Talk:Rashid Khalidi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:40, 19 December 2008 editHistoricist (talk \| contribs)11,004 edits →Latest proposed compromise/consensus language ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:35, 19 December 2008 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk \| contribs)43,041 edits →Latest proposed compromise/consensus language: commentNext edit →
(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 150:		Line 150:
	:* I find it awkward for other reasons so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. It isn't clear that Obama and Khalidi are "friends" - that is such an ambiguous word. They interact. They seem to have some kind of relationship. Anyway we could massage that word. It is pretty clear that the issue, though present in 2004, became an issue again in a bigger way in the final days of the 2008 election. The real problem I have is the causation implied by the sentence (to paraphrase) "After X became an issue in the election, the nature of Khalidi's associations remain unsettled." It's not clear what that means really - why do they remain unsettled? Were they unsettled before and unsettled now? Unsettled for whom? And what does it mean for the nature of something to be unsettled? What does that have to do with the timing of the election issue? I think it's 2 different concepts linked together with a timing point that isn't relevant. No offense, I just think it could be worded more clearly. ] (]) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)		:* I find it awkward for other reasons so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. It isn't clear that Obama and Khalidi are "friends" - that is such an ambiguous word. They interact. They seem to have some kind of relationship. Anyway we could massage that word. It is pretty clear that the issue, though present in 2004, became an issue again in a bigger way in the final days of the 2008 election. The real problem I have is the causation implied by the sentence (to paraphrase) "After X became an issue in the election, the nature of Khalidi's associations remain unsettled." It's not clear what that means really - why do they remain unsettled? Were they unsettled before and unsettled now? Unsettled for whom? And what does it mean for the nature of something to be unsettled? What does that have to do with the timing of the election issue? I think it's 2 different concepts linked together with a timing point that isn't relevant. No offense, I just think it could be worded more clearly. ] (]) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
	::The ] says they were friends. Neither of them denies it.] (]) 18:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)		::The ] says they were friends. Neither of them denies it.] (]) 18:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


			A few notes, although I don't mind continuing to work on the other proposal:
			#The issue may have been mentioned in 2004 (I'm unclear where), but it did not garner any sort of significant discussion at that time. When it did gain traction in the 2008 election, moreover, this was not an outgrowth of those early mentionings and wasn't treated as such; it was a new issue in which any earlier mentions were irrelevant. To say that it became an issue in the 2008 election is thus plainly true, and not in any way contradicted by the idea that it was raised by someone in 2004, whereas the idea that this became a significant issue in 2004 is misleading and not supported. The real problem with these proposals, however, is that they treat it as if it were an issue as of the 1970s, which we know is not true. That is mainly why I think it's appropriate to clarify, if we are covering this, that in doing so we are covering a recent issue in which every secondary source we have (besides Lassner/Troen) was discussing his relationship with Barack Obama. The problem is that by ignoring that, we are jumping the gun, and becoming the first source to now reevaluate Khalidi's entire career in light of this election issue, which I consider a problem.
			#I don't have a problem with including his denial, but I believe it occurred in the context of the 2008 election controversy, unless we have evidence that it occurred earlier.
			::It appears in this 2004 article: Arafat Minion as Professor, Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris, Washington Times, July 9, 2004 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jul/08/20040708-083635-4366r/
			#I imagine the wording could be clearer, but the problem is that we don't have much that is clear to say. Also, this is a section where we are giving single sentences to large issues (his emergence as an influential commentator, for instance). If compared to the rest, it already gives more detail than anything else in the section. Since the point of this suggestion was to offer something that might fit reasonably into a specific part of the article, that might partially explain.
			#I think it is a little awkward, but I think that is also because some editors are insisting on discussing this outside of the section on the 2008 election controversy where basically all of our secondary sources discuss the issue.
			I'm interested in any case to hear where the larger proposal is intended to go, although wherever that is, I think will clarify a number of continuing problems with the proposal. ] (]) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

	*As I see it, we avoid all of today's quibbling if we go back to this:		*As I see it, we avoid all of today's quibbling if we go back to this:
Line 156:		Line 165:

