![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
}}
In response to User:ChildofMidnight's question on my talk page, which I'm interpreting as a request to reconsider the page protection, is there now a consensus version of the article we can put in place? I'm very happy to remove the protection if that's the case (it will currently expire on 20 January). EyeSerene talk 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As editors are clearly keen to get on with improving this article, and we seem to have some basis of agreement, I've removed the article protection. I'll leave it to the regulars here to insert their consensus text above.
I'll keep the article on my watchlist, and will apply a strict interpretation of the spirit of WP:3RR and WP:EW in the case of any further edit-warring. There is of course no problem with editors following the bold, revert, discuss cycle, but because I have no intention of again disadvantaging those editors who wish to work productively by reapplying protection, edit-warring will result in a block on the offending account(s). My talk page is always open if anyone has any concerns or it doesn't look like I'm paying attention. All the best with your editing, EyeSerene talk 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Historicist just made this edit [17] which, in my opinion, diverges substantially from the consensus we only recently implemented. The sentence as it stood was part of the agreement, and serves to show that whatever Khalidi's relationship may have been with the PLO he distanced himself from it. The very crux of the agreement was how to pose the various sources, reliable and otherwise, that claimed that Khalidi was an "official", "spokesman", etc., of the PLO, despite his denial, and others that say he never was. We agreed on the exact text to be implemented. The new addition states directly that two authors were "identifying Khalidi as[sic] 'as an official'" of the PLO. We had agreed not to do that. Sensitive to Historicist's edit summary that the language created a "misleading impression of what Lassner and Troen actually wrote" I tried to simplify the statement so it would not create any misimpression [18] but ChildofMidnight summarily reverted in Historicist's change. [19] If we cannot agree on any neutral language to satisfy Historicist's new objection to the consensus wording (frankly, I do not see the problem), we should leave it as is. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
We worked long and hard on this article to get somewhere acceptable and having this nearly devolve into another edit war so soon afterwards is unacceptable. I have restored the article to the state it was prior to the insertion by Mackan of the Troen/Lassner text. I personally am apathetic as to whether it should be in or not and how. However, if y'all would please take the next 3 days to discuss the matter and work something out here, it would be much better than having to levy a slew of 3RR blocks. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(<-)If consensus is to leave it out, that's fine too. I was concerned about the beginnings of another edit war, which would have been unacceptable. Are we agreed to leave it out for now? -- Avi ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking for page protection again due to yet another outbreak of edit warring over new proposed content challenged on the basis of BLP, POV, weight, coatrack, etc. I may post this to BLP/N and will make a note here if I do (although in the past BLP/N and the BLP talk page have not been very responsive to any but the most blatant BLP incidents). Wikidemon ( talk) 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Could I be allowed to attach one of my photographs of Rashid? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLN_Rashid_Khalidi.jpg) In my view, it is in the public interest - irrespective of whatever administrivia is being resolved behind the scenes. The ongoing Gaza issue - and Khalidi speaking publicly about it - would seem to indicate that getting the info/photo out in a timely manner is of some importance. Any assistance here greatly appreciated. Apologies if I have offended anyone or committed some faux pas in making this request in this location in this manner - I am no wikipede, just a photojournalist. Thanks again. Thomas Good ( talk) 15:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am the photographer and everything I do is CopyLeft. Thanks much! BTW, I am now uploading the video I shot last night for the Lawyers Guild (I'm a member) - Rashid was very good - eloquent, articulate, etc. www.youtube.com/nextleftnotes (all of our youtube footage is also copyleft, dunno if this helps anyone but thought I'd pass it on). 24.168.91.228 ( talk) 20:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Avi - the following was sent to the above address at 21:20 EST (U.S.): Please be advised that all materials released under the Next Left Notes masthead, also known as NLN, are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) unless otherwise indicated. All materials: photographs and other images, video footage, audio segments and news copy authored by Thomas Good, editor of NLN, are released under the GFDL without exception. All materials may be freely reproduced and redistributed with attribution.
