Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 20 December 2008

Template:RFMF

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 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 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 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)

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:

1. 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.

Well, that's your opinion. In mine, this was enough of an issure in 2004 for a newspaper reporter to ask Khalidi about it and for Khalidi to answer. It was also covered in other newspapers over the years, well before Obama announced for President. I listed some ao the articles weeks ago when someone else asserted that this was an election issue.Historicist (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your first source here is the "Arafat Minion" piece in the Washington Times. If that is what we are going on here, then there would be no section at all. Your second source, which appears to be a New York fashion or entertainment magazine, characterizes this as a "rumor": "on a more problematic note, a rumor persists that he once also served as a spokesman for the PLO, thanks to a 1982 news story that identified him this way." In contrast, we probably have hundreds of reliable sources that discussed this in the context of the 2008 election, and we have a section in our bio dedicated to that election issue, and yet, you are still suggesting that this should have two paragraphs unrelated to the election. I'm always interested to see proposals, but as of yet I don't see this working. Mackan79 (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1. 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/

1. 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.

Certailny the article could use more aobut Khalidi's career, particularly his academic work. And more about his views on Israeli, Palestinian and American policy. I added some of these points (like the part about his growing role as a commentator.) a few weeks back. I also straightened out his biography which, someone had bowlerdized to make it look as though he was in Lebanon for a semester and in Chicago for many years. What we are discussing at this moment, however, is including information about his relationship with the PLO.

1. 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 disagree. This was in the papers before the election. It about Khalidi. Not ablout Obama. Here's a 2005 article. there are lots of such news articles,articles that raise the quesiton of whether Khalidi was a PLO spokesman, as period news articles state that he was. Columbia's Own Middle East War

by Jennifer Senior New York Magazine January 10, 2005 http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/education/features/10868/ Historicist (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Location

I am, as I ever have been, willing to add this material to the bio as a consensus that it well-sourced, not a violation of BPL, or NPOV, and, that it therefore belongs in the article. I am also happy to have it as a subsection of Public Life.Historicist (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In the form proposed the material is more about what Khalidi actually did than the controversy surrounding it. Accordingly, I think it makes the most sense to put it in the section on his career rather than the existing section on the 2008 campaign controversy. The article organization is a little convoluted as it is, and not entirely chronological, so as best as I can figure the "public life" is where it fits. My $0.02. Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 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)

Material added by ChildofMidnight

The material added by ChildofMidnight is unacceptable for several reasons.

The first paragraph: "Rashid Khalidi was noted by media for working as a spokesman for the PLO in Lebanon between 1976 and 1982 as well as heading Palestinian press agency Wafa. However, The Washington Times reported in 2004 that Khalidi was denying that he ever worked for the PLO." Khalidi was not noted by these media for working as a spokesman. He was quoted in these media, under different appellations. To assemble three of these citations and make this kind of statement is original research (WP:SYNTH), contentious, and unacceptable in a BLP. Second but equally importantly, the Washington Times does not show him denying that he "ever worked for the PLO." The statement is only as to being a "spokesman," and it is a highly partisan source (the article's title: "Arafat Minion as Professor").

The second paragraph: "In his book Palestinian Identity, Khalidi writes of being asked by Faisal al-Husayni, a leader of the PLO, to serve as an advisor if Palestinian-Israeli negotiations were begun. Khalidi agreed to serve at the Madrid Conference of 1991. He was required to travel to the various meeting points - Madrid, Oslo, Jerusalem and Washington D.C. - for weeks at a time over a two year period. Khalidi worked alongside other notable advisors including Faisal al-Husayni. " First, the statement that al-Husayni is a leader of the PLO is not found in the source; including this statement is again a contentious use of original synthesis. Khalidi is widely reported to have served at the Madrid conference; no reliable source that I am aware of states that he served the PLO or connects this to the PLO. This paragraph has no place in a discussion of "Relations with PLO," if such a discussion should exist.

The last paragraph: "Khalidi wrote: "The Palestinian-Israeli negotiations at Madrid, Washington D.C., and Oslo, starting in 1991, appeared to put the process toward statehood back on track, and seemed to justify the highest hopes of, and for, the PLO." " This is pure original synthesis, again to suggest that he was serving the PLO in Madrid, when in fact the statement has nothing to do with Khalidi's service at the conference.