	<br/><br/>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. 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." He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." (Khalidi’s denunciation of suicide bombing to go here, Mackan to insert.) 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."}}] (]) 18:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)		<br/><br/>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. 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." He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." (Khalidi’s denunciation of suicide bombing to go here, Mackan to insert.) 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."}}] (]) 18:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

			:I agree in general that we should go back to a version that seemed closer to getting everyone onboard. It would have to be "the nature, ''if any''" or some alternate formulation (such as removing the word "official") because "the nature" presupposes that there is one and ignores the sources that do not claim there is an affiliation or state that there is none. Other than that, is it the same as the collapsed version above? ] (]) 19:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

			::The collapsed version, which has "nature or existence" should be agreeable. Where would it be put in the article (Mackan's question)? -- ] (]) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

			:::Right. sorry. Let's go with the collapsed version, which has "nature or existence."] (]) 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

			The obstruction and blocking of well sourced content in favor of this awkwardly written and defensive whitewash is a strange thing to behold. It's a triumph of "politically correct" nonsense, and the time spent developing it is a testament to the damage that bias, wikilawyering, and gaming the system do to Misplaced Pages. The editors who have diverted the good faith efforts of editors to build an inclusive and accurate article in favor of this sham, should be ashamed of themselves. And don't go harassing me on my talk page. I don't want to hear from "you". ] (]) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

	== Photograph ==		== Photograph ==

Revision as of 20:35, 19 December 2008

Template:RFMF

Skip to table of contents

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Columbia University

This article has been under intense discussion and debate for the past few months, and a consensus seems to be nearing. For editors not up-to-date with the discussion, please read Archives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for background and to follow the evolution of the discussion. Thank you.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

Latest proposed compromise/consensus language

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. 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." If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it." Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization.

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. 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." He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." (Khalidi’s denunciation of suicide bombing to go here, Mackan to insert.) 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) 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"nature or existence" perhaps? Also, maybe we should get a version WITH the citations (and a reflist section) in a collapsable box so we have a markup of text and sources before we put it into the article? -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nature or existence" is fine. The cited version would be helpful - I don't know if there is a way on a page to limit footnotes to only citations from a short section of the page. Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing it like so should work:

{{collapse top}}
===Heading===
Text with citations
===References===
{{reflist}}
{{collapse bottom}}
-- Avi (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Here is the text with some of the proposed citations. I moved to the agreed "nature or existence" phrasing. User:Mackan, , I assume that you have the proper citations for several sentences at your fingertips and can insert them easily. On the last sentence of the first paragraph. I put three references. There are probably about a hundred available. I believe that we should try to keep the number down.Historicist (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Expand for suggested text and references.
Suggested text 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. 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. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it." Subsequent sources disagree on the nature or existence of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization. (Wikidemon – Please add the Haaretz link here) 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. 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." He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." (Khalidi’s denunciation of suicide bombing to go here, Mackan to insert.) 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." References Rashid Khalidi on the Middle East: A Conversation, Logos, Fall 2005 “Palestinians, People in Crisis, Are Scattered and Divided; The Palestinians First-of a Series,” New York Times, February 19, 1978, Sunday, Page 1, James M. Markham, “Ultimate Goals of the Attack are Assessed Differently from the Two Sides,” News Analysis, Thomas Friedman, New York Times, June 9, 1982 "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by DOYLE McMANUS. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 20, 1984. p. A10 “Lebanon War Hurts Palestinian Cause," Joe Alex Morris Jr., Los Angeles Times September 5, 1976 “The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for Pacifica Radio Arafat Minion as Professor, Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris, Washington Times, July 9, 2004 Khalidi of the PLO, Martin Kramer So busted! Ron Kampeas• November 3, 2008 Thomas Lippman Washington Post "Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession", address by Khalidi at Portland State University, June 23, 2007 "Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession", address by Khalidi at Portland State University, June 23, 2007 "Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession", address by Khalidi at Portland State University, June 23, 2007 Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, by Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, p. 72

Expand for suggested text and references.

Suggested text

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.

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. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."

Subsequent sources disagree on the nature or existence of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization.

(Wikidemon – Please add the Haaretz link here)

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.

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."

He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators."

(Khalidi’s denunciation of suicide bombing to go here, Mackan to insert.)
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."

