Talk:Rashid Khalidi

Plagiarism claim

There's recently been a move to (again?) accuse Khalidi of plagiarism here in this article. The material is weakly sourced but true... The account given here is a neutral account of what happened: an article originally attributed to Khalidi was found to be substantially copied from an earlier article by someone else, Khalidi and his publisher denied that Khalidi wrote it and claimed instead that the original byline was erroneous, and Alan Dershowitz then accused him of plagiarism and making up excuses. This was mostly a tempest at Campus Watch, which makes regular sport of bashing Khalidi and other scholars and journalists seen as anti-Israel. There is some primary sourcing to the documents in question, a reference to a source of questionable reliability (a campus watch reprint of a Jewish Advocate story), and then a reliable but relatively minor source, an account of the dust-up published by a History News Network intern. What's missing is any indication that the claim is significant or received any mainstream attention. I'm tempted to challenge the entire thing on BLP grounds as a poorly sourced accusation of academic fraud (for the umpteenth time - this article has long been fraught with that). However, for the moment I just cleaned it up. Any arguments as to why this is significant enough to overcome BLP and WEIGHT issues? Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work cleaning up, Wikidemon. The URL to solomonia/campus watch is more of a wp:convenience link. The Jewish Advocate's own archives don't go back that far. I guess we can try and trace if anyone has a microfiche of the original article, but I think that its existence is not questioned. As for why it belongs, isn't plagiarism one of the worst charges that one academic can levy against another? The Dershowitz/Chomsky affair comes to mind. -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, Deshowitz has been involved in several similar episodes. Yes, plagiarism is a major charge. It's a firing offense for professors. But a claim of plagiarism can't boostrap itself to importance based solely on the fact that the claim was made, particularly not when made by a partisan source where few if any reliable publications see fit to report on it. If this claim has any significance, wouldn't you expect some mainstream publication, say Fox News, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or even the The Des Moines Register, to say something about it? For example, this Columbia professor's charge of plagiarism resulted in her firing and was important enough for USA Today,[1] and this one in the Washington Post.[2] This unproven allegation in the Associated Press.[3] In fact, I could turn the argument around and ask, if such a significant accusation is made against such a controversial figure and no significant reliable source thinks it's worth reporting, isn't the claim itself unremarkable per the sources? Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good points, and I do note that two more recent NYT articles do not mention the plagiarism. On the other hand, it is not unsunstantiated, so perhaps recasting it as one, at most two sentences would be the best option as to neither ignore it nor give it undue weight. I'll take a crack at that. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's now one sentence, combined with the previous paragraph, and sourced to the two main points. -- Avi (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed on sourcing grounds (which implicates BLP) the statement that Khalidi is accused of having a political agenda. The two sources were a Cinnamon Stillwell article in Campus Watch, and a Chicago Maroon (University student newspaper) editorial also reprinted in Campus Watch. If Khalidi has indeed been accused of having a political agenda, and the accusation is of any significance, surely there is a more substantial source that would say "Khalidi has been accused of having a political agenda." We don't need the Wall Street Journal to actually agree with the claim, just to report that it's been made. Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume the lack of response by anyone implies acceptance? -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys... the talk page is still here. I think since Khalidi felt the need to defend hismelf, and perhaps to have his byline removed, this is notable. Let's just stick to the facts as neutrally as we can. IronDuke 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I agree with Zero about the BLP violation and using an article by an intern as the sole source for it. An allegation as serious as that would need first-class sources, several of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is Dershowitz as well, and regardless of what you think of him, he is no intern. -- Avi (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And Khalidi responded to it, no? IronDuke 03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to Dershowitz, but to the HHN article, which means that Khalidi thought it serious enough to merit a response (and a changing of an attribution that stood for years). -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course he wanted his name off an article he didn't write. And the fact that he didn't write it is blindingly obvious. A scholar of Khalidi's status doesn't rely on "The Golden Bough" for ancient history. Zero^talk 03:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is why we have that in the article as well, Zero, we are not trying to hide anything. -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Facts only -- everyone has their say, the reader decides. IronDuke 04:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. Slimvirgin is right, it is policy: Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This material is highly contentious, exceedingly dubious on its face, and based on the claims of "an anonymous historian". It is rare to see such an obvious case of BLP violation. Zero^talk 04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Khalidi a poor source? IronDuke 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Coupled with an anonymous source claiming he had, if IronDuke had said, "I do not beat my wife. would that be a legit source for alleging he did? Skywriter (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Dershowitz a poor source? And why is History News Network not reliable? Do we vet each author of New York Times articles and refuse them when they say "Staff"? The fact that it is published by the History News Network should be sufficient if we believe that the History News Network is a reliable and verifiable source. -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