Good faith or not, this material is completely unacceptable. I will remove it so that we can return to discussion about something that could work. Mackan79 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - IMO, I don't see how some if any of those citations posted by CoM are connecting Mr. Rashid Khalidi to the PLO. For example; the book does state that The Palestinian-Israeli negotiations at Madrid, Washington D.C., and Oslo, starting in 1991, appeared to put the process toward statehood back on track, and seemed to justify the highest hopes of, and for, the PLO. However, it goes on to say... In fact, however, a careful examination... brought the Palestinians no closer to their goals of liberation, independence, and statefood. It might not be OR, but it is at least manipulation of facts; unintentionally or not. VX! 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence was originally added (not by CoM) to give the impression that Khalidi was relaying his own goals at the Madrid conference as those of the PLO. If you read the passage, however, then you see that he is not talking about his involvement at all. Rather, the material comes from a section purely about the PLO, and not about himself or any role that he played, and as such is completely irrelevant to any discussion of his role at the conference. This is indeed the kind of thing that some of us are trying to guard against, and why getting the material correct can be difficult. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to see you assert that I haven't discussed the sourced material on the talk page. As you know I've repeatedly suggested altering the content to address any issues you are raising. Wholesale deletion of sourced content is grossly inappropriate. There are many sources in the section I added and they are reliable, scuh as the LA Times. The LA Times says he was a spokeperson, so it's well sourced and if you have another source that condradicts that, please add it. I object to your removing an entire section rather than correcting or clarifying it. Please put the material back with any corrections needed instead of removing all of it.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus discussion afoot and the various parties do not seem to be far from reaching a consensus on the content. The material stays out until and unless there is consensus to include something. Do not keep adding disputed material, particularly material challenged on WP:BLP grounds. And again, please do not derail the attempts at consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consensus needs to be reached before you go blindly putting in content that caused the discussion in the first place. VX! 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason there is a discussion is because the section was removed. I welcome your retitle or tweaks to make it accurate and to make it better reflect teh sources. But to take out a whole section because you have an issue with some part of it inappropriate. Fix it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You've said this several times, CoM, but you must realize that "fixing" material is not always so simple. I pointed out above that two of your three paragraphs do not belong in the section you created at all, as the sources are misused and do not support the argument. The remaining paragraph is incorrect on both sentences, and could not be corrected without new language, new sources, and additional material to support the existence of the section. This is not a simple issue; a great deal of research has been done here and on various blogs, but almost none of it has been assembled in what Misplaced Pages generally considers reliable sources on a BLP (that some say one of the blog posts is reliable because it is externally published does not exactly resolve the issue). To simply throw the material up anyway results in exactly the kinds of mistakes you made, where you supply a sentence of Khalidi referring to the "hopes" of the PLO as if these were also his own, when the sentence was mined from one context and placed now in entirely another. It isn't as if Wikidemon or I have not made proposals for that matter, as I have made several, and Wikidemon has made at least one, but all of these could be in different sections, focusing on different issues, etc. This is why we have talk pages to iron these things out. Mackan79 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether fixing material is simple or not fixes need to be attempted. It's not right to just remove a whole section of content and keep out any and all controversies no matter how notable. Where is the accurate version of this information that you are proposing? It's been two months now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Mackan79 is right. Please review WP:BRD, WP:BLP, WP:EW, and WP:CONSENSUS. But nevermind. Your edit warring over this got the article protected so nobody can insert or delete anything now. The "fix" editors agree on is the one you call "politically correct nonsense", a "whitewash", and a "sham". I'm afraid I cannot help you fix that. Unless you have a reasoned argument why your BLP violation is better, the consensus version is the one we should go with.Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! If everyone agrees on it let an Admin and they will put it in the article. I'm thrilled that you've finally agreed on a a version of the information that's acceptable to you personally. As you know all I've been asking is that the information be included and that you stop your disruptive obstruction. I'm not fooled by your silly distortions and twisting of the truth. Anyone who wants to can read the archived discussion for themselves. I'm thrilled this is finally at an end. Please let an Admin know you're ready to add the section you removed back, so we can all go back to constructive contributing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles