Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

m:The Wrong Version

I've locked the article for a week; please work out issues here instead of back-and-forth reversions. If disputes are resolved before then, the article should be unlocked. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As y'all believe the issues have been resolved, I'll unlock the page. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph under relationship to Obama

{{editprotected}}

The last sentence of that first paragraph should be changed to make it clear. Instead of ending with "the house of the Khalidis", it should be "in the home of Rashid Khalidi". The cite used clearly illistrates that point, and the current verison is confusing as can be. Digital^Ninja 19:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is far from NPOV. If guilt by association, then here also needs to be a section of McCain's involvement. Please see Funded Work Of Palestinian His Campaign Hopes To Tie To Obama Statsone 02:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about guilt by association - the section doesn't state that Obama is anti-Israel. Rather, it states that his political opponents are claiming that Obama's relationship with Khalidi means that he is anti-Israel. That's why the second paragraph deals with Obama's response to this issue when it was raised in the 2008 election. I'm not sure how McCain would fit into this since, as far as I know, he and Khalidi have had no contact. I suppose we could add a citation from the McCain campaign that deals directly with Khalidi.

On the other hand, maybe we're getting too off-topic. This article is supposed to be about Rashid Khalidi, and not Barack Obama or the 2008 election.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree with "Statsone" - I think that a section DOES need to be added regarding McCain's involvement with Khalidi. As news is circulating now about Obama's relationship with the Khalidis, if people look up info on Wikipedia and only see Obama's name associated with this guy, it will not lend the objective point of view Wikipedia strives for. If you do not want to include info regarding McCain's involvement, please consider removing any mention of Obama's relationship - just to keep it fair and balanced. Khalidi Gambit: McCain Attacks Obama for Connection to Palestinian Activist Whose Work McCain Helped Fund

As I said, if you want to add statements that McCain has made regarding Obama's relationship with Khalidi, then feel free to do so. The issue I was referring to above was that McCain and Khalidi seem to have no prior relationship (I'm not sure they have even spoken to each other). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

The relationship with MCain is that McCain was Chairman of the International Republican Institute when it gave a half million dollars for Kalidi. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html Elemming (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Once again, American politics is never short of surprises and double-edged swords. Anyway, if you want to add this to the article, go ahead. However, at present, the entire section has been moved onto the talk page due to disputes over its content - although I suppose we can still make additions. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Criticism of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Avi or others, I wonder if you can confirm that this section, including the long block quote, is not supported by reliable sources and may also be undue weight. The two sources I see are an Arabic-only article in Al-Jazzera, and a Martin Kramer piece in the New York Sun. In sum, I'm not sure how this supports the large blockquote and section based on it, and wonder accordingly if it shouldn't be removed. Mackan79 (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I added this section because it shows that Khalidi has very strong views regarding pro-Israel organizations in the United States. Regarding its authenticity, please keep in mind that this is an exact quote - it is not an interpretation or synthesis of his statements. If you want, we could state the sources in the article itself - i.e. "according to Martin Kramer in the New York Sun." In fact, I would make this change immediately - however, the article seems to have been placed on protection until November 3.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the explanation. It isn't all about whether he said this or not, though, but equally whether it is significant and representative from the view of reliable sources. This is much of the benefit of Wikipedia's WP:RS policy, that it gives a good framework not just for deciding what's accurate, but also for what is relevant to a particular article and should be included. If the quote benefited the article in all respects, it's the kind of thing one might overlook, but this appears to be picked because it's controversial, or in Kramer's view because it paints him in a poor light. From over here, we also don't really have the context to evaluate it. I think those are the major issues more than whether it's accurate, although I do also have to wonder about the translation. For the same reasons, unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that it should be removed, per WP:BLP, likely immediately (inaccurate quotations could in that regard be even more problematic than accusations). Mackan79 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose your right. WP:BLP does give the person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to controversial material.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

My Contributions

I've recently made several contributions to this article. If any of them are in question (i.e. are the reason for the article being locked), please let me know. I've already posted a reply to the concern regarding Khalidi's statements on the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Allegations+accuse+PLO

I've just looked at the page after checking the record for the anon I/P editor who's been vandalizing the Yasir Arafat page, which I have on my watch list.

A point. There is a section on 'Allegations' of his links with the PLO, noting he has been 'accused' of having connections with that body. Is this the appropriate language to use. Some find it perhaps scandalous perhaps, but 'allege' and 'accuse' are words related to suspicions of criminal activity. Virtually the whole Palestinian diaspora, esp. its intelligentsia had connections to the PLO in one way or another, because, despite the terrorist designation used by some states, it was the only official entity representing Palestinians which was accredited as such widely. Unless one can demonstrate that it was indeed a criminal matter to have links with the PLO, and in what countries, I think the section heading should be modified, to avoid unseemly insinuations. It is POV of a subtle, but strong, order.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times source says, "In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization." So, there no real question of affiliation, right? I agree that it should be changed. PLO affiliation?

Yes, something along those lines. The ref. dealing with this raises 'suspicions' where we are simply dealing with probable facts of RK (and his wife's) connections to the PLO. Affiliation is perhaps the better designation, if not 'links to'.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about Rashid or Obama?

Why should this article have a section that is nearly as long as the rest of the article totally dedicated to Obama. A short summary would be appropraite - going into it at length is only serving political purposes versus encyclopedic.

Why would you even bring this up? Surely you're not insinuating something funny is going on are you? If you see reason to change, please do so. Just remember, the most important policy when dealing with a biography, is WP:BLP. I highly suggest you read it carefully. Cheers. 75.33.218.39 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am moving the entire section here for editing and radical compression. As it stands, a section sourced to one LA Times article and a few partisan websites (Campus Watch, Electronic Intifada) is longer than any other section in the article, including "Academic Work."