See www.nextleftnotes.net/gnu_fdl.html for details on the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
All materials uploaded to wikimedia commons by Thomas Good are the copyright protected property of this individual and are subject to the terms of GFDL as is clearly indicated on each wikimedia submission. Thomas Good ( talk) 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
historicist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just added some material [25] that I removed as an inappropriate WP:COATRACK. The problems with the edit should be obvious to any seasoned editor. While possibly true literally (someone did criticize the professor, and the material he used appears to be widely quoted but inaccurate and some claim fabricated but not by the professor), it is utterly misleading to say that he "has been criticized" without pointing out that the criticism is from partisan opponents, in which case we need to do a reasonable analysis of whether the criticism is notable. He is a controversial figure and like all such people has a considerable share of critics and opponents. That a professor makes mistakes is not terribly significant. Saying that he is "citing fabricated quotations" is over the top - it implies that he fabricated the quotations, which not even his critics are claiming. Quoting a partisan critic who calls his academic work "political polemics" is not terribly helpful. If there is widespread significant criticism that should be properly framed and cited to secondary sources, not the primary sources who are doing the criticism. ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) promptly reverted, [26] suggesting that it was an issue of citations. That is beside the point. We don't decorate articles with criticism and defense sections so as to create a controversy section in every BLP article. The point is to include reliable, encyclopedic, relevant information that reliable sources show to be significant enough to include. Given the history of this article, we should really concentrate on trying to elucidate the professor, his biolgraphy, and his work, not to throw up material that seeks to discredit him. Wikidemon ( talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise, Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources... And from WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true. I fail to see how the stuff you're adding meets the appropriate criteria per Wikipedia policy. Khoi khoi 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: I've removed a similar coatrack from Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America [29] that at times has been worse than the one here. So there are attacks against Khalidi in an article having nothing to do with him or with the attacks. I'm wondering if we're going to need to escalate this. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I for one am not willing to go through the same process again on this material that lead to all of the edit warring, AN/I reports, incivility, article protection, etc., of the last few attempts to insert disputed material into the article. The article is yet again protected. [30] Three editors have explicitly rejected the material, one has proposed it, and another has reverted it in without much explanation. Let's entertain, briefly, based on substance and not process, and without recriminations against other editors, whether and why any of this material should be included in this article. Wikidemon ( talk) 21:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There is agreement that this article is in need of balancing with criticism from reliable sources not disproportionate to coverage of his career. I believe that the following speaks to the assesment of Khalidi's scholarship by other academics and that it is well-sourced and directly pertinent to the nature and calibre of his scholarship. Please note that some articles are linked to partisan websites althouth they were published in general circulation publications. My goal is access. The Wall Street Journal requires a subscription. Links to back issues of the Jerusalem Post are often unreliable, so I linked to a free website with a reliable server. Historicist ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Khalidi has been criticized for the “intellectual laziness” of not cousulting archival sources, while “relying instead on secondary sources,” [1] for making arguments in his books “based on scrawny evidence,” [2] for being “factually wrong” in his citation of evidence, [3] and for scholarship that is “negligent, if not dishonest.” [4] According to historian Michael Rubin, “rather than access the original (speeches and documents,) he relies on secondhand interpretations by fringe Internet journalists. The result is repetition of bizarre (and anti-Semitic) conspiracies.” [5] A number of instances have been documented in which Khalidi has published information that has proven to be incorrect or cited quotations and information to sources where they are not to be found. [6] [7] [8]Khalidi’s work has also been criticized by historians as “propaganda parading as scholarship,” [9] and for suffering from a “blind nationalist belief” in the “absolute justice” of the Palestinian cause that reduces his academic work to the level of mere “political polemics.” [10] | ” |
Historicist ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There's an essay on criticism sections that might be worth reading. The primary problem with this material I see is that it takes random critical statements and assembles them into a paragraph which incorrectly suggests these are all general criticisms of Khalidi's work. This is then worsened by the fact that it seems to seek out the most sensationalist words and phrases available.
There isn't any reason to do this. If we are relaying criticisms, we should be specific about what they are, not simply reduce them into generalized negativity. If Efraim Karsh criticizes The Iron Cage for relying too much on secondary sources, then let's say so in a discussion of that book. If Michael Young says an argument is based on "scrawny evidence," then let's consider whether the issue is notable to Khalidi, but not falsely state that Khalidi "has been criticized" for "making arguments in his books 'based on scrawny evidence.'" The same goes for all of this: the attention to detail here just needs to be a lot better. As Wikidemon suggests above, also, "This article needs to be a little more negative" is not generally how Wikipedia BLPs work, but if good and informative material is added appropriately to the article, then great. Mackan79 ( talk) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Khalidi has been criticized for the “intellectual laziness” of not cousulting archival sources, while “relying instead on secondary sources,”
[1] for making arguments in his books “based on scrawny evidence,”
[2] for being “factually wrong” in his citation of evidence,
[3] and for scholarship that is “negligent, if not dishonest.”
[4] According to
historian Michael Rubin, “rather than access the original (speeches and documents,) he relies on secondhand interpretations by fringe Internet journalists. The result is repetition of bizarre (and anti-Semitic) conspiracies.”
