Talk:Rashid Khalidi

Re Article Protection

In response to User:ChildofMidnight's question on my talk page, which I'm interpreting as a request to reconsider the page protection, is there now a consensus version of the article we can put in place? I'm very happy to remove the protection if that's the case (it will currently expire on 20 January). EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a section here that several people signed on to, before discussion seemed to fizzle out. The placement was discussed here. So, speaking for myself, I agreed to placing the linked text in the section "Family, Education and Career", between what are currently the second and third paragraphs, if that satisfies others. Mackan79 (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I said, I'll be happy to either make the edit or remove the protection so someone else can, if we can get some sort of agreement from the other regulars here. EyeSerene^talk 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with putting the text in the suggested box above between the second and third paragraphs for now, and then we can discuss a more logical re-organization of the article, if necessary, at our leisure. I plan on (eventually) placing the sources in citation templates to maintain consistency with the rest of the article. -- Avi (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. All of the parties sounded very close before the discussion wound down, and I think it's safe to invoke silence=consent with respect to anyone who does not object in the next few days... (unless anyone would care to notify them). Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good Wikidemon. Ideally, I'm hoping to see some sort of accord (or at least acknowledgement of mutual sufferance!) between you and ChildofMidnight, since there would obviously be no point in unprotecting the article if edit-warring then resumed... perhaps I ought to add a gentle reminder to all editors that further edit-warring will lead to blocks, even if WP:3RR is not crossed. A self-imposed one- or even zero-revert rule while content development is underway may be a good idea.

Looking at the discussion above it seems to me that there was indeed a near-consensus, and if we give a couple more days for ChildofMidnight, Historicist, and Jaakobou to comment if they want to, we should hopefully be able to get things underway again. EyeSerene^talk 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with putting up the material as agreed. Also, just back from two weeks in a country where the web and the newspapers are censored, and a Bureau of religious affairs not only writes the weekly Friday sermons for delivery nationwide, but reviews and censors additional remarks Mullahs wish to make from the minbar) I just want to say that it's great to be home.Historicist (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not the source of any trouble with ChildofMidnight, so it is not a matter of reaching accord. At any rate, since nobody has voiced objections, anybody should feel free to implement edits faithful to that consensus proposal. Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article unprotected

As editors are clearly keen to get on with improving this article, and we seem to have some basis of agreement, I've removed the article protection. I'll leave it to the regulars here to insert their consensus text above.

I'll keep the article on my watchlist, and will apply a strict interpretation of the spirit of WP:3RR and WP:EW in the case of any further edit-warring. There is of course no problem with editors following the bold, revert, discuss cycle, but because I have no intention of again disadvantaging those editors who wish to work productively by reapplying protection, edit-warring will result in a block on the offending account(s). My talk page is always open if anyone has any concerns or it doesn't look like I'm paying attention. All the best with your editing, EyeSerene^talk 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented what seems to be (I hope and trust) a consensus among the editors as to how to phrase the material under discussion. I have copied verbatim (other than a few format things) the version under "proposed text" that seems to have been unchanged for a couple weeks. Although there wasn't agreement where to put it, I've followed Avi's suggestion - eventually, the whole article ought to be reorganized to flow in a better order so I hope the exact location for now isn't a big deal. Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you added it to the section on his political views. As I said above I'm unclear why it would go there, but if so, it seems the statement from Lassner and Troen is an appropriate tie in. I just added it for that reason; if there is an issue with this presumably someone will say. Mackan79 (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Breaking consensus?

Historicist just made this edit[1] which, in my opinion, diverges substantially from the consensus we only recently implemented. The sentence as it stood was part of the agreement, and serves to show that whatever Khalidi's relationship may have been with the PLO he distanced himself from it. The very crux of the agreement was how to pose the various sources, reliable and otherwise, that claimed that Khalidi was an "official", "spokesman", etc., of the PLO, despite his denial, and others that say he never was. We agreed on the exact text to be implemented. The new addition states directly that two authors were "identifying Khalidi as[sic] 'as an official'" of the PLO. We had agreed not to do that. Sensitive to Historicist's edit summary that the language created a "misleading impression of what Lassner and Troen actually wrote" I tried to simplify the statement so it would not create any misimpression[2] but ChildofMidnight summarily reverted in Historicist's change.[3] If we cannot agree on any neutral language to satisfy Historicist's new objection to the consensus wording (frankly, I do not see the problem), we should leave it as is. Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that ChildofMidnight has now reverted again[4] - edit warring on this. I will leave a talk page cautiion, and urge people to leave the stable, consensus version. If that cannot happen I will seek administrative help on this again. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please revert your false accusation. I don't appreciate your harassment and incivility. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You have asked me to respond here rather than your talk page[5] so I will do so. I have never been uncivil or harassed you, and I have not abused you or the article. I have honored your request not to post unnecessarily on your talk page. However, leaving a simple edit warring caution on your talk page, to give you notice and an opportunity to stop before requesting an administrator's attention, is the way these things are done. That is not an accusation, false or otherwise - I am merely reporting that you have edit warred against the consensus we all reached. I asked you civilly on your talk page to self-revert, and instead you respond with accusations, threats,[6] and demands. Please, restore the consensus version of the language. If you do not I will ask for administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• There was no consensus around the idea of adding the quote form Lassner and Troen. User:Mackan79 has suggested it previously without winning consensus and added it withotu discussion after the consensus material was posted. I added another sentence because the quote inserted by Mackan79 upsets the neutrality of the section. If Wikidemon wishes to return to the consensus version, the way to do so would be to remove the Lassner/Troen material inserted by Mackan79.Historicist (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind removing it either. However, that sentence as it stood from January 12[7] until today[8] does seem to be part of the consensus language everyone approved at Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 7#Suggested text (under construction). I do not recall why I left it out initially. Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that removing the late-added text is a good idea and a simple way to resolve this.Historicist (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Re-Protection

We worked long and hard on this article to get somewhere acceptable and having this nearly devolve into another edit war so soon afterwards is unacceptable. I have restored the article to the state it was prior to the insertion by Mackan of the Troen/Lassner text. I personally am apathetic as to whether it should be in or not and how. However, if y'all would please take the next 3 days to discuss the matter and work something out here, it would be much better than having to levy a slew of 3RR blocks. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well let's see. I see the material is actually back in the section on his political views, now, which was not something I had signed on to; that was also why I added the Troen/Lassner statement, because it brings the issue around to his political views as opposed to simply his affiliations. In either case, though, it seems their statement could be there, since it remains the assessment of (IMO) our best source on this topic.

I'm not sure Historicist's addition is so bad in theory, although there is at least a technical problem. The major adjustment would need to be to acknowledge that this comment is historical, for instance "In 2007, identifying Khalidi as having 'served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)....'" The need to clarify this should be clear, but I don't know if there is a better way.

If that is added, though, it would seem a bit much for the "Family, education and career" section. So it's possible we should leave the whole thing out, but then we should return the paragraph to that section.

I doubt we'll need any blocking, but I think it's worth suggesting that certainly if we do we should ask an outside administrator. I don't mind the three day protection either (or think it was unreasonable), but that is probably something that should be done by someone outside as well in the future, to avoid potential disagreements. Hopefully we'll be alright without it. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Mackan7's sugggested language: "In 2007, identifying Khalidi as having 'served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)....'"Historicist (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not what we agreed to and in my opinion it gets to the heart about why we had a disagreement in the first place. The point is that we cannot tell from the sources whether Khalidi was in fact a paid official agent of the PLO, or was some kind of unofficial intermediary. This source flat out claims that he "served...as an official" in the PLO. Others flat out say he did not. We should not stack the deck in favor of sources on one side or the other. Further, it is a parenthetical comment that is unnecessary to clarify the main part of the sentence, which is that (whatever his role may have been) his opinion about the organization changed and he later saw them in a negative light. I am okay with dropping the entire sentence, although it appears from the conversation that the version we apparently reached consensus on, is the version in the section above, which is identical to the main page text as implemented on January 12. Did / do we have consensus for that version or do we not? Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that at this point it seems that there is a disagreement as to how to put the sentence in, specifically whether or not the authors' discussion of Khalidi's movement away from the PLO should have those same authors' description of Khalidi's position with the PLO appended to it, and I would counsel leaving it out entirely for now. What some editors view as parenthetical others may view as crucial. As the paragraph as constructed does inform the reader as to the basics of the nebulosity of any official relationship and provides sources which link to citations for all sides, I believe that the difficulty in coming to how to state Lassner/Troen outweighs the benefits. -- Avi (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Mackan and Historicist's version. Something being controversial or disputed isn't a good reason to leave it out. It just needs to be balanced and fairly presented in the appropriate context. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine either way, for what it is worth. With only one opinion against (WikiDemon) perhaps over the weekend a consensus for the Mackan79 version can be decided upon. -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We went through a consensus process and I thought we had a consensus version. Now we're proposing to revisit the issue, after less than two weeks? I agreed to that as a compromise, not as a baseline from which to insert more attempts to claim that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman. If we are going to describe a source explicitly stating that he was we should include likewise cover a source explicitly stating that he was not - in which case neither should be included, because it has never been shown that the fact of a disagreement of the sources is anything significant. There is only one person so far who has objected to removing the sentence, so if we're going to overrule anyone why not just remove the sentence? The reason to omit controversial / disputed and possibly untrue information about living people is to avoid harm and disparagement.Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. I thought we had a stable version of this page, until there appeared to be a unilateral decision to make changes to a heavily disputed portion of this article. Khoikhoi 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I intended to suggest a preference for leaving it out, whether or not that was clear, so long as the material is put back in the Family, Education and Career section. That seems at the least to be capable of garnering consensus. I'm not entirely comfortable with the word "idenitifying" otherwise, as it suggests that they are identifying him as part of this debate. That is why I left it out in the first place, since it isn't an appropriate comment on the debate, and doesn't provide new information otherwise; I don't think we should give the false impression that people are making an issue of this when they aren't, or giving excessive or repetitive focus to the issue in parts of his biography where the reliable sources don't support it. If I read all of this correctly, though, the simplest answer seems still to take the whole sentence out and put the paragraph back in the section on "Family, Education, and Career." Mackan79 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The section seems to fit better where it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

Could I be allowed to attach one of my photographs of Rashid? (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NLN_Rashid_Khalidi.jpg) In my view, it is in the public interest - irrespective of whatever administrivia is being resolved behind the scenes. The ongoing Gaza issue - and Khalidi speaking publicly about it - would seem to indicate that getting the info/photo out in a timely manner is of some importance. Any assistance here greatly appreciated. Apologies if I have offended anyone or committed some faux pas in making this request in this location in this manner - I am no wikipede, just a photojournalist. Thanks again. Thomas Good (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. You are the photographer and donated that per. the GDFL license? Then we can add it as soon as the article protection is lifted. Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am the photographer and everything I do is CopyLeft. Thanks much! BTW, I am now uploading the video I shot last night for the Lawyers Guild (I'm a member) - Rashid was very good - eloquent, articulate, etc. www.youtube.com/nextleftnotes (all of our youtube footage is also copyleft, dunno if this helps anyone but thought I'd pass it on). 24.168.91.228 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)