HNN reported an accusation in one article then retracted it in another. The accusation was always absurd and came from some anonymous person now identified as a "friend" of a known enemy of Khalidi. People who write on controversial topics get accusations hurled at them all the time and there is no reason we should report them unless they become prominent public issues. Being echoed by the usual suspects like Campus Watch doesn't make something notable. If they do become prominent public issues and are reported on by high quality sources, then we can report it also on the basis of those sources. Zero^talk 04:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I shortened back in June, as I wrote above: Good points, and I do note that two more recent NYT articles do not mention the plagiarism. On the other hand, it is not unsubstantiated, so perhaps recasting it as one, at most two sentences would be the best option as to neither ignore it nor give it undue weight. I'll take a crack at that. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC). Which is what it is now. -- Avi (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP is clear: contentious poorly sourced material must be removed. The source is one article written by an intern. If it's a serious issue, other people will have written about it, and given the nature of it, we need multiple, mainstream, reliable sources. I've made it invisible for now, but we need to remove it very soon, or else add good sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP is clear, Slim,. but your "intern" claims are not. According to you, every New York Times article written by "Staff" is ineligible for BLP's. The reliability is based on the source; and if HHN chose both to run it, and not retract it but instead publish the Khalidi response, that is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point; I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I really don't. What does this have to do with the New York Times and staff? The article clearly says it was written by an intern. That alone is enough to cast doubt on it, in terms of our BLP policy, which insists on the highest-quality source material for anything contentious -- and for a writer or academic there are few more contentious allegations than plagiarism. The second thing that counts against it is that it's a sole source. It's unlikely that one article by an intern would be all that exists on this if it's correct. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked around for other sources and can't find anything mainstreasm; also if you read the HNN article, it's not clear whether they knew who the anonymous source was, and they name one newspaper that declined to publish the story. I felt uncomfortable about leaving this invisible in the article when BLP is clear about poorly sourced material, so I've taken it out entirely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin. An article written by an intern is clearly not the type of high quality source that needs to be used to source contentious material in a BLP. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

*What you are all missing is that Khalidi was the founder and President of the American Committee on Jerusalem, the organization on whose web site the article appeared. He really does have to take some ownership for an article that appeared under his byline for several year on the small web site of the small organization with a tiny staff that he was President of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton23 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) indef blocked sock nableezy - 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Slim, Nish, Zero, what I believe the flaw in your positions is that when we look at reliable sources, we look at the publisher as well. Many articles from sources such as The New York Times, The Guardian, or Al-Jazeera are used on wikipedia even when either not attributed at all or attributed to staff. What we rely upon is the fact that the work as a whole is reliable and so what it publishes is as well. Same here. If there is a question about HHN as a SOURCE, that I understand, and that has to be discussed. But this was not an op-ed piece, this was an article, and so the identity of the author is pretty much irrelevant as long as the work published it in its news section. Of course, op-ed pieces are different. Therefore, I submit, that as long as HHN as a whole is a relibale source (it is surely verifiable, we all see the page), we are required to bring what it says, in such a way as not to violate undue weight, which is the one-sentence addition I made a while ago. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Slim is right. Our BLP policy is clear. We require multiple reliable sources for contentious information, of which this clearly is. As far as looking at the publisher and considering what Khalidi and Dershowitz have said and what was apparently worth a response, you're getting into synthesis. We report what has already been reported in reliable sources, we don't draw conclusions based on our own research. Unless the information can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. Lara 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi, that the HNN would allow an intern—an unpaid trainee—to publish a potentially libelous story like this based on an email from an anonymous source, when it's not even clear that they know the identity of the source, tells us something about their reliability as a news source, in my view. Also, please read the story carefully. It's poorly written, not well-researched, and they make clear that no mainstream news organization wants to publish it. Had it been published by The New York Times, as staff or with a byline, I'd have had no problem with it, but it wouldn't have been published by them, at least not in that form. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Question, how is this contentious? Khalidi admits his name was on the article for years; he just says that was an error, and we report that as well? -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot - I don't think anyone cares outside the strange world of pro and anti-Israeli journalists, activists, and scholars trying to besmirch each other's reputation. Even if sourced, the whole thing is a non-event, both logically and as measured by its paucity of sourcing. Dershowitz hurls accusations right and left at a lot of people with whom he disagrees ideologically. The very fact that he said it, and one or two papers report on what he says, is not by itself a ticket to notability. Further, there is a problem at the boundary of BLP and WP:WEIGHT with repeating an accusation by an unreliable source, simply because a reliable source has said the accusation was made. Every time Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or even Noam Chomsky says something particularly incendiary, somebody reports on it, but we don't use Wikipedia as a compendium of every piece of reported character assassination. If we used that as the standard for article inclusion this would be pundit-pedia, repeating all manner of accusations and disparagement. Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and the fact that it is not carried in more mainstream publications, while I fear bias may have somewhat to do with it, nevertheless is indicative enough in its own right that I understand the position that the sentence should remain out of the article until such point as we have better sourcing, so I will not be the one to restore it without another source for now. Thank you all for the discussion that was remarkably free of rancor . -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why this revert?

