Talk:Rashid Khalidi

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

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)