References

Rashid Khalidi on the Middle East: A Conversation, Logos, Fall 2005
“Palestinians, People in Crisis, Are Scattered and Divided; The Palestinians First-of a Series,” New York Times, February 19, 1978, Sunday, Page 1, James M. Markham, “Ultimate Goals of the Attack are Assessed Differently from the Two Sides,” News Analysis, Thomas Friedman, New York Times, June 9, 1982 "Account of PLO Talks Questioned; Reagan Unaware of Such Contacts, His National Security Aide Declares" by DOYLE McMANUS. Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 20, 1984. p. A10 “Lebanon War Hurts Palestinian Cause," Joe Alex Morris Jr., Los Angeles Times September 5, 1976 “The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for Pacifica Radio
Arafat Minion as Professor, Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris, Washington Times, July 9, 2004
Khalidi of the PLO, Martin Kramer So busted! Ron Kampeas• November 3, 2008 Thomas Lippman Washington Post
"Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession", address by Khalidi at Portland State University, June 23, 2007
"Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession", address by Khalidi at Portland State University, June 23, 2007
"Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession", address by Khalidi at Portland State University, June 23, 2007
Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, by Jacob Lassner and S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, p. 72

I've wikified the boxes and grouped these refs as "suggestion" so as not to have "reflist" pull the stuff above. when moving it into the article, we'll obviously remove the group name. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll fill out the appropriate cite templates once we have a working text. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient work on this. Overall, it is shaping up. I see you have slightly modified language describing how Khalidi was cited at the time he was in Beirut, which I can accept given the word "sometimes" to convey that these citations were not uniform. In addition to the Haaretz link I would like to add the Lassner/Troen book and two or three other recent sources Historicist has proposed in the "Suggestion 4" group of footnotes, so that the Kampeas / Kramer / Lippman cites (which you all know I consider weak sources) do not stand alone there among the sources that "disagree". Also, as in previous proposals we should keep this as two paragraphs, with the second beginning "From 1991..." Please let me know if it is okay to edit your suggestion directly to do this, or if I should copy and paste a new version as an updated proposal. I may be out of pocket for much of the next 12 hours. Real world, you know. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do.Historicist (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That one remains my favorite of all the versions coming close to consensus but it seems that everyone is moving on (to versions in my opinion that are weaker, and probably farther from being agreed on by all). I'll hold off for now, and feel like taking a breather from advocating one thing or another, but if we come back around to this version or some other version I'm happy to add the sources. Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. We've been working on this paragraph at high intensity for weeks, and it has been an issue on and off for many months now. A few more days to finally have an acceptable consensus version is perfectly fine :) -- Avi (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify where this is intended to go, and under what heading? This would help clarify what the current/remaining issues are. Mackan79 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear where the above proposal was intended to go, but looking again at the article, it seems to me that a simpler option may be something like the following, placed between the second and third paragraphs of the Family, Education and Career section:

Khalidi became politically active in Beirut, where he resided through the 1982 Lebanon War. "I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut the 1970's," he has 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. 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."

The sentence about the 1991 Madrid conference could then be inserted into the next paragraph, while I'm not sure that the sentence about his time constraints would then be necessary. I'm not certain whether it is a problem that this leaves out the denial, but possibly this would be another option. Mackan79 (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be a critical problem in my eyes to leave out the denial and reference to the discussion of the denial, Mackan; those must remain in, otherwise we start the WP:NPOV censorship and bowdlerization issues all over again. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon has also been adamant on keeping Khalidi's denial in the article, so I relly think it does have to stay.Historicist (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about the insertion of the word "reported,: : a reported friendship'. Obama says that they dined togehter with their wives, talked togerher, visited one another's homes and were neighbors. While they both were on the faculty of the same large university, their fields did not overlap so they were not colleagues in the usual sense. Why make it douns doubtful that they were friends?Historicist (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