Relationship with Barack Obama

Khalidi's relationship to Barack Obama has come under increasing interest due to the U.S. Presidential race of 2008. Obama made one of the presentations in praise of Khalidi at a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of Khalidi leaving the Chicago Area. The dinner was a celebration of the Chicago area Palestinian community. Obama's remarks alluded to the numerous dinners that he had in the home of Rashid Khalidi. During the 2008 election race, opponents of Barack Obama suggested his relationship with Khalidi was evidence that Obama would not maintain a pro-Israel foreign policy if elected. The Obama campaign's Fight the Smears website has posted an entry on Khalidi in order to rebut what was said elsewhere about their relationship, for instance, it denies that Khalidi is or has been one of Obama's foreign policy advisors.

In May of 2008, Barack Obama spoke at a synagogue at an event in Boca Raton, Florida and the question of his relationship with Khalidi was brought up. In response, Obama stated that “[Khalidi] is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy... To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take…So we gotta be careful about guilt by association.”

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Khalidi stated that he strongly disagrees with Obama's views on Israel. However, because of Obama's "unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia," Khalidi stated that he believes that Obama is "more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians."

The New York Daily News reported on 3/6/07, "Obama got help from an unlikely source yesterday when pro-Palestinian Prof. Rashid Khalidi denied a report that Obama used to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and had recently shifted his stance to pro-Israel. Khalidi spoke to the Daily News to rebut a report on a pro-Palestinian blog that was circulated by Clinton supporters. The blog, the Electronic Intifada, offered no evidence that Obama used to be supportive of the Palestinian cause, but cited private conversations, including one at a 2000 Obama fund-raiser hosted by Khalidi. Khalidi, now head of Columbia University’s Middle East Institute, said he hosted the fundraiser because he was friends with Obama while the two lived in Chicago. ‘He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians,’ Khalidi said."

On October 29, 2008, Sarah Palin gave a speech in which she stated that "It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years. This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi ... in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization." Obama's campaign responded that the "ugly insinuations about Barack Obama's relationship with a former neighbor and university colleague ... are completely false" and that Palin's remarks were "another recycled, manufactured controversy." When interviewed by CNN, Khalidi stated that "I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes."

--G-Dett (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to editing the page, rather than being sucked into the usual bickering. I just noted casually this remark, which seems to be pertinent since I had the impression, without proof, that Palin had confused Khalidi with Said.

'Palin’s staff seem to be sloppy readers. Obama, we are told, did toast Khalidi at his going-away party in 2003. So far so good. Having seen the name Khalidi and Edward Said in the same sentence, the Palin team assumed they were the same person. But, it was Said, and not Khalidi, who played an active organizational role in the Palestinian struggle. Between 1977 and 1991, Said was a member of the Palestinian National Council, but not of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (the slippage is made all too often).' Vijay Prashad , ‘Smearing Rashid Khalidi’ Counterpunch 30/10/2008

Vijay Prashad has a Chair at Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, knew both personally, and here I think should be a RS, though I agree that this is a storm in a teapot, and should be pared down to the minimum.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with John McCain

Have added in simple paragraph with MSM citation and fact of relationship between McCain and Khalidi based on IRS document showing McCain as chairman of funding group to Khalidi's organization. This is a no-brainer compared to manny "relationships:. However Rashid Khalidi is not listed as a founder on the organization's website and it can be a case of mistaken identity. AlbertHall (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

You claim that all of this section is based on unreliable sources. Two of the additions I added are sourced from ABC News and CNN. How are these not reliable? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

You're right that there were a couple of short TV features in addition to the LA Times article and the partisan websites. But you've misunderstood me; I didn't say the sources were unreliable. The point is that a story that got very little traction in the outside world (the very newspaper that "broke" the story never followed it up, and considers it dead in the water) was getting enormous traction on Wikipedia, to the point where it constituted the single largest section of the article. The "coatrack" diagnosis, provided above by an anon, was spot on.--G-Dett (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right that this section was starting to dominate the entire article. However, this story has gotten a lot of traction recently since these are the final days before the election. It's even on the front page of CNN politics section http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/ (although probably not for long). The question is - how do we sort this out?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

I think we can condense this; I'll work on it now. Thanks for CNN link. You're right that a succinct treatment of this probably belongs in the article in these closing days of the election, though it may not earn tenure in the long run.--G-Dett (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your probably right that once the election is over, this will probably die down. Its only a big issue now because its the final days of the election and the candidates are mudslinging at each other - which is what a lot of this section seems to cover. We should probably keep these elements in mind when we decide what form and size this section should ulitmately be assigned.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

The new version of this section you posted looks good.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

The material's interesting, even if one must avoid. in noting it, recentism (overstacking a page with what will be a minor blip on the screen of history over the long term) not with regards Rashid Khalidi, but to illustrate this quite extraordinary phenomenon in American politics, where association with Palestinians of any description, in any formal way, triggers smear campaigns. Compare the Robert Malley article and 'allegations'.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to re-inspect PLO "activities" and US designation of the organization in the mentioned period. This sample story as well as this recount of terrorist activities might clarify the issue of why association and support of the PLO might trigger a smear campaign.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Jaakobou. I have done that work. I've read Brynen's book on those years, to name the best of many. Israel, for geostrategic reasons, and this seems by now to be a state's right (Staatsräson) invaded and consistently bombed large areas of Lebanon over the 70s and 80s, while the Palestinians there organized several militant groups to infiltrate and make attacks, terrorist and military, on Israel. It's called war. I don't care what the USA or Israel says about this, as geopolitically interested parties spinning their perspective, which is one of perceived national interests. I do know, that the 1982 invasion by Israel occurred in a period according to which, in UN reports, there had been a cessation of PLO organized attacks from August of the preceding year, a kind of informal, indeed negotiiated cease-fire which the PLO honoured, as distinct from splinter groups. This didn't save the PLO or the Lebanese. Israel invaded and some 19,000 people mostly civilians died as a consequence in that war, which historians say was meant to kick the PLO out of Lebanon in order to isolate Palestinians on the West Bank, and carve it up. There is no more point interrogating Rashid Khalidi's affiliation with the PLO, as a legitimate resistance group, than there would be highlighting Tzipi Livni's family's background in the Irgun, or as an undercover agent with Mossad in European operations. This is not a moral forum, where you or I can judge what historians of the future will judge more neutrally, and less politically, but an encyclopedia dedicated to NPOV. And it is a violation of NPOV to associate the PLO with the perspective on it given in earlier times by an interested party, Israel. We don't need to argue each other's views on this, surely. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask of you to advertise your personal essays (read: make justifications for terrorist activity and rant about "evil" Israel kills "civilians"), only answered your query. Keep these rants to yourself please, this is not facebook.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've answered you on my page. I would add that you should be advised that putting words like 'rant' and 'evil' in quotation marks implicitly attributes to me, in the presence of third parties, both that I rant, when I simply clarified your remark's implications, and that I regard Israel as evil. Don't do this. Now, let's keep this page focused on RK. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

<Stunned silence> Jaakobou, you dive in to suggest to us all that the PLO is a terrorist organisation, direct us to a list of its alleged misdeeds and also helpfully point everyone to some blog which carries posts from readers suggesting that a Muslim individual (and yes I do know who the poster is talking about, thank you) should be killed and "given pork" to take with them to the afterlife, and that "live Arabs" should be "injected with a long [sic] acting poison". And then when Nishidani responds to make a point about balance and context, you accuse them of ranting and advertising personal essays?! --Nickhh (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC) ps: I didn't stalk you here btw. I spotted the debate above re "allegations" of PLO links a couple of days ago and pondered entering to support calls for a change of wording, but passed on the opportunity to enter another I-P minefield. I did however pass by again just now and notice what you've done here, and can't let it pass without comment

Nickhh, could you please provide a diff for this? That's a pretty serious charge. --Elonka 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The comments are from posts in this blog entry, which Jaakobou directed everyone to with this edit, just above here. I'm assuming for now that he did it without realising this content was there (they're in the posts rather than the main blog, but you don't have to go too far down to find them). However I did highlight it because he has form I'm afraid, and also - rather ironically - tends to take others to task for alleged WP:SOAPING, as he was more or less doing here. For that reason alone I was slightly gobsmacked that he has been, at the very least, so careless. The solution here would be for him to simply remove the link; and then probably for this whole exchange to be removed from this article talk page as off-topic? --Nickhh (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the nature of the user comments on the link to the PLO poisoning oranges in Europe story (offtopic: Dry Bones is carried in the Jerusalem Post) and in any event it wasn't my intention to link anything other than an explanation to ease Nishidani's amazement of the "extraordinary phenomenon in American politics". I assume Nishidani can agree with my stating that I should not have clarified this issue to him since it was, most probably, just a rhetorical statement of support for the Palestinian plight rather than anything else. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I don't make rhetorical statements of support for the Palestinian plight. I clarify things said in ignorance, on those random occasions when mine is less than my interlocutor's on some specific issue.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling me ignorant? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Only regarding the fact that you apparently can't see in my remark a patent ironic allusion to Plato, The Apology of Socrates20c-23c. Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

...Do attach the relevant quote. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Important Reminder about talk pages

A reminder - Talk pages are not platforms for individuals to express their personal views. The purpose of a talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Quite correct. Thanks for the reminder, though I had chosen not to answer the last question above. I apologize for anything I have written which may strike other editors as disruptive of their work. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources claim Khalidi was not PLO Spokesperson

Sources speaking to The Jerusalem Post say that Rashid Khalidi was not a spokesperson for the PLO:

"The Los Angeles Times described Khalidi as having spoken on the PLO's behalf in the 1970s and FOXNews called him "a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was a US-designated terror group."

Khalidi has denied working for the PLO, and Palestinian sources told The Jerusalem Post the characterization is incorrect."

--Diamonddavej (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Makeover" in "Relationships with 2008 Presidential candidates" section

This is the praise from the source that some editor gave a hefty "makeover":

"At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said."

I took out the sentence for now because it a straight out BLP violation.[4]--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The 1991 Madrid Conference

A non-PLO joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation attended the 1991 Madrid Conference. The Jordanian-Palestinian delegation was "made up of middle-class technocrats, intellectuals, academics, West Bank officials and professionals" e.g. Saeb Erekat, Haidar Abdel-Shafi, Hanan Ashrawi etc.

Mr. Baker then told the Palestinians that they could not come to Madrid unless they accepted Israel's conditions: they be represented by nominally non-P.L.O. Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza...

Perhaps the paragraph describing Khalidi's alleged links to the PLO should make it clear that the PLO did not attended the 1991 Madrid Conference, at least at an official capacity (there is a New York Times article written before the conference that describes plans for unofficial PLO delegation, I do not know if they turned up). --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to finding New York Times articles which stated that a 14 member non-PLO delegation attended the 1991 Madrid Conference. I found another New York Times article (written before the Madrid conference) that names the official Palestinian delegation, significantly Rashid Khalidi was not amongst them, he was one of the 6 "unofficial advisers" and they were:

Faisal al-Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi, Sari Nusseibeh, Kamil Mansour, Anis al-Qassem & Rashid al-Khalidi

The word "unofficial adviser" will be added to the article. --Diamonddavej (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed some of the material about this, and whether the conditions were followed, since from reading the cited articles it seems quite unclear to what extent the statements apply directly to Khalidi. This is interesting stuff, but I don't believe material that can be directly included in this way. The greatest issue was the statement that Israel viewed the advisory panel as somehow breaking their conditions, when the article doesn't clarify how or who; that isn't in my view something we can decide is relevant here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its interesting info but its difficult to add. [Comments removed per WP:BLP] It would be nice to see articles written during the Madrid conference, to see what role the unofficial advisory panel (and Khalidi) actually played, if anything. --Diamonddavej (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that would be a connection, although I didn't see any suggestion that the PLO had anything to do with selection, or anything specific about Khalidi. Unless there are specific sources for these kinds of things, please keep in mind also that WP:BLP does not allow speculation of this kind even on talk pages. Mackan79 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a bad habit of speculating to much and getting over-focused on the details. Wasn't aware of WP:BLP applying to talk pages, I'll remember that. I am happy with the paragraph as it is now. --Diamonddavej (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi

The following discussion began on my Talk page but really belongs here and should be continued here.RonCram (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RonCram, you appear to be saying in various places that Khalidi has stated that he represented the PLO, when your source only says that he was an advisor for the "Palestinian delegation," not the PLO, at the 1991 Madrid conference. Is there something more to your claim? If not, you should be aware that statements to this effect either in article space or on talk pages would violate the WP:BLP policy. Please do clarify how you are supporting this claim if you stand by it, so that it can be resolved. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read the source, Khalidi's book, it says that Khalidi was contacted by the PLO to find out if he would confirm his promise to be an advisor at the Madrid Conference. The PLO officials had to give the names to Jim Baker soon. Did you miss that?[5] There really is no question he was representing the interests of the PLO during this time period. RonCram (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, but surely you realize that isn't a statement that he was representing the PLO? He states that they called him to confirm that he would be appearing at the conference, as he had previously stated that he would do. His statement is at the same time clear that he was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation, not to the PLO. It concerned me that this was the basis for your comments; if it is, please consider that WP:BLP does not allow comments of this nature that do not come directly from a reliable source. Mackan79 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, Khalidi would not have been there if not for Faisal al-Husayni, second only to Arafat in the PLO. Husayni asked him to be there and then they called and confirmed. Whose interests do you think Khalidi was representing? Of course this is a reliable source. What more reliable source is there than the man himself? If you think my interpretation is not correct, we can quote directly from the book and allow the readers to decide. It makes no difference to me. RonCram (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are the relevant quotes:

I had agreed to the request of Faisal al-Husayni that, if the Palestinians became involved in negotiations with Israel…I would serve as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation.

Late one night on the eve of the sudden convocation of the Madrid conference, I received a call from PLO officials in Tunis asking me to confirm that I was indeed going to Madrid, since the names of the delegation and its advisors had to be presented to Secretary Baker’s assistants that very night.

I thereafter served as one of several advisors to the Palestinian delegation at the Madrid conference in October-November 1991, and participated in part of each of the ten Palestinian-Israeli bilateral negotiating sessions in Washington which continued until June 1993.

Are you sure you want this rather than my short synopsis? If so, that is fine with me. But some might consider it undue WP:WEIGHT.RonCram (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed the interpretation, not the reliability of this source. Your insertion in his bio was that he "wrote about his service to the PLO...." You said on the Barack Obama talk page that Khalidi "admits he served the PLO as advisor...." These statements aren't supported by that source, which is why I raised the issue. Is there something else here to quote? If so, I'm not sure the point you would like to make. It seems pretty clear that the Palestinian delegation had ties to the PLO; to say that Khalidi served the PLO, however, contradicts the source. I'm unclear what else would need to be added, to either article. I should add that this also strays into original research/synthesis, considering we are discussing a portion of a book that I do not believe has been connected to this issue by any other reliable source. It would seem to me there are several problems here. Mackan79 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you are fine with the reliability of the source. Good. I think the book is quite clear that Khalidi was advising the Palestinians at the behest of the PLO. If you do not like the way I re-stated the facts, that's fine. We can go with quoting Khalidi. What we cannot do is report to readers that Khalidi did not have ties to the PLO. They asked him to do things and he agreed. They called him at night and he took their call. It is pretty obvious there were strong links between the PLO and Khalidi. So, would you like to do the rewrite or would you like me to? RonCram (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's something you'd like to include, I'd suggest proposing it on the talk page for discussion. I'll say that I disagree with your comments in any meaningful sense; I can only see your argument establishing that the Palestinian delegation itself had ties to the PLO, and accordingly that anyone involved with the Palestinian delegation would as well, which is the real issue as far as that goes. But I don't see how it ties into the Obama or Khalidi bios, from the discussion above. With whatever you would like to include, I can only suggest that you please be careful with regard to WP:BLP. Mackan79 (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(Carriage Return) It is important for you to realize that meaning is found in both words and sentences. You appear to be looking for meaning only in words. Khalidi denies ever being on the PLO payroll. Fine. He denies being an official spokesman. Fine. But it is clear from Khalidi's book that the PLO asked him to serve as an advisor and he agreed. They phoned him late at night to close the deal. He agreed. What did he agree to exactly? Over a period of about two years from 1991 to 1993, Khalidi was gone from his home for weeks at a time on ten different occasions. He had to travel to Madrid. Washington, Jerusalem and Oslo for these talks where he "worked very hard" all at the behest of the PLO. What was his compensation for doing this and who paid it? We don't really know. But if he was not paid, then he was contributing to the cause. He was heavily invested in the process. You should also realize Khalidi identified the interests of the PLO and Palestinians as being one and the same. Here's an excerpt from his book The Iron Cage:

‘’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.’’ (page 157 of Khalidi’s book – The Iron Cage). [6]

