some years he served as director of its prestigious Center for Middle East Studies. (He is now situated at Columbia). A most eloquent and effective spokesman for the Palestinian cause, his frequently sought commentary on regional issues is always informed by a historian's perspective.
You are saying that it is not clear when Khalidi was critical, but my proposal is no more or less specific. Nevertheless, they clearly considered this a relevant point, and placed it before going on with "After leaving politics...."
There may be some merits to your proposal, but besides leaving the issue of whether Khalidi was in fact a "source for official policy positions" (see my long post a few hours ago) it raises other issues: 1.) You now present both of these paragraphs as an extended discussion about Khalidi and the PLO when I don't believe that is supported (perhaps because you intended it to be an independent section on the topic, but I do not see the support for that either), 2.) You presume that it was only "as his academic career progressed" that he became "increasingly critical," but this is if anything contravened by the source, and controversially phrased, 3.) The proposal still does not actually include a denial on the point where it was reportedly given, and finally 4.) I'm not sure how the quotes you included were chosen, but their meaning isn't particularly clear, other than that they are sharply worded. For instance, this omits his statement that suicide bombing is a war crime.
So, I appreciate that changes are being suggested, but I don't see how it presents a fair representation of the material, compared to some of the other options that we have. Mackan79 ( talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackan, on your wording that Khalidi criticized the PLO whle in Lebanon.
I cannot discover that Khalidi was criticizing the PLO in the Beirut years.
He published only two books in the Beirut period. Palestine and the Gulf. A collection Camille Mansour. Khalidi’s chapter discusses Soviet policy. British Policy towards Syria and Palestine, 1906-1914 has nothing to do with the PLO.
I checked JSTOR, nothing but a couple of book reviews of books on the 1948 and earlier. Nothing about contemporary policy in them.
Then I found this:
Review: A Self-Made Quagmire Author(s): Rashid Khalidi Reviewed work(s): Going All the Way: Christian Warlords, Israeli Adventurers, and the War in Lebanon. by Jonathan C. Randal Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Summer, 1983), pp. 81-85 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2536248
The topic would allow Khalidi to criticize the PLO. He doesn’t.
We really cannot assert that he was critical of the PLO in this period unless we find somewhere he criticized the PLO pre 1983. Historicist ( talk) 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Khalidi has participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut" in the 1970's, he said in an interview.[CITE] During that time, Khalidi was used by journalists as a source for official policy positions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[CITE] Responding to depiction as an official PLO spokesman, Khalidi stated that he "…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source."[CITE] If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."[Washtimes IIRC] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization, if any.[CITE]
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.[30] He has become increasingly critical of the PLO. He has said that in the PLO's negotiations with the Israelis in Oslo,"the mistakes were horrifying. They made horrible mistakes in governing."[33] He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators."[34] (Mackan, can you put the suicide bomb quote here) In 2007, Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen wrote that Khalidi's experience as an official in Beirut "exposed him to the corruption and highhandedness of the political leadership, which he acknowledged in public forums--an act of no small courage."
Historicist ( talk) 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Query: Who came up with the "if any" phrasing? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 10:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
How about we drop "if any" and instead say "Subsequent sources disagree on the nature or existence of Khalidi's official relationship…" While many believe the evidence is irrefutable, others believe not that way, so perhaps this would be acceptable? -- Avi ( talk) 16:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)