[5] A number of instances have been documented in which Khalidi has published information that has proven to be incorrect or cited quotations and information to sources where they are not to be found.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Khalidi’s work has also been criticized by historians as “propaganda parading as scholarship,” [10] and for suffering from a “blind nationalist belief” in the “absolute justice” of the Palestinian cause that reduces his academic work to the level of mere “political polemics.” [11]His usefulness as an advocate for the Palestinian cause has been defended by the PLO's Palestine Affairs Center "because he’s a serious scholar and a Palestinian who wouldn’t harm the cause." [12] |
” |
The sources for this are eminent historians of the Middle East, Michael Rubin (historian) , Daniel Pipes, and Efraim Karsh. User:wikidemon may not care for their politics, but they are highly regarded historians and, as such, their assessments of Khalidi’s methodology and historiography are eligible for quotation in Wikipedia. What they are sayingm, moreover, is that Khalidi carelessly uses bad facts and bad qotes form secondary sources, and that he is haghly partisan. The first assertion. Bad facts and bad quotes, are substantiated by footnotes 1 thru 8. The assertion that Khalidi is highly partisan in his writing is not something that he himself would deny. He is a former PLO official, a political advocate of the Palestinian cause, and a harsh critic of American foreign policy. Historian Daniel Pipes and Efraim Karsh opine that this colors his writing. I am shocked, shocked…. Wikidemon demands neutral, secondary sources. I am not at all certain that there are ANY neutral sources on the Israel Arab conflict. But Reason )magazine) and the New York Times And they agree that Khalidi gets quotes and facts wrong, and they are hardly an extremist partisan sources. Wikidemon, of course, is. He polices articles aggressively in an extreme, intemperate and consistently anti-Israel fashion. His editing leads to badly biased Wikipedia articles. Historicist ( talk) 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just taken a tour of Wikipedia pages on controversial scholars. At least one, Noam Chomsky, actually has an entire page called Criticism of Noam Chomsky, or something like that. The extremely distinguished Bernard Lewis has a criticism section that is out of all proportion to the section on his scholarship. People clearly regularly log on to the ages of Jan Gross and Deborah Lipstadt and add criticism form poor sources with little context and out of all proportion to the careers of these historians. Criticism of Edawrd Said does appear. I added an issue that had been on Bernard Lewis' page but not on Said's. For balance.
This article is an example of the extreme difficulty in achieving neutral Wikipedia articles on politicians. Khalidi is criticized by historians not only for writing highly inflected, nationalistic versions of history and has become somewhat notorious for getting his facts wrong due to over-reliance on secondary sources. It would be meaningful to include these well-sourced allegations. I do not maintain that the version I proposed above was perfect. I do, however, believe that editors on this page are willing to edit-war endlessly to prevent well-sourced material critical of Khalidi from appearing on this page. Policing articles in this way - to insure that nothing critical of favored political figures appears - is the sort of behavior that leads Wikipedia to be widely mocked. Did anyone else chuckle at the Februsry cover of Time Out New York, with the bold headline that read: Like Wikipedia - but with facts!. Historicist ( talk) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I just want to point out to you that both Efraim Karsh (PhD, professor, head of Middle East studies at a respectable British university) and Diana Muir (widely published author and historian whose works are regularly published in reputable academic journals) are living people, just as is Rashid Khalidi. To refer to their criticisms of Khalidi, published in an academic journal (Middle East Quarterly), as "no-holds-barred lowbrow match of lawyers, academics, and journalists smearing each other", even on a talk page, is at least as much a BLP violation as you contend would be including their criticisms in the Khalidi article. Both Karsh and Muir could probably bring action against the Wikipedia for these remarks, if they were so inclined. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a game plan for unprotecting this page? I am concerned that the discussion is not going anywhere, but the page continues to be protected indefinitely.
As far as recent material that has been proposed, I do not see how any of it is appropriate, or close to appropriate. It is clear that there is not currently consensus for this material, so I would think the way forward would be to unprotect the page, and to clarify that this material (or material generally, for that matter) would need to be improved into something that can garner consensus before continuing to try to insert it. If people disagree with this then it is possible we will need dispute resolution, but I don't see how indefinitely protecting the page is satisfactory. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 08:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a "criticism" part in this page. His scholarship is definitely not undisputed. Tallicfan20 ( talk) 20:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As there is now a criticism section and it seems that any undue weight issues were handled, I will be removing the tag. Before anyone replaces it, please explain why you believe the article is not neutral. -- Avi ( talk) 04:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Whats your argument? POV issue is not applicable, sourses are valid. -- Rm125 ( talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I looked this issue up in a very large newspaper database (Factiva) and the only mention of it I could find was the very recent Toronto Star polemic. I bet it was inspired by Wikipedia! No evidence of notablilty here. Zero talk 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the article because of the absence (repeated removal) of material on Khalidi's record of false citations and frequent publication of bad facts. Historicist ( talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The person who removed the following from this article asked if the person who placed it there was or is joking. I do not understand the question and do not understand the removal of this short quote from Chronicle of Higher Ed from this article. These are the details.