It is clear Khalidi believed the PLO was the instrument to achieve Palestinian statehood. The NY Times reported the Palestinian delegation were quite open about their ties to the PLO. Khalidi was one of six people in the advisory committee. Others included Faisal Husseini, the second in command to Arafat. [7] Let's not pretend the PLO was not involved in these negotiations. Khalidi was right there working alongside Husseini. Let's try to come up with a way to convey to Wikipedia readers the facts of the case. I still do not understand what part of this you may consider less than fully established. Please let me know and then I can write the entry. RonCram (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a run at it in a new section "Advisor to Palestinian Delegation at Madrid Conference." I don't see how you can have any problems with it, but let me know if you do.RonCram (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[I just saw you pasted this here, so am copying my last comment here] Ron, the material you added is not ok. You are taking a sentence out of a book of Khalidi's and blowing it into a paragraph at the outset of his bio in a way to make it appear contentious; you're also including original research, speaking of associations not mentioned in the source. Please discuss material that you would like to add on the talk page before asking it. If you continue adding material of this nature, and seeing the issues you have had on other pages relating to this material, I will have to ask that an administrator intervene. Mackan79 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron, I have no doubt that an appropriate section could be written on his participation in the Madrid conference, and equally no doubt that the material you put together is nowhere close to such a section. Primarily, it's fairly plain that everything you are including is solely there to bolster current claims of a connection between Khalidi and the PLO. As long as that is the basis for the paragraph, I doubt we will have anything workable. As I said, I also strongly suggest that you propose material here, as the material you have been including has repeatedly violated WP:BLP at a time when this article is receiving a great deal of traffic. Mackan79 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you oppose any material in the article that ties Khalidi to the PLO regardless of whether it has a reliable source or not?RonCram (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm simply saying that your use of this source to show a connection between Khalidi and the PLO is in the very best case WP:Original synthesis, and in the worst case original research and even outright incorrect. I do not see any reliable sources that support the narrative you are trying to create. Rather, I see you taking statements out of context to create a loaded narrative, tied together only by an attempt to link him to the PLO. That's exactly what WP:Synth doesn't permit. Mackan79 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron: I can't speak for Mackan. However, if you have a proposed edit for the article, bring it here. It should involve no synthesis or assumptions. You seem eager to demonstrate a "tie" to the PLO. Ok, but remember that Khalidi, as a matter of demonstrable fact, has been highly praised by many serious zionists and that his presence at Madrid was largely due to the fact that Israel viewed him as an acceptable interlocutor, particularly since it was unwilling to have direct dealings with any PLO members at the time. I would argue that as a matter of WP:WEIGHT Khalidi's presence and role at madrid, a significant event, deserves mention in this article. It already is mentioned in this article. So, taking weight into account, what do you think are the most salient points to be made about his participation, and why? Let's see your proposed addition.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, it appears you have been misled. His presence was not due to the Israelis wanting him. I think the salient points are that Khalidi was invited to participate by Faisal Husseini, the number two guy in the PLO. The two men (and four others) worked together advising the delegates for weeks at time on 10 different occasions. Also, Khalidi saw the PLO as the instrument by which the Palestinians could get statehood. Here is the entry I posted:

Advisor to Palestinian Delegation at Madrid Conference

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 and 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 and Hanan Ashrawi.

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."

---

As per Mackan above, this is at best a misleading synthesis that appears to be solely focused on "proving" something that no source I'm aware of actually says.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bali, if you read through the citations I provide and can find something wrong in what I have written - please let me know. I cannot see how anyone can find a problem. RonCram (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can and I have. Please see WP:WEIGHT... Also, you've cherry picked and mislead. Khalidi and Husseini were on an advisory team that acted as a cutout that between the israeli's and the palestinian leadership. The Israeli's pissed and moaned about this in public at the time, but eventually assented, because while they absolutely refused to talk to any members of the PLO at the time (and how times have changed -- witness ongoing, high level contacts with PLO members like Mahmoud Abbas, PLO chairman) they understood they had to have a back channel to the palestinians with power.

But why stop at Husseini and Ashrawi? Why not include all the members of the team: "They were also joined by delegation leader Haider Abdel-Shafi, Sari Nusseibeh, Kamil Mansour, Anis al-Qassem, etc..." I believe there were ten or so other members of this team. And you know what? None of their names belong here.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I stopped at Husseini and Ashrawi only because they were the leaders. If the others are notable and have their own Wikipedia articles, I have no problem adding them. Your argument that these two short paragraphs are undue WP:WEIGHT is ridiculous. Khalidi worked for the PLO on this project off and on for weeks at a time over a two year period. As you read his book, you can tell he considers his contribution to this peace conference as one of the greatest contributions of his career. I'm certain Khalidi would be insulted if his contribution is short-changed by the article. RonCram (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron, I think what you have is fine, though you don't need the bit about Hanan Ashrawi. Otherwise, it looks good. IronDuke 03:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I included Ashwari because it is factual and I was trying to be NPOV. RonCram (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's reasonable, but it's ultimately extraneous. People can click on the link to the Madrid Conference if they want more. Myself, I wouldn't quibble, but there are objections, and in the spirit of compromise and all that... IronDuke 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to compromise by adding the names he suggested if they had Wikipedia articles. But if you think I should remove Ashwari, then I will. RonCram (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is not adequate, regardless. It includes sources that do not appear even to mention Khalidi, adopts a misplaced and politically-driven focus on the PLO rather than the delegation for which Khalidi served, and reassembles Khalidi's statements from various contexts in order to further push this meme. Moreover, RonCram continues to post unsupported comments on this talk page ("Khalidi worked for the PLO on this project off and on for weeks at a time over a two year period") which equally violate WP:BLP and should likely be removed. From all I can tell, this discussion has already gone much further than it should have. Mackan79 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, Khalidi was there at the behest of the PLO. The Palestinian delegation was in almost constant communication with PLO officials in Tunis throughout the conference.

Wikipedia readers want to know if there is a connection between Khalidi and the PLO. To hide the information from them is a disservice. Censorship is not a Wikipedia policy or value. My comment that Khalidi "worked for the PLO" during this period is not a violation of WP:BLP but a summary of known facts. Khalidi writes about how he "worked very hard" on this project. He writes about it with great pride. Why are you claiming a BLP violation? Have you seen Khalidi attempt to disassociate himself from his own writings in any RS? That would be interesting to read. RonCram (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, you need to read more before you delete a valid entry. I have provided a link to Khalidi's book - Palestinian Identity. Please read through the section where he talks about how he "worked very hard" on this before deleting a valid and relevant entry. Or perhaps you need to read the article from the NY Times I just linked that explains how the delegation advisors were in almost constant communication with the PLO. RonCram (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the material, and do not see anywhere he says that he worked hard for the PLO. Of course he says he worked hard on the project -- no one is denying that he worked as an advisor for the Palestinian delegation in Madrid, or that this was a significant event. To present this as somehow saying that it was on behalf of the PLO is what's absurd, and unacceptable either for the article or for this talk page. Mackan79 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron: Stop with the violations of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. I'm sure there are other WPs in there that you're violating, probably one having something to do with working towards consensus. Nothing is being "censored." What is being "edited out" is your attempts at creating/establishing a link that is asserted by no reliable source yet brought forth. Is there's a "connection" to the PLO? Yes, in the same way that one can assert a connection between the PLO and Rabin. Did Khalidi write that he worked very hard in his role as a palestinian intermediary at the madrid conference? Of course! He's proud of his involvement? I should hope so! It was the beginning of a noble effort from all sides that, sadly and unfortunately, ran aground in the past decade. His efforts at peace, however, don't "tie" him to the PLO (leaving aside what a complicated, multifaceted group the PLO is). Please stop... at least don't reinsert hotly contested text absent consensus again.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

These are Khalidi's own words. I can't see how quoting him in his own article is wrong. IronDuke 04:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Bai, if you could wait more than 30 seconds to check talk before edit-warring, that might help too. IronDuke 04:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I did check talk. 1. They're not all his words. And, b. Why these words? That is a long book, and if i recall this is a tiny, tiny part of it. Ron and you are trying to prove some "fact" that no reliable source asserts.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... what fact am I trying to prove, exactly? IronDuke 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ID, let me clarify that I intend to continue removing this or substantively similar material as a WP:BLP violation, which means the next step for trying to include it will need to be taking it to another relevant noticeboard. I've stated quite clearly why this is, and it is not in my view a close call. I'm not sure why you are reverting in the material, but it doesn't strike me as supported, or a productive use of time. Mackan79 (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. Perhaps i have mistakenly conflated your motives with rons. What are your arguments for the inclusion of this language in the article? It is my assertion that it is an attempt to create an impression that there is a relationship with the PLO and Khalidi that does not, in fact, exist. One could get a copy of that book and find any number of "interesting" things in it. But what is the argument in each specific instance that they belong in an encyclopedia article about this man?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course a "relationship" exists. How do we know this? Khalidi says so. Does that mean he was their "spokesman?" I think not. But it's been bruited about that he was. So what do we do? We print the man's own words about the exact nature of his relationship. I can think of nothing fairer, nor more accurate, than that. Can you? IronDuke 05:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly we don't dig up his words from various contexts and string them together with other material in order to address the point. That is the essence of original research, in a BLP, no less. Mackan79 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

His words? Here's a compromise i could live with: "Khalidi joined the Palestinian team and interacted directly with Israeli officials in Madrid, at a time when Israel refused to have direct contacts with PLO members. He said he took on this role after being asked to by Faisal al-Husseini and that while he had misgivings about the process, that he accepted. "The Palestinian-Israeli negotiations at Madrid, Washington and Oslo... appeared to put the process toward statehood back on track, and seemed to justify the highest hopes of, and for, the PLO." hows that?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you review the contexts of these statements carefully, Bali? The statement about the "highest hopes" is taken from a different book than the rest, and appears to be taken simply because it makes a provocative statement about the PLO. The comment was actually in a series of statements about the PLO, in a chapter titled "Fateh, the PLO, and the PA"; this didn't have anything to do with Khalidi's participation. Your suggestion is much better, to be sure, but I'm not seeing how that can be considered relevant here. Mackan79 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No i don't have a copy of the book so i was taking his word for it. It's from two separate books, in two separate context, and the second bit about "highest hopes" is actually drawn from his scholarship rather than from a preface or other personal account of his involvement (if so that's pretty tame. Any commentator of that period, Palestinian, israeli, or neutral would agree to same)? Then, yes, my compromise was indeed a bad idea and none of that should go in... For Duke: This attempt at using his scholarly texts to put words in his mouth doesn't work. It is a wholly inappropriate conflation of a quote within a scholarly context to his personal life.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Bali, you're just making stuff up out of whole cloth now. Where in policy are you getting these bizarre distinctions? We can't use these quotes together because they come form different places? That policy exists nowhere but in your own mind. I'm sorry that you and Mackan wish that Khalidi had not written what he wrote, but he did (and I personally don't see anything all that wrong with it). Your attempt to remove information -- clear information -- from the source himself, under spurious cover of BLP -- makes a mockery of that same policy. But, okay... how then could any part of these quotes, or a summary thereof, be added? Or are they disallowed? IronDuke 16:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Disallowed" is to my ears an unfortunate choice of words; it makes this seem like a game of strategy. Yes, what you and Ron are trying to do here with this "Advisor to Palestinian Delegation at Madrid Conference" coatrack section does violate NPOV, SYN, and BLP, per Bali and Mackan. But here's the deal in plain language. We should present the presidential-campaign-related controversy about Khalidi's advisory role in the peace process, because this has been, as you say, "bruited about" by a few sources. In doing so, we need to be (a) neutral, and (b) mindful of the weight and emphasis properly accorded an ephemeral today's-news-cycle "story" within a BLP on a major scholar. The proper approach is simple: give a succinct and neutral summary of the mainstream coverage of the controversy. What we don't do is go through Khalidi's published works looking for statements supposedly supporting the position of one party to the controversy, and then cobble these quotes together into a new section. This should be obvious, in terms of the relevant policies as well as common sense.--G-Dett (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Same deal with this new "PLO Connection" section, added by Historicist. That will have to go.--G-Dett (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

per the following diff: [8]

I'm not following why this text is removed. Are the PLO that much bad company to even advise to or is there something else I'm missing?
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In the current political environment, Obama supporters are denying any connection between Khalidi and the PLO - except maybe having a "cup of coffee" with them. These people are trying to create an alternate reality in which Khalidi is respected by the State of Israel for being a moderate and actually welcomed the inclusion of the advisors to the Madrid delegation. Facts be damned. One of these editors has written that my words are "hotly contested," but they are not factually contested. They are contested on the basis of undue WP:WEIGHT, which seems ridiculous since Khalidi was working on this project for two years of his life. I notice that someone has put forward a section title "PLO Connection." It seems to me that what I wrote would fit nicely in that section. But I cannot add it as it would be 3RR for me. RonCram (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Peretz

this electoral stuff is all such a side show and is way beyond due weight for an encyclopedia article on this guy. However, in as much as it's going in this by | Marty Peretz may be worth a look in. Peretz is a jew who bought the new republic in the early 70s and turned it in a reliably pro-zionist direction. To get a taste for his views on Israel, read his "Zionism: The God that didn't fail" here http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Zionism_God_History.htm At any rate, Peretz has this to say about khalidi in his recent commentary: "I assume that my Zionist credentials are not in dispute. And I have written more appreciative words about Khalidi than Obama ever uttered. In fact, I even invited Khalidi to speak for a Jewish organization with which I work. Moreover, the Israelis are trying to live cooperatively and in peace with Palestinians whose unrelenting positions make Khalidi almost appear like a Zionist."Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing -- this article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/nyregion/31khalil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin has the former campus watch guy at columbia and a new york city rabbi saying nice things about Khalidi. If one does a little googling, you should also find that a big reason for Khalidi's involvement at Madrid (an effort at peacemaking after all) was that he was seen as an acceptable person by israel -- as opposed to PLO figures which it did not want to deal with. I won'd be making any edits to the article since i'm new here and it's been contentious enough.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Peretz statement should definitely be included; I was just going to try but may not have time at the moment. Mackan79 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I lied. Having read the last section i thought it sorely needed attention. I've balanced with counterveiling comments (with citation), clarified the sourcing on Obama's may speach at B'nai Tora, simplified the language.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, you are wrong to think the advisors were acceptable to the Israelis. The advisors included Faisal Husseini, the second in command of the PLO. Reliable sources show the Israelis were not happy about these advisors but Secretary Baker forced the Israelis to accept them. RonCram (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a reliable source that Israel was unhappy with Khalidi's presence? Ok, lay it on us, in the form and with the citation as you'd like to see it in the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bali, perhaps you have not seen this article? [9]Oh, and I do not think the fact the Israelis were upset about the advisors needs to go into the article. I only made this statement to correct your misunderstanding above where you state "a big reason for Khalidi's involvement at Madrid (an effort at peacemaking after all) was that he was seen as an acceptable person by israel." RonCram (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't read that article before. Doesn't surprise as part of the pre-Madrid posturing. However, it contains NO critical mentions of Khalidi by israel, and would require an extreme amount of synthesis to believe that's even what it implies. Also, as a matter of public record, Israel backed down from this position and did, in fact, participate in the conference, and talked directly with Khalidi, even as it continued to eschew direct talks with the PLO. Why? Because Khalidi was not a member of the PLO. Read later articles on this matter. At any rate, none of this belongs in an encyclopedia article on Khalidi. He was never a member of the PLO not now, not then. Did he have a cup of coffee with the PLO now and then? Of course... within a year of Madrid, so was Yitzhak Rabin. Here's proof: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Rabin_at_peace_talks.jpg Was Rabin a PLO member too, Ron?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture with Clinton was taken sometime after 1993. I was trying to correct your misapprehension that Israel was happy with the PLO participating as "advisors" in 1991. Khalidi's work with the PLO was much more involved than "having a cup of coffee" with them. He had significant ties. They asked him to do things and he did them. Did the PLO pay him for the approximately 40 weeks of work he put in as an advisor to the Madrid conference? I don't have any proof of that. But if they did not pay him, then he was contributing his time at their request. Khalidi has been very proud of this in the past. He wrote about it with great pride in his book. There is no way this is not relevant to this article. RonCram (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and confidential to ron: Your claim that Husseini was the PLO's "second in command" is incorrect. Not that anything of that nature about Husseini belongs in an article on Khalidi.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen Husseini described as second to Arafat, but I'm not certain when he held that position. The NY Times article I provided above describes him as a previous negotiator with Secretary Baker, so he had a very responsible position whatever his title might have been. RonCram (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Video

In this edit, amongst several other changes, mention of requests to release the video were deleted. As far as I can tell, requests for the tape are verifiable, notable, and relevant to Khalidi's article (though it may also be relevant elsewhere). Any thoughts? Andjam (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Veriable, yes. Notable and relevant to Khalidi's life? Not in the slightest. This is a very minor election issue that political partisans are blowing up out of all proportion in order to disparage Obama. The whole issue is about newspaper reportage, and on an issue having extremely little to do with Rashid's life - Obama supposedly praising him. The LA Times' sourcing policies have nothing at all to do with Khalidi, and whether a video exists or not and who owns it does not affect what happened in the slightest. In addition, it is a bogus issue. Newspapers make promises all the time to keep sources and materials confidential. Those promises may not survive court orders if someone subpoenas them, because there is no shield law, but there is absolutely no moral, ethnical, or legal duty for the newspaper to break its promise simply because a political operative thinks they can make hay if they had them. It's a non-issue, just the news of the minute. Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether the request is legitimate or not doesn't have any bearing on whether it should be mentioned. Andjam (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does the LAT decision about what to do with a videotape in its possession have to do with Rashid Khalidi? Yes, Khalidi, the subject of this article was at the party. Well, so what? Oh, Obama was also at the party. Well, so what? The existence of a tape documenting the presence of two people at a dinner party, and the owner of the videotapes "refusal" to release it to the public, do not belong in an encyclopedia article on Rashid Khalidi. And I've removed the reference. Please see WP:WEIGHT. Do you have an argument to make about how this is relevant in an article -- don't tell me its "verifiable." Tell me what it has to do with Khalidi.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Khalid wasn't just at the party - he was the focus of the party. Andjam (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Andjam: Fair enough. But you've defined "distinction without a difference." In neither case does the LA Times sourcing policy, about a video it has in its control, and complaints or otherwise about the LA Times sourcing policy, belong in an encyclopedic bio on Khalidi, whether it was a farewell party for Khalidi, a birthday party for Khalidi, or simply a party for someone else at which both men happened to be in attendance.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times' sourcing policy isn't my focus. A video of his farewell party is. The LA Times' sourcing policy is merely one of its reasons given for the LAT declining to release the video. Andjam (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have something new about the existence of this video to propose that's relevant and belongs in a bio of Khalidi? Let's here it then. As it stood before, it was a bunch of stuff about what mccain and palin and maybe some other people were demanding, for no reason (at least no clear reason) that had anything to do with Khalidi or had any place in an encyclopedic article on Khalidi. It's the sort of thing that might belong in an article on the presidential campaign. But here? Why on earth? What's the argument that some back and forth on the LA Times possession of a video -- the contents of which were reported already -- belongs in this article? "Mccain demands release of video! LA Times says it promised not too! Some commentator says they must always/must never release such videos." etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If an article were created on the party, and the video stuff were mentioned there, would it address your coatrack concerns? Andjam (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do i think this video of a going away party needs it's own article? No. But that's not what we're talking about. What i said was that information belongs, if anywhere, in the "2008 us presidential campaign" article if there is such. It has no relevance to the bio of this guy.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph on McCain's relationship

Can we have the paragraph mentioning McCain's relationship separate from the paragraphs mentioning Obama's relationship? The paragraph doesn't flow that well otherwise. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

why not -- could you cut that section down while your doing it by at least removing the sentence referencing the IRS file? I would get rid of the specifics on the center too if it was up to me, i.e. "While McCain was head of the IRI the institute gave nearly $500,000 to an NGO founded by Khalidi." Either way, go ahead and make it a new graph. Certainly would look better.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See no logical reason to remove supporting information - the IRS filing that shows McCain's chairmanship and the actual grant. More reliable than newspaper reports to see the actual document! I consider that fortuitous. P.S. Made simple separately headed p'graphs. AlbertHall (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AlbertHall, we should stick with what secondary sources have said. When we start digging through primary sources to buttress allegations made by one side in a controversy, we violate NOR and SYN, and NPOV becomes an issue too. This was an issue with all the variants of the "PLO connection" coatrack sections, and it's an issue here as well (albeit less egregiously).--G-Dett (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't figure out what SYN means, but managed to look up NOR and NPOV...As far as the latter two, the IRS document is no more original research and point of view than a picture of the Taj Mahal in an article on India. In fact, the pdf removal seems POV (if I am interpreting correctly the abbrev.). AlbertHall (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The IRS filing is a primary source. Primary sources are desirable in most source-based writing, such as scholarship, investigative journalism, etc. Wikipedia is probably unique in discouraging writing from primary sources. As WP:RS puts it, "they must be used with extreme caution in order to avoid original research." (Again, only on Wikipedia is "original research" a bad thing.) Primary sources can be necessary in certain types of situations (breaking events, for example), admissible in others, borderline or unacceptable in still others, etc. But it's almost always a bad move to turn to primary sources when the issue is controversial. This can seem counterintuitive: primary sources seem by definition "more reliable," as you say, than what so-and-so says about them. But the problem arises from selection and presentation; the implied authoritative weight and relevance of this or that piece of evidence in the overall context of the controversy is being determined not by real-world discussion but by the Wikipedian. That creates problems of WEIGHT, neutrality, and yes, original research. (SYN, by the way, is short for synthesis, assembling source material to advance a position.)

For an actual example of this, see the recent attempts to create a subsection cobbling together quotes from Khalidi's book, selected by Wikipedians because they were thought to demonstrate that he "really did" work for the PLO, along with decades-old primary-source dispatches from foreign bureaus in which information is attributed to "PLO spokesman" Rashid Khalidi – all in order to buttress one side in the argument about Khalidi's resumé.

For a hypothetical example, imagine if the videotape of Obama's toast to Khalidi were leaked and became widely available on the internet, and reliable secondary sources for whatever reason weren't touching it. It would be inappropriate for us to use the tape itself as a primary source in this article, for Obama's exact words or body language or whatever.

There really would be no end to the abuses if we used primary sources in this way. Someone could get a section going called "Attitudes towards Zionists," and cull together a whole carton of cherry-picked quotations, arranged into an insinuating mosaic.

We depend on secondary sources in these cases to frame discussion of controversies, to select and delimit what within it is relevant, and so on. Does this make sense?--G-Dett (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The logical reason is that it's a redundant extra sentence to support something that was already written and supported by a reliable secondary source, which is prefered to the primary source. It's not worth fighting over to me, but it's poor writing, redundant, and in violation of policy. And, yes, I agree with G-Dett that you start giving in on these matters, and further soapboxing is inevitable.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Albert: Please read WP:NOR WP:SYN and WP:NPOV before arguing this point further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your arguments and suggestions. As the IRS filing is a primary source, one could argue for retention based on WP NOR and SYN "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:* only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." (from NOR SITE). But could live without last sentence...AlbertHall (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biographies of living people (BLP) also has a section advising against the use of primary sources in articles on living people. As a side note, the situation with images is slightly different to text, so the Taj Mahal picture example is not the best example to use. Andjam (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)