The person who removed the following from this article asked if the person who placed it there was or is joking. I do not understand the question and do not understand the removal of this short quote from Chronicle of Higher Ed from this article. These are the details.

"To his supporters, Khalidi is celebrated for bringing to light a history that, some say, has been long obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century." From the issue dated March 6, 2009 Rashid Khalidi's Balancing Act The Middle-East scholar courts controversy with his Palestinian advocacy By Evan R. Goldstein http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i26/26b00601.htm

In erasing this entry, Nishkid64 wrote-- (rv gross POV; you're joking, right? "...had tended to be obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century.")

Do you mean that you object to the point the article writer, Evan Goldstein, is making, and on that basis contend that what Goldstein wrote should be removed?

I checked and found the quoted words to be accurate. So why was this deleted from the article? Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be an objection, in the form of a rhetorical question, to an addition seen as unwarranted. The editor who added it announced in advance that he was making "badly needed" balance to the point of view of the article,[4], often a sign of trouble, and was later blocked for edit warring here. The material added to the article based on that source was: "Khalidi's scholarship is notable for bringing to light aspects of Arab and Palestiian[sic] history that, in the view of some, had tended to be obscured by the immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century." There are quite a few problems with this prose. First, it is not clear out of the context of Goldstein's piece what this quote is supposed to mean. It says several things at once: (1) that some people believe that an aspect of Palestinian history (presumably displacement and other difficulties in Israel) has been overshadowed by Jewish suffering (possibly a holocaust reference). It is not clear whether this is an observation about historical attention, or an observation about people's value judgments about whose suffering is more important. (2) Khalidi brought Palestinian history to light, according to some. (3) the people who believe Khalidi brought Palestinian history to light are his supporters (or people who celebrate him, per the source). Taken together, is this a praise of Khalidi that he brought a poorly understood matter to peopel's attention, or is this a dig, trying to divide the world into "supporters" and non-supporters? And why is this supposed to be a point-of-view matter to begin with? The point of this article is to describe Khalidi's life and career. Posing this as a question of what his supporters think of him versus others, and comparing Jewish suffering to Palestinian suffering, is rather far afield. Even if we have the context, it is a single author's opinion of Knalidi, and there is no real showing that this opinion is particularly astute or germane. The removed text does not clarify that this is the opinion of one author. Rather, it endorses it as Wikipedia's official position - the business of assessing Khalidi's reputation among supporters for bringing Palestinian history to light. All in all it doesn't really explain Khalidi as well as it could, and it's not a very encyclopedic fact. If Khalidi discovered new things about Palestinian history, let's find a source that says it and say it simply. If Khalidi popularized already-known historical facts, we can say that. If he has supporters and detractors and they have different views of him, then if it's really a significant relevant issue we can say that. But conflating them all in a single sentence is rather murky. Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, given the user's POV on Khalidi, I considered "immense tragedy of Jewish suffering in the 20th century" an attempt to distract the reader from the main purpose of the sentence. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions

Regarding this addition[5] there is no indication that this analysis is particularly noteworthy. The same goes for the Clyde Haberman opinion that is already in the article. There must be hundreds, or thousands, of editorials about Khalidi and his works. Why choose any particular one? I would think that any criticism, praise, or opinion expressed about Khalidi ought to be verified for weight purposes to a neutral reliable third party source covering the opinion, rather than the expression of the opinion itself. Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Relations

Is Rashid Khalidi related to Walid Khalidi? I think they might be cousins. Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Moshe Ya'alon quotation

An article that shows rashid's lack of credibility should be added... [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.14.109.32 (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(title and misleading accusations redacted for WP:BLP reasons) There is already an entire article about the incident, False Moshe Ya'alon quotation. If you read that article the quotation was correct, save for the placement of the quote marks, which resulted in it being incorrectly and apparently mistakenly attributed to Ya'alon rather than an author who was characterizing what he argued to be Ya'alon's attitude. Khalidi's role, as one of the 8-10 academics and prominent journalists and hundreds or thousands of less notable ones who repeated the inaccuracy, is minor. Although it is indeed sloppy for any academic or journalist to repeat another's mistakes without checking the primary sources, it is not a noteworthy event in Khalidi's career, and we're not going to plaster this on every article about everyone involved, although I note that some of the activist press has been doing that in blogs and editorials. Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I think the criticism section needs to be expanded. This page should not be a forum for political views, but at the same time he has been blasted for many of his controversial views. By not including these opinions, we are not giving a full picture of his public persona. Without an expanded criticism section, I think this does not have a NPOV. --Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rashid Khalidi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090412122126/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/politics/la-na-newvideo30-2008oct30,0,5073968.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-newvideo30-2008oct30,0,5073968.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Racial slurs" section

You can't just write a section called "racial slurs" and fill it up with claims against him (even one by a undergraduate student!). It is a blatant WP:BLP violation. You have to provide a reliable source for it, provide context, and if he responded to the charges (which he has) you have to bring his response. You cannot judge him in Wikipedia's voice. Khalidi says "I was of course referring to those figures in and around the new administration and the Netanyahu government, irrespective of their religion, who promote a pro-occupation and pro-settlement political agenda." [6] which is the plain truth as you can hear for yourself. Unfortunately for him, he chose the word "infest", which allowed his enemies to avoid responding to his political argument. Zero^talk 12:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My revert was procedural.You can restore new user edit if you want to take responsibility for it.--Shrike (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rashid Khalidi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-newvideo30-2008oct30%2C0%2C5073968.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cprs-palestine.org/about/board.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011182701/http://ucpressjournals.com/journal.asp?j=jps&jDetail=editorial to http://ucpressjournals.com/journal.asp?j=jps&jDetail=editorial

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rashid Khalidi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815195159/http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/excellence/hourani_winners_list.htm to http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/excellence/hourani_winners_list.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation

Using a frickin blog to claim that Khalidi said "coded anti-semitic discourse" is outrageous, and should be met with a block. nableezy - 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Khalidi is a public figure whose comments were the subject of significant media attention. the brief text was sourced to 3 WP:RS publications and a "blog",a actually, an an essay by Professor Jarrod Tanny who is a RS for his own opinions. Nableezy you deleted this, requesting rephrasing and additional sources. I provided them. I suggest that you self-revert your 2nd deletion of this reliably sourced material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is a reliable source for his own opinions, however you put as a section header of a BLP Coded anti-semitic discourse. That is, you, in Wikipedia's voice, have claimed that a living person engaged in coded anti-semitic discourse. And you did that based off of a blog. Finally, please see the terms of use of the blogs at Times of Israel. See how it says Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. Then read WP:BLPSPS which says the following:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

As Time of Israel explicitly disclaims any editorial control over the blogs, including somebody's personal opinion that a living person engaged in coded anti-semitic discourse even if as their own opinion is explicitly forbidden by policy. Including as a God damn section title where it appears in the table of contents should result in a block. No, I will not self-revert, the entire section is based on sources of low quality and do not demonstrate weight for inclusion. Additionally, several parts of it are explicitly forbidden by WP:BLP. I challenge the inclusion of that section entirely for BLP reasons, and if you revert me I will absolutely ask for the block that you should be given for including that section title in the first place. nableezy - 01:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You objected to "slur", so I used the phrasing used by Jarrod Tanny , a professor of Jewish history, and a good source on this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I said remove per weight, I objected to much more than slur. And no, Mr Tanny is not a good source on this, the source you included is explicitly disallowed and if you return it I will ask for sanctions per the BLP arbitration case. nableezy - 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And regarding the other sources, you have the exceedingly partisan National Review, of which Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says: There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Then you have an opinion piece in the Observer, which describes itself as Observer offers metropolitan professionals an original take on the latest in news, culture, politics and luxury, bringing its irreverent sensibility to a national audience. Not a RS for contentious claims about a living person, and regardless as an opinion piece unusable to demonstrate any weight at all. Finally, there is the single nominally reliable source here, a piece in the Jerusalem Post, which says

For some in the Jewish community, "infest" possesses an antisemitic connotation that hearkens back to the Nazi era, when Jews were described as "rats" or "vermin."

Thats not exactly the stringing rebuke you have the article taking. In sum, I see no reason to include this at all due to WP:WEIGHT, and any inclusion of maybe 90% of it violates WP:BLP. nableezy - 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The translation of Khalidi's words about people who hold certain views that he listed into "American Jews" is not only a slur on Khalidi but a slur on American Jews. Zero^talk 05:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also very true. He did not say one word about Jews, American or otherwise, making for another fabrication and a straightforward BLP violation. nableezy - 09:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've rephrased the material to address the concerns expressed above. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You have not, and you have returned material explicitly banned by WP:BLP, and restored material challenged per BLP in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. I am again reverting the poor sources, though I'll leave a bit of it. nableezy - 11:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that critical theorist Bernard Harcourt says:

demeaning and dehumanizing expressions such as “infest,”

So, in addition to the significant media coverage Khalidi got, it should be noted The New York Review of Books says the expression "infest" is demeaning and dehumanizing. XavierItzm (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)