"To his supporters, Khalidi is celebrated for bringing to light a history that, some say, has been long obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century." From the issue dated March 6, 2009 Rashid Khalidi's Balancing Act The Middle-East scholar courts controversy with his Palestinian advocacy By Evan R. Goldstein http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i26/26b00601.htm
In erasing this entry, Nishkid64 wrote-- (rv gross POV; you're joking, right? "...had tended to be obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century.")
Do you mean that you object to the point the article writer, Evan Goldstein, is making, and on that basis contend that what Goldstein wrote should be removed?
I checked and found the quoted words to be accurate. So why was this deleted from the article? Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There's recently been a move to (again?) accuse Khalidi of plagiarism here in this article. The material is weakly sourced but true... The account given here is a neutral account of what happened: an article originally attributed to Khalidi was found to be substantially copied from an earlier article by someone else, Khalidi and his publisher denied that Khalidi wrote it and claimed instead that the original byline was erroneous, and Alan Dershowitz then accused him of plagiarism and making up excuses. This was mostly a tempest at Campus Watch, which makes regular sport of bashing Khalidi and other scholars and journalists seen as anti-Israel. There is some primary sourcing to the documents in question, a reference to a source of questionable reliability (a campus watch reprint of a Jewish Advocate story), and then a reliable but relatively minor source, an account of the dust-up published by a History News Network intern. What's missing is any indication that the claim is significant or received any mainstream attention. I'm tempted to challenge the entire thing on BLP grounds as a poorly sourced accusation of academic fraud (for the umpteenth time - this article has long been fraught with that). However, for the moment I just cleaned it up. Any arguments as to why this is significant enough to overcome BLP and WEIGHT issues? Wikidemon ( talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I presume the lack of response by anyone implies acceptance? -- Avi ( talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Guys... the talk page is still here. I think since Khalidi felt the need to defend hismelf, and perhaps to have his byline removed, this is notable. Let's just stick to the facts as neutrally as we can. IronDuke 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Zero about the BLP violation and using an article by an intern as the sole source for it. An allegation as serious as that would need first-class sources, several of them. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I shortened back in June, as I wrote above: Good points, and I do note that two more recent NYT articles do not mention the plagiarism. On the other hand, it is not unsubstantiated, so perhaps recasting it as one, at most two sentences would be the best option as to neither ignore it nor give it undue weight. I'll take a crack at that. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC). Which is what it is now. -- Avi ( talk) 05:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
BLP is clear, Slim,. but your "intern" claims are not. According to you, every New York Times article written by "Staff" is ineligible for BLP's. The reliability is based on the source; and if HHN chose both to run it, and not retract it but instead publish the Khalidi response, that is sufficient. -- Avi ( talk) 05:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
*What you are all missing is that Khalidi was the founder and President of the American Committee on Jerusalem, the organization on whose web site the article appeared. He really does have to take some ownership for an article that appeared under his byline for several year on the small web site of the small organization with a tiny staff that he was President of. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hamilton23 (
talk •
contribs) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) indef blocked sock
nableezy - 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Slim is right. Our BLP policy is clear. We require multiple reliable sources for contentious information, of which this clearly is. As far as looking at the publisher and considering what Khalidi and Dershowitz have said and what was apparently worth a response, you're getting into synthesis. We report what has already been reported in reliable sources, we don't draw conclusions based on our own research. Unless the information can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. Lara 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, and the fact that it is not carried in more mainstream publications, while I fear bias may have somewhat to do with it, nevertheless is indicative enough in its own right that I understand the position that the sentence should remain out of the article until such point as we have better sourcing, so I will not be the one to restore it without another source for now. Thank you all for the discussion that was remarkably free of rancor
. --
Avi (
talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this addition [39] there is no indication that this analysis is particularly noteworthy. The same goes for the Clyde Haberman opinion that is already in the article. There must be hundreds, or thousands, of editorials about Khalidi and his works. Why choose any particular one? I would think that any criticism, praise, or opinion expressed about Khalidi ought to be verified for weight purposes to a neutral reliable third party source covering the opinion, rather than the expression of the opinion itself. Wikidemon ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Is Rashid Khalidi related to Walid Khalidi? I think they might be cousins. Abductive ( reasoning) 08:12, 3 October 2009 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
}}
In response to User:ChildofMidnight's question on my talk page, which I'm interpreting as a request to reconsider the page protection, is there now a consensus version of the article we can put in place? I'm very happy to remove the protection if that's the case (it will currently expire on 20 January). EyeSerene talk 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As editors are clearly keen to get on with improving this article, and we seem to have some basis of agreement, I've removed the article protection. I'll leave it to the regulars here to insert their consensus text above.
I'll keep the article on my watchlist, and will apply a strict interpretation of the spirit of WP:3RR and WP:EW in the case of any further edit-warring. There is of course no problem with editors following the bold, revert, discuss cycle, but because I have no intention of again disadvantaging those editors who wish to work productively by reapplying protection, edit-warring will result in a block on the offending account(s). My talk page is always open if anyone has any concerns or it doesn't look like I'm paying attention. All the best with your editing, EyeSerene talk 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Historicist just made this edit [17] which, in my opinion, diverges substantially from the consensus we only recently implemented. The sentence as it stood was part of the agreement, and serves to show that whatever Khalidi's relationship may have been with the PLO he distanced himself from it. The very crux of the agreement was how to pose the various sources, reliable and otherwise, that claimed that Khalidi was an "official", "spokesman", etc., of the PLO, despite his denial, and others that say he never was. We agreed on the exact text to be implemented. The new addition states directly that two authors were "identifying Khalidi as[sic] 'as an official'" of the PLO. We had agreed not to do that. Sensitive to Historicist's edit summary that the language created a "misleading impression of what Lassner and Troen actually wrote" I tried to simplify the statement so it would not create any misimpression [18] but ChildofMidnight summarily reverted in Historicist's change. [19] If we cannot agree on any neutral language to satisfy Historicist's new objection to the consensus wording (frankly, I do not see the problem), we should leave it as is. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
We worked long and hard on this article to get somewhere acceptable and having this nearly devolve into another edit war so soon afterwards is unacceptable. I have restored the article to the state it was prior to the insertion by Mackan of the Troen/Lassner text. I personally am apathetic as to whether it should be in or not and how. However, if y'all would please take the next 3 days to discuss the matter and work something out here, it would be much better than having to levy a slew of 3RR blocks. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(<-)If consensus is to leave it out, that's fine too. I was concerned about the beginnings of another edit war, which would have been unacceptable. Are we agreed to leave it out for now? -- Avi ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking for page protection again due to yet another outbreak of edit warring over new proposed content challenged on the basis of BLP, POV, weight, coatrack, etc. I may post this to BLP/N and will make a note here if I do (although in the past BLP/N and the BLP talk page have not been very responsive to any but the most blatant BLP incidents). Wikidemon ( talk) 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Could I be allowed to attach one of my photographs of Rashid? ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLN_Rashid_Khalidi.jpg) In my view, it is in the public interest - irrespective of whatever administrivia is being resolved behind the scenes. The ongoing Gaza issue - and Khalidi speaking publicly about it - would seem to indicate that getting the info/photo out in a timely manner is of some importance. Any assistance here greatly appreciated. Apologies if I have offended anyone or committed some faux pas in making this request in this location in this manner - I am no wikipede, just a photojournalist. Thanks again. Thomas Good ( talk) 15:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am the photographer and everything I do is CopyLeft. Thanks much! BTW, I am now uploading the video I shot last night for the Lawyers Guild (I'm a member) - Rashid was very good - eloquent, articulate, etc. www.youtube.com/nextleftnotes (all of our youtube footage is also copyleft, dunno if this helps anyone but thought I'd pass it on). 24.168.91.228 ( talk) 20:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Avi - the following was sent to the above address at 21:20 EST (U.S.): Please be advised that all materials released under the Next Left Notes masthead, also known as NLN, are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) unless otherwise indicated. All materials: photographs and other images, video footage, audio segments and news copy authored by Thomas Good, editor of NLN, are released under the GFDL without exception. All materials may be freely reproduced and redistributed with attribution.
See www.nextleftnotes.net/gnu_fdl.html for details on the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
All materials uploaded to wikimedia commons by Thomas Good are the copyright protected property of this individual and are subject to the terms of GFDL as is clearly indicated on each wikimedia submission. Thomas Good ( talk) 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
historicist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just added some material [25] that I removed as an inappropriate WP:COATRACK. The problems with the edit should be obvious to any seasoned editor. While possibly true literally (someone did criticize the professor, and the material he used appears to be widely quoted but inaccurate and some claim fabricated but not by the professor), it is utterly misleading to say that he "has been criticized" without pointing out that the criticism is from partisan opponents, in which case we need to do a reasonable analysis of whether the criticism is notable. He is a controversial figure and like all such people has a considerable share of critics and opponents. That a professor makes mistakes is not terribly significant. Saying that he is "citing fabricated quotations" is over the top - it implies that he fabricated the quotations, which not even his critics are claiming. Quoting a partisan critic who calls his academic work "political polemics" is not terribly helpful. If there is widespread significant criticism that should be properly framed and cited to secondary sources, not the primary sources who are doing the criticism. ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) promptly reverted, [26] suggesting that it was an issue of citations. That is beside the point. We don't decorate articles with criticism and defense sections so as to create a controversy section in every BLP article. The point is to include reliable, encyclopedic, relevant information that reliable sources show to be significant enough to include. Given the history of this article, we should really concentrate on trying to elucidate the professor, his biolgraphy, and his work, not to throw up material that seeks to discredit him. Wikidemon ( talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise, Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources... And from WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true. I fail to see how the stuff you're adding meets the appropriate criteria per Wikipedia policy. Khoi khoi 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: I've removed a similar coatrack from Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America [29] that at times has been worse than the one here. So there are attacks against Khalidi in an article having nothing to do with him or with the attacks. I'm wondering if we're going to need to escalate this. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I for one am not willing to go through the same process again on this material that lead to all of the edit warring, AN/I reports, incivility, article protection, etc., of the last few attempts to insert disputed material into the article. The article is yet again protected. [30] Three editors have explicitly rejected the material, one has proposed it, and another has reverted it in without much explanation. Let's entertain, briefly, based on substance and not process, and without recriminations against other editors, whether and why any of this material should be included in this article. Wikidemon ( talk) 21:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There is agreement that this article is in need of balancing with criticism from reliable sources not disproportionate to coverage of his career. I believe that the following speaks to the assesment of Khalidi's scholarship by other academics and that it is well-sourced and directly pertinent to the nature and calibre of his scholarship. Please note that some articles are linked to partisan websites althouth they were published in general circulation publications. My goal is access. The Wall Street Journal requires a subscription. Links to back issues of the Jerusalem Post are often unreliable, so I linked to a free website with a reliable server. Historicist ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Khalidi has been criticized for the “intellectual laziness” of not cousulting archival sources, while “relying instead on secondary sources,” [1] for making arguments in his books “based on scrawny evidence,” [2] for being “factually wrong” in his citation of evidence, [3] and for scholarship that is “negligent, if not dishonest.” [4] According to historian Michael Rubin, “rather than access the original (speeches and documents,) he relies on secondhand interpretations by fringe Internet journalists. The result is repetition of bizarre (and anti-Semitic) conspiracies.” [5] A number of instances have been documented in which Khalidi has published information that has proven to be incorrect or cited quotations and information to sources where they are not to be found. [6] [7] [8]Khalidi’s work has also been criticized by historians as “propaganda parading as scholarship,” [9] and for suffering from a “blind nationalist belief” in the “absolute justice” of the Palestinian cause that reduces his academic work to the level of mere “political polemics.” [10] | ” |
Historicist ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There's an essay on criticism sections that might be worth reading. The primary problem with this material I see is that it takes random critical statements and assembles them into a paragraph which incorrectly suggests these are all general criticisms of Khalidi's work. This is then worsened by the fact that it seems to seek out the most sensationalist words and phrases available.
There isn't any reason to do this. If we are relaying criticisms, we should be specific about what they are, not simply reduce them into generalized negativity. If Efraim Karsh criticizes The Iron Cage for relying too much on secondary sources, then let's say so in a discussion of that book. If Michael Young says an argument is based on "scrawny evidence," then let's consider whether the issue is notable to Khalidi, but not falsely state that Khalidi "has been criticized" for "making arguments in his books 'based on scrawny evidence.'" The same goes for all of this: the attention to detail here just needs to be a lot better. As Wikidemon suggests above, also, "This article needs to be a little more negative" is not generally how Wikipedia BLPs work, but if good and informative material is added appropriately to the article, then great. Mackan79 ( talk) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Khalidi has been criticized for the “intellectual laziness” of not cousulting archival sources, while “relying instead on secondary sources,”
[1] for making arguments in his books “based on scrawny evidence,”
[2] for being “factually wrong” in his citation of evidence,
[3] and for scholarship that is “negligent, if not dishonest.”
[4] According to
historian Michael Rubin, “rather than access the original (speeches and documents,) he relies on secondhand interpretations by fringe Internet journalists. The result is repetition of bizarre (and anti-Semitic) conspiracies.”
[5] A number of instances have been documented in which Khalidi has published information that has proven to be incorrect or cited quotations and information to sources where they are not to be found.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Khalidi’s work has also been criticized by historians as “propaganda parading as scholarship,” [10] and for suffering from a “blind nationalist belief” in the “absolute justice” of the Palestinian cause that reduces his academic work to the level of mere “political polemics.” [11]His usefulness as an advocate for the Palestinian cause has been defended by the PLO's Palestine Affairs Center "because he’s a serious scholar and a Palestinian who wouldn’t harm the cause." [12] |
” |
The sources for this are eminent historians of the Middle East, Michael Rubin (historian) , Daniel Pipes, and Efraim Karsh. User:wikidemon may not care for their politics, but they are highly regarded historians and, as such, their assessments of Khalidi’s methodology and historiography are eligible for quotation in Wikipedia. What they are sayingm, moreover, is that Khalidi carelessly uses bad facts and bad qotes form secondary sources, and that he is haghly partisan. The first assertion. Bad facts and bad quotes, are substantiated by footnotes 1 thru 8. The assertion that Khalidi is highly partisan in his writing is not something that he himself would deny. He is a former PLO official, a political advocate of the Palestinian cause, and a harsh critic of American foreign policy. Historian Daniel Pipes and Efraim Karsh opine that this colors his writing. I am shocked, shocked…. Wikidemon demands neutral, secondary sources. I am not at all certain that there are ANY neutral sources on the Israel Arab conflict. But Reason )magazine) and the New York Times And they agree that Khalidi gets quotes and facts wrong, and they are hardly an extremist partisan sources. Wikidemon, of course, is. He polices articles aggressively in an extreme, intemperate and consistently anti-Israel fashion. His editing leads to badly biased Wikipedia articles. Historicist ( talk) 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just taken a tour of Wikipedia pages on controversial scholars. At least one, Noam Chomsky, actually has an entire page called Criticism of Noam Chomsky, or something like that. The extremely distinguished Bernard Lewis has a criticism section that is out of all proportion to the section on his scholarship. People clearly regularly log on to the ages of Jan Gross and Deborah Lipstadt and add criticism form poor sources with little context and out of all proportion to the careers of these historians. Criticism of Edawrd Said does appear. I added an issue that had been on Bernard Lewis' page but not on Said's. For balance.
This article is an example of the extreme difficulty in achieving neutral Wikipedia articles on politicians. Khalidi is criticized by historians not only for writing highly inflected, nationalistic versions of history and has become somewhat notorious for getting his facts wrong due to over-reliance on secondary sources. It would be meaningful to include these well-sourced allegations. I do not maintain that the version I proposed above was perfect. I do, however, believe that editors on this page are willing to edit-war endlessly to prevent well-sourced material critical of Khalidi from appearing on this page. Policing articles in this way - to insure that nothing critical of favored political figures appears - is the sort of behavior that leads Wikipedia to be widely mocked. Did anyone else chuckle at the Februsry cover of Time Out New York, with the bold headline that read: Like Wikipedia - but with facts!. Historicist ( talk) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I just want to point out to you that both Efraim Karsh (PhD, professor, head of Middle East studies at a respectable British university) and Diana Muir (widely published author and historian whose works are regularly published in reputable academic journals) are living people, just as is Rashid Khalidi. To refer to their criticisms of Khalidi, published in an academic journal (Middle East Quarterly), as "no-holds-barred lowbrow match of lawyers, academics, and journalists smearing each other", even on a talk page, is at least as much a BLP violation as you contend would be including their criticisms in the Khalidi article. Both Karsh and Muir could probably bring action against the Wikipedia for these remarks, if they were so inclined. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a game plan for unprotecting this page? I am concerned that the discussion is not going anywhere, but the page continues to be protected indefinitely.
As far as recent material that has been proposed, I do not see how any of it is appropriate, or close to appropriate. It is clear that there is not currently consensus for this material, so I would think the way forward would be to unprotect the page, and to clarify that this material (or material generally, for that matter) would need to be improved into something that can garner consensus before continuing to try to insert it. If people disagree with this then it is possible we will need dispute resolution, but I don't see how indefinitely protecting the page is satisfactory. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 08:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a "criticism" part in this page. His scholarship is definitely not undisputed. Tallicfan20 ( talk) 20:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As there is now a criticism section and it seems that any undue weight issues were handled, I will be removing the tag. Before anyone replaces it, please explain why you believe the article is not neutral. -- Avi ( talk) 04:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Whats your argument? POV issue is not applicable, sourses are valid. -- Rm125 ( talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I looked this issue up in a very large newspaper database (Factiva) and the only mention of it I could find was the very recent Toronto Star polemic. I bet it was inspired by Wikipedia! No evidence of notablilty here. Zero talk 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged the article because of the absence (repeated removal) of material on Khalidi's record of false citations and frequent publication of bad facts. Historicist ( talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The person who removed the following from this article asked if the person who placed it there was or is joking. I do not understand the question and do not understand the removal of this short quote from Chronicle of Higher Ed from this article. These are the details.
"To his supporters, Khalidi is celebrated for bringing to light a history that, some say, has been long obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century." From the issue dated March 6, 2009 Rashid Khalidi's Balancing Act The Middle-East scholar courts controversy with his Palestinian advocacy By Evan R. Goldstein http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i26/26b00601.htm
In erasing this entry, Nishkid64 wrote-- (rv gross POV; you're joking, right? "...had tended to be obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century.")
Do you mean that you object to the point the article writer, Evan Goldstein, is making, and on that basis contend that what Goldstein wrote should be removed?
I checked and found the quoted words to be accurate. So why was this deleted from the article? Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There's recently been a move to (again?) accuse Khalidi of plagiarism here in this article. The material is weakly sourced but true... The account given here is a neutral account of what happened: an article originally attributed to Khalidi was found to be substantially copied from an earlier article by someone else, Khalidi and his publisher denied that Khalidi wrote it and claimed instead that the original byline was erroneous, and Alan Dershowitz then accused him of plagiarism and making up excuses. This was mostly a tempest at Campus Watch, which makes regular sport of bashing Khalidi and other scholars and journalists seen as anti-Israel. There is some primary sourcing to the documents in question, a reference to a source of questionable reliability (a campus watch reprint of a Jewish Advocate story), and then a reliable but relatively minor source, an account of the dust-up published by a History News Network intern. What's missing is any indication that the claim is significant or received any mainstream attention. I'm tempted to challenge the entire thing on BLP grounds as a poorly sourced accusation of academic fraud (for the umpteenth time - this article has long been fraught with that). However, for the moment I just cleaned it up. Any arguments as to why this is significant enough to overcome BLP and WEIGHT issues? Wikidemon ( talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I presume the lack of response by anyone implies acceptance? -- Avi ( talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Guys... the talk page is still here. I think since Khalidi felt the need to defend hismelf, and perhaps to have his byline removed, this is notable. Let's just stick to the facts as neutrally as we can. IronDuke 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Zero about the BLP violation and using an article by an intern as the sole source for it. An allegation as serious as that would need first-class sources, several of them. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I shortened back in June, as I wrote above: Good points, and I do note that two more recent NYT articles do not mention the plagiarism. On the other hand, it is not unsubstantiated, so perhaps recasting it as one, at most two sentences would be the best option as to neither ignore it nor give it undue weight. I'll take a crack at that. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC). Which is what it is now. -- Avi ( talk) 05:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
BLP is clear, Slim,. but your "intern" claims are not. According to you, every New York Times article written by "Staff" is ineligible for BLP's. The reliability is based on the source; and if HHN chose both to run it, and not retract it but instead publish the Khalidi response, that is sufficient. -- Avi ( talk) 05:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
*What you are all missing is that Khalidi was the founder and President of the American Committee on Jerusalem, the organization on whose web site the article appeared. He really does have to take some ownership for an article that appeared under his byline for several year on the small web site of the small organization with a tiny staff that he was President of. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hamilton23 (
talk •
contribs) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) indef blocked sock
nableezy - 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Slim is right. Our BLP policy is clear. We require multiple reliable sources for contentious information, of which this clearly is. As far as looking at the publisher and considering what Khalidi and Dershowitz have said and what was apparently worth a response, you're getting into synthesis. We report what has already been reported in reliable sources, we don't draw conclusions based on our own research. Unless the information can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. Lara 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, and the fact that it is not carried in more mainstream publications, while I fear bias may have somewhat to do with it, nevertheless is indicative enough in its own right that I understand the position that the sentence should remain out of the article until such point as we have better sourcing, so I will not be the one to restore it without another source for now. Thank you all for the discussion that was remarkably free of rancor
. --
Avi (
talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this addition [39] there is no indication that this analysis is particularly noteworthy. The same goes for the Clyde Haberman opinion that is already in the article. There must be hundreds, or thousands, of editorials about Khalidi and his works. Why choose any particular one? I would think that any criticism, praise, or opinion expressed about Khalidi ought to be verified for weight purposes to a neutral reliable third party source covering the opinion, rather than the expression of the opinion itself. Wikidemon ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Is Rashid Khalidi related to Walid Khalidi? I think they might be cousins. Abductive ( reasoning) 08:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)