- What is the reference for Obama's statment? Jaakobou 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

answer to Jackobou: Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama, They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel. By Peter Wallsten Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 10, 2008 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,7297945,print.story Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. the word friends is used several times. and the relationship is detailed at length.Historicist (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find Mackan's proposed final sentence problematic because it implies that this question arose with the Presidential campaign. It was brought up during the campaign. But the question of whether he once worked for/with the PLO appears in newspaper stories on Khalidi going back at least to 2004. This is not an issue created during the campaign. In fact, the only time Khalidi responded ot a reporter's question on this topic was in 2004.Historicist (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it awkward for other reasons so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. It isn't clear that Obama and Khalidi are "friends" - that is such an ambiguous word. They interact. They seem to have some kind of relationship. Anyway we could massage that word. It is pretty clear that the issue, though present in 2004, became an issue again in a bigger way in the final days of the 2008 election. The real problem I have is the causation implied by the sentence (to paraphrase) "After X became an issue in the election, the nature of Khalidi's associations remain unsettled." It's not clear what that means really - why do they remain unsettled? Were they unsettled before and unsettled now? Unsettled for whom? And what does it mean for the nature of something to be unsettled? What does that have to do with the timing of the election issue? I think it's 2 different concepts linked together with a timing point that isn't relevant. No offense, I just think it could be worded more clearly. Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Los angeles Times says they were friends. Neither of them denies it.Historicist (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A few notes, although I don't mind continuing to work on the other proposal:

The issue may have been mentioned in 2004 (I'm unclear where), but it did not garner any sort of significant discussion at that time. When it did gain traction in the 2008 election, moreover, this was not an outgrowth of those early mentionings and wasn't treated as such; it was a new issue in which any earlier mentions were irrelevant. To say that it became an issue in the 2008 election is thus plainly true, and not in any way contradicted by the idea that it was raised by someone in 2004, whereas the idea that this became a significant issue in 2004 is misleading and not supported. The real problem with these proposals, however, is that they treat it as if it were an issue as of the 1970s, which we know is not true. That is mainly why I think it's appropriate to clarify, if we are covering this, that in doing so we are covering a recent issue in which every secondary source we have (besides Lassner/Troen) was discussing his relationship with Barack Obama. The problem is that by ignoring that, we are jumping the gun, and becoming the first source to now reevaluate Khalidi's entire career in light of this election issue, which I consider a problem.
I don't have a problem with including his denial, but I believe it occurred in the context of the 2008 election controversy, unless we have evidence that it occurred earlier.

It appears in this 2004 article: Arafat Minion as Professor, Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris, Washington Times, July 9, 2004 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jul/08/20040708-083635-4366r/

I imagine the wording could be clearer, but the problem is that we don't have much that is clear to say. Also, this is a section where we are giving single sentences to large issues (his emergence as an influential commentator, for instance). If compared to the rest, it already gives more detail than anything else in the section. Since the point of this suggestion was to offer something that might fit reasonably into a specific part of the article, that might partially explain.
I think it is a little awkward, but I think that is also because some editors are insisting on discussing this outside of the section on the 2008 election controversy where basically all of our secondary sources discuss the issue.

I'm interested in any case to hear where the larger proposal is intended to go, although wherever that is, I think will clarify a number of continuing problems with the proposal. Mackan79 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, we avoid all of today's quibbling if we go back to 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. 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. 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." If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it." Subsequent sources disagree on the nature of Khalidi's official relationship with the organization.

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. 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." He has called the current PLO-led government in the West Bank "thieves, opportunists and collaborators." (Khalidi’s denunciation of suicide bombing to go here, Mackan to insert.) 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) 18:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general that we should go back to a version that seemed closer to getting everyone onboard. It would have to be "the nature, if any" or some alternate formulation (such as removing the word "official") because "the nature" presupposes that there is one and ignores the sources that do not claim there is an affiliation or state that there is none. Other than that, is it the same as the collapsed version above? Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The collapsed version, which has "nature or existence" should be agreeable. Where would it be put in the article (Mackan's question)? -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. sorry. Let's go with the collapsed version, which has "nature or existence."Historicist (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The obstruction and blocking of well sourced content in favor of this awkwardly written and defensive whitewash is a strange thing to behold. It's a triumph of "politically correct" nonsense, and the time spent developing it is a testament to the damage that bias, wikilawyering, and gaming the system do to Misplaced Pages. The editors who have diverted the good faith efforts of editors to build an inclusive and accurate article in favor of this sham, should be ashamed of themselves. And don't go harassing me on my talk page. I don't want to hear from "you". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

With all of the discussion we are having, it would be nice if we could get a free-use photo of him for the article. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for one at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Columbia University. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories: