Talk:Rashid Khalidi/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Rashid Khalidi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

PLO connection

Long before Khalidi became notable and while Barak Obama was still a kid, Khalidi was interviewed in Beruit once the the Los Angeles Times and bthen by two separate New York Times reporters, these interviews took place in 1976, 1978, and 1982. I have been to all three paperas and read the stories. Khaldi is cited as a spokesman for and employee of the PLO. I have put the exact quotations and citations into the article. I know that Khalidi has denied this. someone needs to put up that citation. But I cannot imagine a justification for ignoring the evidence in these three old news stories. The LA Times and the NY Times do make mistakes, But, the same erroroneous description of a source by three reporters in three separate years? hard to believe.Historicist (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I found a quotation from Khalidi denying that he was a PLO spokesman and added it. However, as an historian, I do not give equal weight to contemporary evidence from reliable souces (i.e. the NY and LA Times) and a denial made two decades later made by a political acrtivist on a politically sensitive subject. Memory is frequently affected by self-interess, and people deny what they think they can get away with denying.Historicist (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

New things on the Khalidi's connectin with the PLO.

1) The Los Angeles Times is backing its 1976 description of Khalidi as a PLO spokesman with a new story describing Khalidi as, “a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.”^[1]

2) A truly persuasive report has surfaced on martin Kramer’s blog. [ http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm#update3] It comes from Pacifica Radio. ^[2] According to Kramer:

Khalidi is given an affiliation by the narrator five times, as follows (with the elapsed time in parentheses): • "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed in Beirut, is an official spokesperson for the Palestinian news service Wafa" (7:34)

• "PLO spokesperson Rashid Khalidi" (11:45)

• "Rashid Khalidi, official spokesperson for the PLO" (21:00)

• "Rashid Khalidi, interviewed at the headquarters of the PLO in Beirut" (29:57) • "Rashid Khalidi is the leading spokesperson for the PLO news agency, Wafa" (32:51) I listened to the program (Kramer has the link) and found his citations to be accurate.

I believe that these two items should be added to the article as footnotes and that the lead of the PLO Connection section should read as the Los Angeles Times reads: “acted as a spokesman for Yassir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.” With Khalidi’s denial at the end of the section. The Los Angeles Times did not print something like this at this moment in time without serious consideration.Historicist (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Public Life section

There is a graph there that begins saying his statements on pal/israel have been his "most controversial." No argument on that from me. But the next sentence reports that khalidi believes Mandatory Palestine in 1948 was "occupied." This may be one of the least controversial positions on the matter to hold -- it's one of the few areas of total agreement between israelis and palestinians (we get into controversy over what should have happened afterward). The following statement about relative territorial control between Israel, Egypt and Jordan at the end of 1948 is again not particularly controversial or even notable. Can anyone explain why this odd digression is here? I'm considering shortening drastically or deleting.

What follows in this section should also be drastically shortened. The bit on his view on "resistance to occupation" should be distilled to this: "Khalidi believes international law gives Palestinians a right to fight occupation. A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi's stance, arguing he does not sufficiently distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. In an interview discussing this editorial, Khalidi objected to the Suns characterization of his position and said the paper had taken his statements on international law out of context."

If i had my druthers i would delete the bit on his criticism of a possible future payment of reparations by arab states for land confiscated by Israel. It's hard to understand without a lot of knowledge of the back story, refers to something that might hypothetically happen some day, and isn't particularly notable or controversial otherwise.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Rashid Khalidi has a long and significant connection with the PLO, one that goes back decades before the current presidential cmpaign. This page needs an objective discussion of this connection. In particular his employment by the PLO as a spokesman from between 1976 and 1982 is supported by the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. It ought not to be arbitrarily removed. Instead, Khalidi's denial of the employment (a denial which came only two decades later) should be indcluded along with statements from responsible sources that are skeptical about the denial. 2) his involvement with the PLO at Madrid needs an objective section. 3) his involvement with the PLO in the 1970's which gained him unparallelled access to the leadership upon which he based important writings needs an objective section. While I understand that people are feeling heated about Obama (whom I have personally supported actively for President,) editors need to step back and keep the page objectiveHistoricist (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I and others have removed the material as a WP:BLP violation. The above editor has apparently violated WP:3RR on this and I have filed a report accordingly. Although some amount of material regarding his connections with the PLO may well be warranted, calling him a "PLO spokesman" is a violation of BLP, NPOV, and a number of other policies. There are a few old scattered sources that the editor claims say he is (this cannot be verified readily as they are not linked online). It is clearly a matter of debate; recent sources mention that there is a current controversy over political partisans calling him a PLO spokesman as a way to disparage Barack Obama, with whom he has had contact. The majority of sources disagree. He denies it. The issue is mostly put forth in lots of conservative blogs, partisan anti-Obama sites, and editorials - basically the latest political smear of the day. If this were not a BLP matter we could have a reasonable debate over whether the sources are correctly cited and whether they establish enough of a minority opinion to be worth reporting per WP:WEIGHT. But this is a living individual being used as a political smear - the claim that he was a PLO spokesman during their terrorist period (and therefore, abetting terrorists) is highly disparaging. It is disputed, and not firmly sourced, hence a BLP vio. Editors should not edit war to insert disputed content to begin with, but doubly so when it is challenged on BLP grounds.Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Historicist, you're now saying this page needs separate sections for "objective discussion" of (i) Khalidi's job as "PLO spokesman" and his "denials" thereof, (ii) the 1970s phase of his "involvement" with the PLO, and (iii) his role in the peace process at Madrid.

I gotta admire how you're going big with all this, but the short answer is, No it doesn't. What the article needs is not the big bonanza investigation you're dreaming of. NPOV, BLP, SYN, NOR, and plain old common sense stand in the way of that. What it needs is a short, neutrally written section on the claims and counterclaims made in the context of the 2008 presidential campaign.--G-Dett (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

With regards to verifying contents, you can see some content scanned online if you google for "Khalidi of the PLO" (the website is called Sandbox). I'm merely mentioning it as a convenience link, not neccessarily as a RS. Andjam (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality check initiated

User:Historicist has initiated a neutrality check on this article. His grievance is the removal of a new subsection he created, "PLO Connection," which he first added to the "Public Life" section, then promoted up the page to "Family, Education, and Career." It read as follows:

Removed - if it's a BLP vio on the main page it's a BLP vio here; content can be found int he edit history - Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

He's now warning on my user page that the dispute will be "submitted for arbitration" ~~though he's refused thus far even to discuss it on this talk page.~~

~~Hoo boy.~~ [Appears willing to talk now]

At any rate, I want to make very clear here why the new section is a non-starter. It appears at first to be sourced to a range of decades-old primary sources used to support the argument that Khalidi worked for the PLO. This in itself would present a SYN/NOR problem, but on closer inspection it becomes apparent that Historicist has merely presented as primary sources material alluded to by two opinion pieces from partisan publications: for Historicist's claim that "Khalidi has denied that he ever worked for the PLO," we have a 2004 op-ed, "Arafat minion as professor," published in the right-wing tabloid The Washington Times; for Historicist's claim that "Others have found his denial unconvincing," we have an American Spectator op-ed from last week, "The PLO's Professor," which Historicist is setting up as a rebuttal to a claim supposedly made four years earlier. The latter in fact contains nothing whatsoever about Khalidi's "denials"; it addresses the issue only in terms of recent Obama statements. According to the old 2004 Washington Times piece, Khalidi "dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman." This latter piece is an all-out hystericist screed, according to which "'Professor' Rashid Khalidi has been shilling for terrorists since the early 1980s"; even if Historicist were to quote it accurately, which he has not, it would have absolutely no place in a BLP as a source for controversial claims.

The American Spectator op-ed might be used in a more limited way (i.e. as a source for some of the partisan back-and-forth going on in light of the presidential campaigns), but Historicist is grossly misrepresenting its contents.

Above all, anything about the "PLO connection" controversy needs to be dealt with – succinctly, neutrally, and for G-d's sake accurately – in the section on the presidential campaigns, since this is the grounds for its notability. No more COATRACKing, no more trying to show who's telling the truth through original-research-primary-source-hobby-horse-synthesis sections.--G-Dett (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing the neutrality tag - the editor is blocked for now. If he or anyone wants to propose adding the material they can have a discussion here (though consensus looks unlikely in the proposed form). There does not seem to be a bona fide neutrality issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - are you demoting articles by the New York Times and LA Times to "primary source" status because they're about Khalidi, not about the election campaign? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Andjam, no; I think there's some confusion here. The mainstream media pieces you mention are totally legit secondary sources for this article; and as I've said here and there on this page, the flap over Obama-Khalidi merits succinct coverage. What I've called primary sources – remembering that a source's status as primary or secondary depends on its use in a given context – are (a) the two or three decades-old dispatches from Beirut which are not about Khalidi at all, but merely attribute something to him as a source and identify him (erroneously according to Khalidi) as a "PLO spokesman"; and (b) the quotes culled from his books, which were presented (by Wikipedians, not RS's) as support for the position that he worked for the PLO.

Use of the Beirut dispatches to support the claim that Khalidi worked for the PLO is a classic example of why Wikipedia cautions against the use of primary sources. There are a couple of reports from the period identifying their source as a "PLO spokesman," vs. hundreds identifying him in a different way, and according to Khalidi the former misidentified him. Now, when high-quality (per BLP) reliable secondary sources mull over these dispatches as evidence for their commentary on the dispute, we can report their conclusions (with a wary eye toward due weight, neutrality, and so on). But to sift through the primary-source evidence ourselves is classic original research.

Again, just to be totally clear, I'm not trying to get this controversy off this page – not at all. Just guarding against (a) excessive coatracking, and (b) subsections of supporting evidence for either side in the controversy, assembled through primary-source-based original research. Recent coverage of the controversy qua controversy is fine.--G-Dett (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I rewrote the section without the "his denial was seen as dubious" POV. Also demoted the "fact" of his work with the PLO to a "media reported" status. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's better, and thanks for the effort. But I don't think it gets around the BLP issue, and certainly not the POV matter. First, the heading presupposes a relationship, so that's a POV issue. Second, rephrasing an unproven accusation as having been sourced to a specific news article does not rehabilitate that it is an unproven accusation. That it is in an (old) New York times article suggests one take it seriously. However, from what I can tell it is a casual attribution/identification regarding his being an intermediary between the PLO and the peace process, and in another instance an attribution of a quote, not an article directly addressing the point of Khalidi's relationship with the PLO. The right wing blog / opinion world has pounced on these tidbits and put them all over the web as evidence that Khalidi was a PLO operative. Khalidi's denial in 2004 specifically addressed this issue, and claimed that various journalists covering the Palestinian / Lebanon situation must have misidentified him. That is something we cannot easily resolve here. If we report this at all we would have to report a dispute or a controversy involving some accusing Khalidi of being close to the PLO with him denying it, not try to prove the underlying claim that there is a connection. Under the circumstnaces I'm going to remove it again, and await some consensus on the best way to describe this if at all. Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns regarding the title but I can't say I'm not following you entirely. Mention of the (very notable) media which made a claim about him and adding his response are the best way of dealing with this issue. It is not our position to decide why they made this claim and/or why he would deny this claim. As it was rephrased that it is not a fact but only a rejected report from the 1980s, I don't see where the deletion/objection is coming from anymore. I'm open to suggestions on the title but I believe that the latest edit from the mass revert[1] is a bit over-protective. It's not like Khalidi is not a known PLO supporter and a note that he may have been more than just a supporter, i.e. short term adviser, is not an exceptional claim. I'm open to suggestions though, both on the title and general content. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the problem arises from the use of primary source materials – in this case, phrases of attributition used by decades-old media reports. A decades-old media report about Khalidi and his job would be a different thing. But as soon as sifting through old reports and compiling their phrases of attribution becomes kosher, the section you want to add is going to begin to look like this:

Rashid Khalidi was twice described as a spokesman for the PLO in Lebanon, once by the Los Angeles Times in 1976 and once by the New York Times in 1978. In no other news agency's reports, and in no other reports by the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times, was Khalidi ever described as working for the PLO. According to The Washington Times in 2004, Khalidi described these two as instances of misattribution. Khalidi was cited dozens of times throughout that period by other news organs, who described him variously as "Rashid Khalidi of the Institute of Palestinian Studies," "a professor of political science who is close to Al Fatah," "a Palestinian academic who is an observer at the PNC," "a professor of political science at Beirut's prestigious American University," "a Georgetown University analyst," and "a Palestinian professor at the American University of Beirut."

Do you see the problem? All of the above is as fully supported by the sources as what you've written. Both your paragraph and mine, however, are (a) tendentiously arranged, and (b) compiled through original research involving primary sources.--G-Dett (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the problems. Do a few cases of possible attribution now shift the burden of Khalidit (and by extension, Wikipedia) to prove that he is not a PLO "spokesman"? Given the political charge around this thing, that he is a living person, and that the PLO was one of the major terrorist groups of its time, using those sources to advance a claim (cited inline as a claim or not) that Khalidi spoke for terrorists is problematic. Another problem is the way of presenting the material. The two neutral ways to say it, as I see it, are to cover this period in his life fairly - his affiliations, accomplishments, life events, or to cover the new controversy fairly. In the former case we would go over his major activities in the period 1982-1991, his writings, his professional dealings. If and only if we got strong sourcing to say in a relevant way that working for the PLO was part of his career, we could do that. I doubt the majority of sources support this. Second, we could say that in the run-up to the 2008 election editorials and partisan blog sources initiated a controversy by claiming simultaneously that he had been affiliated with the PLO, that he was anti-Israel, and that he was close to Obama. Simply repeating what those sources say is not neutral in this second approach. If we are describing the scandal we would have to discuss the context. I don't know if there is cause for that. Is it really notable (and does it pass BLP) to describe as a major event in Khalidi's life that he became the subject of a partisan smear? Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, You are in error in believing that this began with the election campaign. Published sources have been accusing Rashid Khalidi of having a PLO connection , and he has been denying it to reporters, at least since the time he jumped form Chicago to Columbia, about 1993-4. It has come up again ang again. What the campaign did was to inspire (Republicans I assume) to dig up the old News sources. and, apparently, inspire the Los Angeles Times to check its sources and make a flat statement last Thursday that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman. Of course it's significant. If you want to add material, go ahead, although his biography as it stands is pretty good, not the typical, thin, Wikipedia academic bio. But the fact that more can be added is not an argument for removing something this significant and this well-sourced.Historicist (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Khalidi "jumped to" – i.e. was hired by – Columbia in 2003, not a decade earlier as Historicist would have it. My guess is he's thinking of the "dossier" Campus Watch collected on him (and every other American scholar mildly critical of U.S. or Israeli policy), and the fringey-bloggy backwater back and forth that ensued.

Khalidi's alleged connection to the PLO has become notable for one reason, the presidential campaign that ends tomorrow. It should be covered here under that rubric, not in proliferating hobby-horse subsections. Mainstream media coverage of the controversy should be relied upon, not partisan blogs (otherwise guess what goes in? – Talking Points Memo and various Atlantic Monthly bloggers who think the hoopla is a vivid example of anti-Arab racism on the part of the McCain campaign and various media pundits). Primary sources from the archives should be mentioned only insofar as they've been mentioned by reliable, mainstream secondary sources writing on the current controversy, and the whole thing should be done with succinctness, restraint, and greater knowledge of – and respect for – NPOV, BLP, and NOR than the current bunch of hobby-horse jockeys has shown thus far.--G-Dett (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo G-Dett,

I'd be more inclined to accept your position if it can be ratified with a few links to reliable sources. As of now, there seems to be 4 reliable sources discussing the issue of possible PLO connections. Three of them, which include Khalidi's book, cite a connection with the PLO and a 4th one (Khalidi again) rejecting the raised premise. The sources must make the argument more than anything else.

p.s. I'm thinking that the US campaign smears are the secondary story in this issue rather than the main.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou. I think your postscript marks precisely where we disagree. I guess I haven't seen any sourced confirmation of the notability of his "PLO connection" except in the context of the Obama controversy. Is there something you can point me to? Whether or not the old Beirut dispatches and the Khalidi books themselves verify the alleged connection, they certainly cannot demonstrate that connection's notability; you really do need secondary sources for that, and the only ones I've seen are dealing with the Obama flap.--G-Dett (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether Professor Khalidi was in his youth a PLO spokesman was certainly a public issue long before President elect Obama announced his candidacy. I recalled having heard it at the time Khalidi jumped to Columbia in 2003-4 (sorry about the previous error of decade) but it may have been during the campus flap over the funding of the Edward Said Chair which Khalidi holds and which was endowed at about the same time.

Here, from the Campus-watch.org files, is an article sparked by the brouhaha over the funding sources for the Said Chair referring to "former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi," ^[3]

It's the sort of thing that was being said at the time, and this is the kind of material that the Washington Times reporter was covering when that paper interviewed Khalidi in 2004 and he denied the PLO connection. We pretty much all believed him. After all, the accusation was based on a single news story, and Tom Friedman is capable of getting an identifier wrong.

The issue has been brought up since. I believe that it got back into the papers (at least, the Daily Princetonian,) when Rashid was considered and nixed for a job at Princeton.

It has also been published as a matter of fact by reputable people and academic presses:

Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography,

Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 78, 119, describe Khalidi as:"PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi," "former PLO spokesman."

Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, Jacob Lassner, Selwyn Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, p. 72,

"The son of a diplomat, Rashid Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)."

Rubin, Troen and Lassner are serious and distinguished people who do not write such things without evidence. Indeed, these two books are by individuals whose scholarship is so highly regarded (note: one may disagree with their politics, but all four authors have high reputations for the accuracy of their information) that both books should be included in the article as sources along with the news articles.

I feel similarly about last Thursday's LA Times article describing Khalidi as an LA Times spokesman. That was the LA Times speaking ex cathedra and flatly stating that Khalidi held such a position in the relevant period.

The difficulty with the blogs that G-Dett threatens to add to the page, is that they published not only in the heat of a political campaign, but before Martin Kramer presented this fresh evidence. I can show you a thousand sources that say that the Trojan war is a myth invented by Homer. They were, of course, all made obsolete by Schliemann. Once he did the dig and gazed on the face of Agamemnon anyone who used one of those old sources to establish that the stories were mere Homeric allegations would have been laughed out of the room. G-Dett's attempt to bring these bloggers into the picture is similarly obsolete.

A formal refutation of Khalidi's affiliation with the PLO by someone who had examined the LATimes, NYTimes, and Radio Pacifica stories and undertaken to refute them based on some sort of close reasoning would, of course, be different. But to G-Dentt I say, you are like a man who ignores Schliemann to tell us that Homer's stories are baseless.

Why do I care? I don't like to be played for a fool. Rashid has spend years denying this charge. Most of us are in the way of believing that our colleagues are not liars. I and pretty much everyone I know believed him. Not we discover that he was lying. And I am ticked.

In conclusion. It is incorrect to assert that this allegation was new with this campaign. It has been out there for years. What the campaign did was to "inspire" people, (Republicans, presumably,) to scour the archives for proof. With an LA Times article, two NY Times articles and that remarkable Pacifica Radio interview, they found it.

Khalidi is a significant figure. His extended stint as a PLO spokesman at the height of the PLO terror attacks on international airline flights is a significant part of his career. The Presidential campaign is over. I'm going out to celebrate. But, for the record, the now-validated fact that Rashid was a PLO spokesman belongs on the man's web page.Historicist (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Still another reliable source. [2] It's a blog, but look at the source, not the blog. It reads:

Thomas W. Lippman of the Middle East Institute, and a former diplomatic, national security, and Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post (1966-99, 2003), has published a letter in the November 1 edition of that newspaper. Lippman writes: The Post's defense of Rashid Khalidi ["An 'Idiot Wind,'" editorial, Oct. 31] was generally commendable, but in fairness to Sen. John McCain, it should be noted that Mr. Khalidi was indeed "a PLO spokesman." In the early years of the Lebanese civil war, Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict. As we used to say in the pre-electronic newspaper business: Check the clips. Lippman informs me that he personally went around to see Khalidi as part of his reporting duties whenever he was in Beirut. --fini-- This is the point I was making above to G-Dett. Responsible people, like the Washington Post editorial Board (and me) took Rashid at his word. Now we have an equally reputable former Washington Post correspondent who corroborates the Radio Pacifica report. Lipmann says that he was in Rashid's office regularly while Rashid was PLO spokesman.Historicist (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I'm not really sure on whether or not Khalidi was or wasn't a PLO spokesperson. However, just today, Ehud Ye'ari said he was so I would suggest that we just write it as "reportedly" and end it there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As per Jakobou's suggestion, I have put the word reportedly into the paragraph he previously edited. It is precisely two sentences long. With footnotes to the relevant news stories. The two sentences would read: Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. However, The Washington Times reported in 2004 that Khalidi was denying that he ever worked for the PLO. If there is agreement, and if, now that the election is over, the block is removed, I will add these two sentences to the article, with the footnotes..Historicist (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Grammatically speaking, I think "Khalidi denied" is better than "Khalidi was denying". Other than that, if y'all think that the edit wars have ceased, I'll unlock the article. But last time I was assured they had stopped, they restarted pretty quickly

-- Avi (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. However, The Washington Times reported in 2004 that Khalidi denied that he ever worked for the PLO. This language is good with me. Can you tell me what the proper procedure is if you unlock the article, I put this section back where it was, and another editor removes it?Historicist (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

The article was locked to prevent such back-and-forth. Let other interested editors comment on your suggestion while the article remains locked, so that whatever the consensus decision is, it won't be quickly reverted. -- Avi (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be fine, but I don't think we should include the second sentence about the "denial," because I don't think an op-ed from the Washington Times is a good source for this sort of thing. For the record, here is the wording of his "denial" as it was relayed by the op-ed writer: ""I 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." We don't have the context of this quote.

Also, just to be clear, I trust all are agreed there will not be a special subsection for this? Historicist has produced a number of sources that taken together have convinced me that Khalidi probably was working in some official or unofficial spokesman role with the PLO. What this mostly reflects, however, is the diligence of his original research and the thoroughness of his immersion in the right-wing fringe blogosphere. What his sources do not demonstrate is the notability of Khalidi's still-murky relationship to the PLO during the Beirut years. Again (and again, til I'm blue in the face), the mainstream media has shown no interest in this angle whatsoever; their only interest was in the nature of the Obama-Khalidi relationship, not that of the Khalidi-PLO relationship. Nevertheless, Historicist has collected enough to convince me that I think a single sentence using the qualifier "reportedly" would be appropriate in his career bio. Just not a Kentucky Derby of hobby-horses racing in a stadium built by Campus Watch, with stands completely empty except for a few bloggers in the cheap seats.--G-Dett (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Historicist somewhere up above misreads me as "threatening" to bring in bloggers and other poor sources along the same lines as what he's citing. I have no such intention and never did. That was a prediction based on my experience of what happens on controversial pages when partisan editors square off against one another, armed with primary sources; it was not a threat about what I would do in such an unfortunate situation.--G-Dett (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Historicist's re-addition of the sentence, "Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982." Virtually all of your references for this are primary sources. You are taking old newspaper articles and using them to advance your claim that he worked for the PLO. This is not only inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research, but it also goes against WP:BLP. If he indeed worked for the PLO, we would have a majority of reputable news and "fact checking" organizations confirming this. We have to be very careful about what claims we make, especially alleging that someone worked for a terrorist organization. Please don't re-add the sentence again until there is a clear consensus here for you to do so. Thanks. Khoi khoi 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times article of October 30, 2008 seems to be sufficient sourcing. Some of the other sources should be removed as less desirable and the remaining ones should be combined, as having 7 ref links for a bunch of single-use sources is æsthetically displeasing. -- Avi (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Avi that the page would look better if the four news stories and the two academic books were grouped. I do think that it is appropriate to give the wording and links to all of the sources. It is indeed a serious matter to have been part fo the PLO in the 1970's. People readin this page should be able to access the sources.Historicist (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

According to the Washington Times Fact Checker, The McCain campaign has depicted Khalidi as a former "spokesman" for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Questioned about this claim, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers referred me to an April 10, 2008 story from the Los Angeles Times that reported that Khalidi "often spoke to reporters" on behalf of the PLO in the early 1970s while teaching at a university in Beirut. Khalidi has denied ever being a spokesman for the PLO, but this may be a question of semantics, revolving around whether he was a formal or informal spokesman. FactCheck.org says, "Khalidi, according to the story, taught at a university in Beirut in the 1970s, sometimes speaking to reporters on behalf of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (though he says he was never part of the PLO) and in the 1990s helped advise the Palestinian delegation during peace talks." ([3]) This is what most sources seem to confirm. If we're going to use the LA Times as a source we should take this into consideration as well, since the whole claim about him being part of the PLO comes from his allged work for Wafa. Khoi khoi 06:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Avi, all we have to do is attribute the source of allegation to conform to WP:NPOV and to include the denial of Khalidi. I have reworded the section to conform to these core wiki principles. Glen Twenty (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality check redux

user Wikidemon and user Khoikhoi have both removed factual material substantiated by the Los angeles Times. Neither of them has deigned to discuss the matter on the talk page. They simply remove it. In the case of user Wikidemon there have been three reverts without any discussion. I have discussed this in talk until I am blue inthe fingers. It is not possible to reach concensus unless those objecting to the material provide reasons. Users RonCram and Jaakobou have seen, edited, and approved the material. If wikidemon and Khoikhoi have reasonable objections, they should state them, Not arbitrarily remove material.Historicist (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I have left a caution on your page and on RonCram's. Please stop edit-warring over disputed material and try to reach consensus here first - we are discussing it, but I do not see much likelihood of consensus at this point. Five or six editors have made comments in the past few days concerned about BLP / POV / RS issues, several of whom objected to using the proposed sources to tie Khalidi to the PLO. I the POV dispute tag be removed. That is not a legitimate tactic in an edit war. Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Locked

OK, with back-and-forths, arguments about tags, and warning templates being handed out, I have once again locked the article. Please work things out here. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Any support for removing the POV template? The editor who added the template a second time is short-term blocked, and the article is medium-term protected. Dispute templates are redundant with dispute protection templates. Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be concerns about the article. It is not a BLP issue that requires removal, so I think removal of the template would be a content issue, which is restricted now, as opposed to a janitorial issue, although that is solely my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Gun and the Olive Branch

I've read that the radio documentary (available for download) identifies Khalidi as a PLO spokesman five times. I'm not a middle east expert though - does it qualify as a reliable source? Andjam (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by reliable. Radio Pacifica is an American radio network. Avowedly progressive. Located, I would say, somewhat to the left of The Nation. You may or may not like their politics on a particular issue. But they are unlikely to misidentify a source.Historicist (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Similar input needed

Now that the fury of elections has ended, I hope editors deeply concerned about Khalidi's connections with the PLO (which by 1974 had UN recognition) and Obama, can mosey on and edit with similar intensity the Victor G. Atiyeh page. The Oregon governor of Syrian descent sheltered Obama's Weatherman pal William Ayers while he was on the run, before becoming the Republic governor of that state. Atiyeh then became John McCain’s honorary campaign chairman in Oregon. Not a word of all this in his Wiki bio.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PLO connection sources

Ladies and gentlemen, can we try and have this discussed without having to have the article locked down again? The issue seems to be that there are some who have found sourced describing Khalidi as a PLO spokesman, and others feel that the sources brought are primary sourced, and should not be used in BLP articles. A few points:

Does anyone have sources that contradict Khalidi's relationship to the PLO or is the issue solely one of primary sources?
Regarding primary sources and BLP, there is no prohibition against using primary sources. Rather, WP:BLP, when discussing the presumption in favor of privacy states that "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability."
Regarding primary and secondary sources in general, WP:PRIMARY says:

For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:
* Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident written or narrated by the eyewitness is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archaeological artifacts; photographs; audio and video recordings; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, and television programs.
* Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.
* Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

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.

Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.

Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
— WP:PRIMARY

The above does not forbid the use of primary sources, and gives as an example of where they may be used as making "…descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source…[and] no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."
In this situation, the sources are being used for their descriptions of Khalidi as a spokesperson for the PLO, no further analysis or extrapolation is being performed.
Lastly, there is at least one secondary source, namely, the October 31, 2008 LA Times article.

As such, I do not think that removal of the information is appropriate, or even allowed, under the BLP policies as explained above. Are there any counterarguments? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Using unreliable and primary sources to accuse a living person of the membership in a terrorist organization is a clear violation of WP:BLP. If LAT wrote an article about him there it elaborated his connection s with PLO it is probably notable, otherwise if it passingly refer him as a PLO-spokesman than it is not Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Los Angeles Times is reliable and verifiable-one source is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there is a piece in the Washington Times as well, Arafat minion as professor, which is a secondary source, and one that discusses the PLO connection as its primary purpose. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Avi, as I've said above, the Washington Post Fact Checker has said, The McCain campaign has depicted Khalidi as a former "spokesman" for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Questioned about this claim, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers referred me to an April 10, 2008 story from the Los Angeles Times that reported that Khalidi "often spoke to reporters" on behalf of the PLO in the early 1970s while teaching at a university in Beirut. Khalidi has denied ever being a spokesman for the PLO, but this may be a question of semantics, revolving around whether he was a formal or informal spokesman. If we're going to add the LA Times link we need to take this into consideration as well. FactCheck.org states: "Khalidi, according to the story, taught at a university in Beirut in the 1970s, sometimes speaking to reporters on behalf of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (though he says he was never part of the PLO) and in the 1990s helped advise the Palestinian delegation during peace talks." ([4]) This is why we need to be very careful when we use old newspaper articles from the 70s and 80s. Much of the information can be outdated, obsolete, and newer material can contradict statements previously made in them. The link from the Washington Post for example is a better way to go about adding this material. My problem with gathering all these old newspapers is that the main claim that he was part of the PLO is based on his work with Wafa. If I recall correctly there was a similar instance where a user was trying to add information contradicting historians on the Armenian Genocide. He provided original newspaper articles from 1915 as his source, trying to say "see, see, the experts are wrong!" Would that be acceptable according to WP:PRIMARY? I don't see how using these old articles is any different here. Khoi khoi 07:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, Are you seriously comparing the standards of newspapers in 1915 to the standards of the contemporary New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? Newspapers in 1915 did not have anythingg comparable to the fact-checking standards of today's newspapers. Radio Pacifica, moreover, does not pretend to objectivity, it covers the news with an explicit agenda, but it does pretend to accuracy and is quite highly for its intentionally biased (i.e. in the matter of what stories to cover, what sources to use, and what aspects to emphasize) but highly accurate reporting.Historicist (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Three secodary sources Please note that in addition to four contemporary news reports, primary sources, there are three secondary sources.

1)Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin,

Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 78, 119, describe Khalidi as:"PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi," "former PLO spokesman."

2)Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, Jacob Lassner, S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, p. 72,

"The son of a diplomat, Rashid Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)."

The Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times described Khalidi as, “a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.” McCain, Palin demand L.A. Times release Obama video, By James Rainey, October 30, 2008, Los Angeles Times [5]

Can we please recognize that we have three very reliable secodary sources for this. I am not familiar with Mr. Rubin's work, but S. Ilan Troen and Jacob Lassner are historians of the first rank, certainly regarded within the profession as highly as Khalidi. Not the sort of men to write something like this without substantial evidence.Historicist (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)historicist

Regarding the "Beirut nerve center of the PLO" claim, to quote from a prominent international relations scholar, Stephen Zunes, Both McCain and Palin have referred to Khalidi as a former "spokesman" for the Palestine Liberation Organization, citing his time in Beirut during the late 1970s and early 1980s when the then-exiled PLO was based there and some of its armed factions were still engaged in terrorism. Khalidi was never a spokesman for the organization, however, instead serving during that period as a fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies and as a professor at the American University in Beirut. Later, he served in an advisory capacity for the non-PLO Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid peace talks. ([6])

Khoikhoi, The problem is that Zunes posted this on Nov. 1, BEFORE admittedly anti-Obama political bloggers uncovered the Pacifica story, the L.A. Times Story or the second N.Y. Times story. It does not bolster your case to cite people who published before the evidence surfacts.Historicist (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

How about this one? It was published on November 3rd.

R. Bruce McColm -- past president of the McCain-chaired International Republican Institute (IRI) when it first granted money to an organization co-founded by Rashid Khalidi -- e-mails Ken Silverstein at Harper's and pushes back against the attacks on Khalidi from Sen. McCain's campaign.

"Rashid Khalidi was well known for his criticism of Yasir Arafat. He never was a spokesman for the PLO and was a professor at the Institute for Palestine Studies and a professor at American University in Beirut," McColm writes. "He was the founder of the Center for Palestine Research and Studies. I was President of IRI during 1993 through 1995. The Clinton Administration wanted the various NED-related institutes to begin working on the West Bank. ([7]) Khoi khoi 06:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Ron Kampeas, is the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the JTA, The problem with the "spokesman" claim is that you can actually prove it's not true. In saner times, "prove it's not true" would be a phrase frowned on in an innocent until proven guilty culture. Khalidi's denial would be enough in the face of a lack of evidence as to same. Those promoting the claim cite a single 1982 article by Tom Friedman; Khalidi says Friedman got it wrong, and that the term "PLO spokesman" was used promiscuously in 1982 Beirut.

But like I said, things ain't so sane.

So here's the thing: What everyone acknowledges is that Khalidi was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid talks. That delegation - to a person - could not have had any formal affiliation with the PLO. Israel regarded the group as terrorist and its laws banned contact with its members; then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir made NOT being affiliated with the PLO it a condition of Israel's agreement to participate. The names of the Palestinian team would have been vetted by Israeli intelligence.

This was something of a nudge and a wink, of course: Faisal Husseini, who headed the team, was in constant contact with PLO headquarters in Tunis.

Still, it should put to rest the notion that Khalidi was ever a "spokesman" for the group. ([8])

Same as the zunes quote. this one was published on Oct. 30. Again BEFORE the evidence surfaced.Historicist (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Also from Kampeas:

*This started because the McCain campaign describes Khalidi as a “PLO spokesman.” Yet neither of the New York Times descriptions say he is a “spokesman” - he is a director of a PLO-run news service, according to Friedman in a single 1982 reference, but that does not imply “spokesman” (although, having monitored Wafa, I would acknowledge that it also does not confer journalistic legitimacy.) In 1978, he is simply identified as working for the PLO. ([9])

So, the New York Times TWICE identified Khalidi as working for the PLO, and this reporter, entirely properly in my opinion, objects to teh attempt by the Republican candidate to use this fact to smear Obama. My point.Historicist (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Khoi khoi 06:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, The Washington Post Fact Checker piece was posted on October. 30. It refers only to to the Los Angeles Times article of spring 2008. It does not have the October 30, 2008 Los Angeles Times article in which the LA Times stood by its old report from 1976 describing Khalidi as a spokesman. In fact, it is aware only of the 1982 New York Times article because the 1978 New York Times Article, the 1976 Los Angeles Times article or the Radio Pacifica article had not yet been rediscovered and publicized by right-wing, anti-Obama bloggers. Much as we may dislike the source, the excitement of the campaign did recover recover important new evidence from old news files. A few years back a wildfire devastasted a large area but revealed a previously unknown, large and intact Anasazi cliff-dwelling. This is similar, nasty political attack campaigns are as destructive as wildfires. But that does not mean that we should ignore the evidence they produce. The Washington Post Fact Checker, working from a single old news story, quite reasonably rejected it as proof that Khalidi was a PLO spokesman. One source. We now have four such stories. Four top reporters do not make the same error in four widely-spaced interviews. Moreover, the Pacifica reporter interviewed Khalidi at PLO headquarters. And the Los Angeles Times backed their report of 1976 with an Oct. 30 reaffirmation. And the Washington Post Lebanon reporter of that era, Thomas W. Lippman, now writes in the Washington Post that: In the early years of the Lebanese civil war, Mr. Khalidi was the Beirut-based spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, and his office was a stop on the daily rounds of journalists covering that conflict. As we used to say in the pre-electronic newspaper business: Check the clips. The Fact Checker for the Post cannot revisit the issue because it ceased publicaton on election day. But it is hardly responsible of Khoikhoi to use thie Fact Checker as a source when we have so many sources that surfaced or were published after the Fact Checker reached a conclusion.Historicist (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I've cited some more sources (see above). And I'd also like to quote Scott Horton from Harper's Magazine:

McCarthy states that Khalidi “founded” the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). In fact, he neither founded it nor has anything to do with it. But AAAN is not, as McCarthy suggests, a political organization. It is a social-services organization, largely funded by the state of Illinois and private foundations, that provides support for English-language training, citizenship classes, after-school and summer programs for schoolchildren, women’s shelters, and child care among Chicago’s sizable Arab community (and for others on the city’s impoverished South Side). Does McCarthy consider this sort of civic activism objectionable? Since it was advocated aggressively by President Bush–this is “compassionate conservativism” in action–such an objection would be interesting. Nor was Khalidi ever a spokesman for the PLO, though that was reported in an erroneous column by the New York Times’s Tom Friedman in 1982. That left me curious about the final and most dramatic accusation laid at Khalidi’s doorstep: that the Khalidis babysat for the Obamas. Was it true? I put the question to Khalidi. “No, it is not true,” came the crisp reply. Somehow that was exactly the answer I expected. ([10])

Khoi khoi 06:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, Horton published this on Oct. 29 BEFORE THE EVIDENCE SURFACEd On Oc. 29 rational most people agreed with this assessment - with the exception of those such as S. Ilan Troen with expert knowledge. I certainly would have agreed with him on Oct. 29, in fact, I did. It was only after the evidence from the L.A. Times, Pacifica and the second N.Y. Times articles came out that it became apparent that this was not an error of attribution. Four correspondents, at spacings of several years do not repeat the same error.Historicist (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Two things. First)A denial from a political figure about a damning indicent or involvement deserves to be noted but is hardly exculpatory. Second) the evidence is pretty strong, even if a politically committed blogger finds it dismissable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.133.245 (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In summation. I have read Khoikhoi's evidence and it does not aaddress the issue at hand, to whit, we have four contemporary news sources and two highly regarded historians in agreement that Khalidi was in the employ of the PLO in Beirut. This is a very serous charge to level at someone of Rashid's stature. However, these are storng sources. I would prefer to post it with his denial, but if others prefer to omit the denial, I'm OK with that. Historicist (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

The idea that working for the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, a group with a UN seat since 1976, later legitimated even by America and Israel, is a very serious charge is rather troubling. Ie, one of the more celebrated pop-historians of Israel's wars is an Israeli-American IDF paratrooper who actually killed people in Lebanon around the same time that Khalidi talked to people in Lebanon, and I know of nobody who considers it a scandal (if anything, it's used to help sell his books.) OK, we get that you see this as an enormous deal, but I'd like to have some reliable sources that actually back the claim that work for the PLO in Beirut is notable to Khalidi's bio overall. As far as I can tell it's a manufactured controversy related to the 2008 US election. <eleland/talkedits> 01:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, this is a page about Professor Khalidi. On such a page, an official position held for several years is an appropriate part of a biography.Historicist (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Eleland, I do realize that this discussion section is very long. Nevertheless, if you scroll up you will see that I answered your second demand some days back with this:

Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined, Jacob Lassner, S. Ilan Troen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, p. 72,

"The son of a diplomat, Rashid Khalidi first served his people as an official in the Beirut nerve center of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)."

Copying the Troen/Lassner quote into google will bring you to the proper page on books google. There you will find an admiring discussion of Khalidi's career indicating the significance of his association with the PLO in Beirut to the development of his politcal positions and scholarship.Historicist (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I don't see how any of this stuff is relevant. He's accused of having been in the employ of the PLO, back when they were considered a terrorist institution. Most sources don't back it up. A few do. He denies it and says why. I don't see any simple way you can overcome WP:BLP on this, nor do I see what the point is of trying so hard. Wikipedia isn't the place to synthesize a bunch of incidental references in farflung sources to try to figure out who is right by the attributions they give. Wikidemon (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing a newly well-documented phase of the youthful career of an academic and political figure of some stature in the Palestinian community and in the world of scholarship on the Moddle East. What you need to understand, Wikidemon is that not all sources have equal weight. The recently re-discovered news accounts are compelling contemporary sources by extremely reliable journalists. On the other hand, we have Khalidi's denial, and a long string of journalists, pundits, etc. who, in the heat of a political campaign, defended Khalidi. They are irrelevant not because they wrote during the heat of the campaign, but because they all the ones Khoikhoi or I can find were published before the evidence of FOUR - COUNT THEM - FOUR very reliable identifications of Khalidi working, apparently part-time and quite possibly gratis - as a PLO official in Lebanon in the late seventies and early 80's emerged. Those sources are extremely compelling and certaily sufficient to justify inclusion of this information in his Wikipedia biography.Historicist (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I don't see anything new. What new information was discovered on October 29? Surely you can't be claiming that bloggers reading a New York Times or LA Times article for the first time is something new. If it's in a major paper, google books, or your local library, it isn't new information. If you want to argue that "Many reliable sources said X but they did not consider Y so therefore we will disregard X" - that's original analysis. Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus, all of your instances where new evidence has allegedly "surfaced" from Martin Kramer's blog doesn't seem to contradict Khalidi's explanation that he often spoke to jouranlists in Beirut, who mostly cited him w/o attribtuion as a well-informed Palestinian source and many of whom misidentified him. Khoi khoi 07:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Richrd Nixon said I am not a crook, Bill clinton said I did not have sex with that woman, I did not believe them. Politicians deny things.Historicist (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I went back and looked at Khalidi's so-called denial (see below) and I now wish to retract the comment above this. Khalidi did not deny being a PLO spokesman. He evaded the question.Historicist (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Point of Information Can someone explain to me the mechanism whereby Wikidemon and Eleland appeared on this page after days of radio silence almost the instant I came back ot Wikipedia? Is there some manner in which my edits set of an alert?Historicist (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Likely they have the page watchlisted, as do many of us, and as watchlists are ordered by recentness of edit, soon after your edit ot was near the top. There is a good-faith explanation for this phenomenon :) -- Avi (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, Eleland, Khoikhoi, I understand that you are coming new to a debate that I have been following for several years since it surfaces on campus and academic list-serves from time to time. So, here's a potted history of the Rashid Khalidi-PLO conneciton.

There have been rumors for years. Here is one form the New York Times, 2005: "Khalidi is Columbia's spiritual heir to Edward Said, the handsome, prolific, and flamboyantly controversial champion of the Palestinian cause who died of leukemia in September 2003. He has a $2.5 million endowed chair in Said's name and is frequently called upon, as Said was, to explain the ways of the Arab and Muslim world to the West. (When Yasser Arafat died, Khalidi spoke to no less than 34 media outlets in a 24-hour period.) From 1991 to 1993, he served as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation in the Madrid and Washington peace negotiations; 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."[11]

My error. The above is form New York Magazine, not the New York Times.Historicist (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

In the heat of the campaign, McCain partisains made an effort to blacken Obama by tying him to Rashid Khalidi and dredging up that old 1982 New York Times story by Thoas Friedman. There was an old Khalidi denial, and only that lone story, so pretty much everyone took Khalidi at his word when he denied a connection beyond the sort of explanatory role that academics regularly fill for journalists covering a story.

Many stories such as the ones posted above by Khoikhoi looked at that lone 1982 quote, at the obviously partisan nature of the McCain partisans who were pringing the topic up and dismissed the allegation as mere rumor.

At that point Martin Kramer, who is a long-time critic of Khalidi, produced evidence that was new in the sense that no one was aware of it. Perry Mason does this sort of thing all the time. It changed judgements because even if a piece of evidence is an old news story it is new if no one in the courtroom has seen it before. The new evidence consisted of a New York times story from 1978, a Los Angelies Times story from 1976, and a Radio Pacifica interview from 1979. These were posted between Oct. 31 and Nov 4, After the commentators had ceased to pay attention to Khalidi.[12]

The Los Angeles Times also published a new story confirming itls 1976 report by describing Khalidi as : "[Rashid] Khalidi, a renowned scholar on the Palestinians who in the 1970s had acted as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization."

[13]

Thomas W. Lippman, a Washington Post reporter who worked in Lebanon in those years published a letter in the Washington Post confirming that Khalidi was indeed a Plo spokesman.[14]This is very strong evidence.Historicist (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

The point remains very simple. We can't mine primary sources in order to resolve or throw our weight behind one side of a dispute between secondary sources. This is even more of a problem when (i) it's a BLP, (ii) the secondary sources are mostly marginal polemical blogs, and (iii) the subject disputes the very claims made by the side we're assembling primary sources to back up.

Furthermore, Historicist's gives undue weight to the dispute (by creating a prominent subsection to house a single sentence), as well as violating NPOV:

Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. [18][19] [20][21][22][23][24] However, Khalidi has denied that he ever worked for the PLO.[25]

That sentence strongly implies that Khalidi is lying.

Really, it's time to put this to rest. A neutral summary, without a subject header – something along the lines of "Several commentators, citing attributions from news reports in the 1970s, claim that Khalidi worked as a PLO spokesman in Lebanon. Khalidi maintains that he never worked for the PLO, and that such attributions were few, erroneous, and previously unknown to him" – will more than suffice.--G-Dett (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, are you referring to Khalidi's 2004 denial to a reporter fo rthe Washing Times? Has he issued a more recent denial, or at any time a formal denial?Historicist (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

You raise a good point, Historicist. This has been bandied about so much I'd clean forgotten that the only place I've seen Khalidi himself appear to engage the issue was in that Wash Times op-ed, which is not a great source for any of this (hysterical tone, partisan publication, no context for the Khalidi quote about misattribution, etc.).--G-Dett (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing about Rashid is, he is an extremely sophisticated man. I don't think anyone has every caught him lying. He has been giving interviews to major news sources on sensitive topics for thirty years. He is extremely careful about what he says. The Washington Times quotes him as saying: "I 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." [15] Read it carefully. It's not actually a denial.Historicist (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

How about "Several commentators, citing passing attributions from news reports in the 1970s, claim that Khalidi worked as a PLO spokesman in Lebanon. That claim is disputed by other commentators, who question the significance, prevalence, and reliability of the cited attributions."--G-Dett (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, to my knowledge, there are no commentators who have eexamined the recently discovered old news news stories and questioned them. I don't doubt that some would (in a world where some commentatorrs question evolution and global warming). It's only that none have. They all lost interest on Election Day.Historicist (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Historicist, the fact that reliable sources "all lost interest on Election Day" is only a "problem" if you want Wikipedia to do what reliable sources don't do. I'm not trying to be snide, but that last post of yours should set off hobby-horse alarm bells. At the very least, it's a great indicator of where this should go into the article – if it goes in at all. I would not object to a single sentence in the presidential campaign section, to the effect that various bloggers and commentators – citing attributions in old news sources – argued over whether Khalidi ever worked for the PLO. Beyond that, I tend to take Wikidemon, Khoikhoi, and Alex's view of the matter.--G-Dett (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See below. But, frankly, I believe that it is the campaign section that is out of all proportion to the man's career. Rashid, after all, did not campaign for Obama. They were not close associates. His name got dragged in. I understand that people were very agitated a couple of weeks ago. It seemed absurd then, and it seems forgetable now. I suggest that we reduce the campaing section to the sentence or so it merits. And return to the more serious issue of how to discuss one of the major commitments of this man's life, to the Palestinian national movement, and to how to accurately describe his relationship with the PLO.Historicist (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

For an election campaign issue to be mentioned here at all there would have to be reliable sourcing to show that there is a real controversy over the issue and that is notable to Khalidi's life; otherwise it is a coatrack. We don't use Wikipedia to cover disputes that are going on only among Wikipedia editors. Pitting some sources against others does not create an off-wiki dispute worth covering. Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to mention the claim, and don't think that an in-line attribution gets around the BLP problem. Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I've given the language you propose some thought. I think that in an attempt to give both sides, you end up giving the impression that this is a matter of opinion more than it is of evidence. I'm going to suggest an alternative that will present the evidence, present the pro-sommentators, present the anti commentators.Historicist (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Proposal: According to some contemporary news reports, Khalidi worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. Some scholars accept the accuracy of these reports. Others do not.

With notes to follow each brief statement.Historicist (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Note: Are we still stuck on this issue? G-Dett, is there a phrasing you'd be willing to accept that doesn't use "claim"? I note my mention of Ehud Yeari sometime ago. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, Wikidemon, I realize that this discussion had gotten very long. However, if you scroll up, you will see that I have already documented that discussion of the question of whether or not Khalidi worked for the PLO long predates the 2008 campaign. (before this campaign the evidence consisted primarily of the Thomas Firedman New York Times article from 1982). I could post more old news articles. More books. More citations. But I have already posted sufficient to establish that this did not begin with the recent campaign. And that it will not end now. And that scholars such as S. Ilan Toren consider the PLO connnection during the Lebanon period to have been an important part of the man's intellectual development. My comment was addressed not to these well-established matters, but to your suggestion that we refer to commentators who deny the evidence. Those commentators who came in for the campaign nave ceased to write about Khalidi. Others will continue to do so because the man has been the recurring subject of media interest since more or less the time he left Chicago for Columbia. Historicist (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

No, we are not going to cite these old news reports which Khalidi has specifically said have "misidentified" him. The majority of the references you've cited anyways (aside from the newspapers) are either non-neutral or partial sources, some of whom (such as Martin Kramer) seem be rivals of Khalidi and are hardly third-party in that respect. If we're going to add a possibly libelous claim to an article about his biography we're going to have to include Khalidi's statements made in defense of these allegations as well. Khoi khoi 21:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I do wish that you would read before responding. I would not have to repeat myself and this page would be less tedious. I did not cite Kramer as a source, merely as a source to links to reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times. And I have never opposed putting in Rashid's statement. I did suggest that you or others of his partisans might have that choice; since I do not think his statement helps his case, I would not insist on including it. If you would read before posting, you would see that there is only one Khalidi response (unless, of course, you have discovered another,) and that his response does not deny that he was formally affiliated with the PLO, rather, it deflects the question. The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Pacifica News are reliable secondary sources. I think it is a bit high-handed of you to use the royal "we" as you do: We are not going to cite them.160.39.35.12 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Again with the original research. CNN Fact Check has called it a denial. Since CNN passes as a reliable source, I don't see anything wrong with adding the sentence "Khalidi has denied ever being a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization." Are referring to the 1979 radio documentary The Gun and the Olive Branch as a "reliable secondary source"? WP:RS demands that sources have a reputation for reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How is some old radio interview going to suddenly debunk all statements Khalidi has made regarding the PLO claim? Khoi khoi 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, Here is the text of the relevant paragraph from the 2004 interview. Note that Khalidi answers by e-mail, a technique that enables the interviewee to craft an exquisitely carefully worded response and insure accurate citation: "Today, however, Mr. Khalidi distances himself from his past. In reply to our questions, he wrote that between 1976 and 1983, "I was teaching full time as an Assistant Professor in the Political Studies and Public Administration Dept. at the American University of Beirut, published two books and several articles, and also was a research fellow at the independent Institute for Palestine Studies," and says he had no time for anything else. Mr. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I 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." Pace CNN, it's not a denial. It is, to may knowledge, Khalidi's sole statement on the subject. You refer to "all statements Khalidi has made regarding the PLO claim," do you know of another? I can find only this one. As to Radio Pacifica, they are a resbected, avowedly Progressive radio outlet, i.e., a reliable secondary source. I certainly trust them on such matters as accurately stating where an interview took place and with whom. I cannot imagine why you believe a news source is less valid because it is "old." Do take a minute to listen to the interview. Khalidi certainly speaks like a spokesman.Historicist (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Historicist, the problem that you are saying "it's not a denial", when the article you cite specifically says "Mr. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman." Your evidence that it's not a denail is based on your own observation and speculation. This is practically the definition of original research. It's not up to us as Wikipedians to decide whether he denied/dismissed these allegations in his statement. The article you cite says that he did, in addition to the CNN link that I cited. It is important to try to get the facts, but there is a fine line between that and OR. Not sure if there's a second denial, but JTA, The Jerusalem Post, and the Associated Press all repeat what CNN has said. For us to say that they're all wrong and that Khalidi has in fact not denied this based on our own original research is inappropriate. Khoi khoi 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, No need to make mountains out of molehills. If you want to put this in. I have no objections. Simply add Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I 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."Historicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicist (talk • contribs) 12:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We should drop the whole thing. I don't see anything authoritive to say he functioned as an official spokesman, and I have seen nothing to say there is a notable controversy over whether he was or not, only a partisan issue for the 2008 presidential election. Adding a denial does not balance out a "possibly libelous" statement per WP:BLP. This seems to be one of those "it is what it is" cases, where Khalidi's actual actions and statements are not in question; the issue is whether to characterize those known activities as being a "spokesman" or not. Normally the choice of words between calling say a TV announcer as a "spokesman", "agent", "representative", "liaison", "go-between", etc., is not an issue - is Jamie Lee Curtis as spokesperson for Activia Yogurt or just a spokesmodel? But here in this usage the word "spokesman" carries a lot of baggage, and has implications that are quite possibly biased, defamatory, and untrue, namely that Khalidi was some kind of operative or agent of the PLO, which makes him a terrorist. I see no good and no encyclopedic purpose of tarnishing him in that way based on a few stray news stories. If we want to say what he did, fine. But we should not play into disparaging living people based on slim sourcing. No new arguments have been presented in the past few weeks. If the above is all there is and we're just going to continue this "yes he was / no he wasn't", I'm pretty much done with it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, It is not the controversy that is notable, it is the fact that acting as a PLO spokesman was a part of the man's career. As demonstrated above, it is called a notable part of his career by the distinguished scholar S. Ilan Troen. But you also acknowledge it yourself, by fighting so hard to keep it out of the article on the grounds that it is slanderous. May I remind you that under the Biographies of Living People policy, information on public figures is included when documented even if it is behavior that will appear negative to some. As to your second point, there is all the difference in the world between a professor who answers questions from the press about a subject about which he is expert, and an academic who acts as a spokesman on behalf of an organization. It is not unethical for a professor to act in such a capacity. It is, however, required that the nature of the role be specified. Just as we do not say that it is necessarily unethical for a professor to work as a spokesman for a tobacco company, but we would make a distinction between such a professor and one who made his expertise available to the media but had no formal relationship with any tobacco company.Historicist (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Proposed language, following present discussion: According to some contemporary news reports, Khalidi worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I 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." Historicist (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

or

Proposed language combining yesterday's discussion with Nov. 5 discussion. I believe that this language is succinct, accurate, and fair to Khalidi. Khalidi reportedly worked for the PLO in Beirut between 1976 and 1982. Khalidi dismisses the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman, saying, "I 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." Historicist (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

No - BLP vio, inadequate sourcing, undue weight to contradiction/controversy among sources that is primarily an American election issue. There is no demonstration at all that this is an issue, just mining minor mentions in stray sources.Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, Rashid Khalidi's affiliation with the PLO or lack thereof has been an issue for years now. Here is a list of articles about the controversial nature of Khalidi's political commmitments. I include no articles in which Khalidi is merely used as a source, there are thousands. I include no profiles of Khalidi, although there are many. I include no lengthy interviews with about substantive issues, although there are many page-long and hour-long interviews available with Khalidi as sole interviewee on some topic or other, usually, although not exclusively, to do with the Middle East. I include no articles in which Khalidi is one of a number of professors whose political commitments are under discussion, although there are scores, possibly hundreds. I include what is merely a small sample of feature articles dealing exclusively with Khalidi and exclusively with the controversial nature of his political commitments and affiliations and alleged affiliations. This man's politics and the nature of his PLO affiliation have been a matter of public controversy since at least 2002, when he was first mentioned as a possible Columbia hire. This is not a mere campaign issue. There are many more, these are only a small sample.

• http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/04/22/news/12717.shtml • http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/25/princeton • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i22/22a00701.htm • http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i36/36a00702.htm • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i22/22a00701.htm • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i17/17a00702.htm • http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/education/features/10868/ • http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/190281 • http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-03-08/news/a-free-speech-war/1 • http://socialistworker.org/2005-1/533/533_16_RashidKhalidi.shtml • http://www.nysun.com/new-york/professor-khalidi-might-be-bound-for-princeton/9996/ • http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i26/26a01003.htm • http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jul/08/20040708-083635-4366r/ • http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/civilrights/20050407/3/1371 Historicist (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

In a way I think you are misstating the sources but actually in a way that tends to spare Khalidi from a more serious criticism - I haven't reveiwed them all but for the most part they do not go to whether calling him a "spokesman" for the PLO is a correct designation, but rather whether he is a sympathizer and whether he has been anti-Israel or taken up causes/positions associated with antisemitism. That itself is a much more interesting issue, in my opinion, and one that can probably be well sourced and established as notable. Wikidemon (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I would support the "reported as / rejected the report" phrasing considering the sources I've reviewed. Regardless if he rejects the report, it is a mainstream report by reliable sources and there is not much of a BLP issue considering we are making note of the wiki-reliable sources which make the report as well as Khlidi's rejection of said reports. Who are the editors rejecting this issue? Are there any other concerns other than BLP? Perhaps we should open this one for an RfC? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi and Wikidemon appear to be the only opposition. They keep finding new arguments, and repeating old ones without addressing the responses already given. Of course, this argument has gone on way too long already. I lost patience, so, as you will see, I have worked the two-sentence version with consolidated footnotes, as per previous concensus, into the biography section in the Lebanon years, not into a separate PLO section, as per previous discussion and objections. It could, of course, go into a PLO section that would combine the role in Labanon with the advisory role he played at Madrid. As to how to proceed now, You are more knowledgable than I. Perhaps Avraham or G-Dett will weigh in again. I would appreciate if the page was not locked again, because what it really needs is expansion of the academic section and some added sources fo rth ebio, particularly the missing years.Historicist (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

A suggestion for Wikidemon and Khoikhoi, rather than working to excise the part of Khalidi's career during which he demonstrably worked for the PLO, why not augment the other aspects of his distinguished career to make it appear as a youthful episode.Historicist (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

At this point I think it is very clear that having the PLO controversy in the article is not a BLP violation, as it is well sourced, notable in respects to Khalidi's life, and as this article is about Khalidi himself, not a violation of WP:UNDUE. I do not think it should make up the bulk of the article, but to have it removed from the article would be a violation of WP:NPOV and I think that further efforts to whitewash this article improperly would raise concerns about disruptive editing. -- Avi (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I consider it a BLP violation. I do not consider it well sourced, and see absolutely no sourcing that the distinction between whether he was an informal liaison or an official agent of PLO is either a notable controversy or a notable event in his life. Thus it is undue. That is NPOV. If you consider my editing disruptive as a result, take it to AN/I but don't bang that drum in article talk space. Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Washingtom Times is a reliable source, Wikidemon, and as Khalidi is well-regarded in the field of Palestinian scholarship, any relationship to Palestinan militant organizations is ipso facto notable. -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statements about entire publications being reliable or not are not usually helpful. The particular Washington Times article used as a source is mostly an editorial and as such is generally unreliable. Moreover, it's not clear what it is being cited for. Khalidi's denial certainly happened, but there's no point including a denial to a claim that shouldn't be reproduced here in the first place. The article's statement that he is a "de facto" spokesman is just an opinion of a single editorialist, as such, is not relevant to the article. There is no such thing as ipso facto notability. Maybe for birthdates and identity of parents, but accusations that someone is an agent of terrorists is the very sort of thing that needs sourcing to establish weight and that's just not there. There are thousands of news articles about him, and to find a small number that call him a former PLO spokesman just doesn't cut it. - Wikidemon, 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

^ McCain, Palin demand L.A. Times release Obama video, By James Rainey, October 30, 2008, Los Angeles Times [16]
^ "The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for Pacifica in Berkeley, California.
^ [17]

[1] McCain, Palin demand L.A. Times release Obama video, By James Rainey, October 30, 2008, Los Angeles Times [16]

[2] "The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Palestine Liberation Organization," produced in 1979 for Pacifica in Berkeley, California.

[3] [17]

[1]

[2]

[3]