Talk:Walid Khalidi

Untitled

To many, Walid Khalidi is a caricature of the Oxford don that he once was: Articulate, erudite, and somewhat eccentric, which in America translates as "absent-minded." How many people have come up to me over the years to ask: "Can this man really be a Palestinian? He seems so British, so Oxonian, so aristocratic." My response is always: "Well, he is an Oxonian and he is aristocratic, and I can assure you that every day Walid Khalidi wakes up a Palestinian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.136.229 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

needs a criticism section

Khalidi needs a criticism section. Pro-israel historians always have one, so why not the anti-Israel ones?Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about "anti-Israeli" historians, but articles on pro-Palestinian ones do have criticism sections. This article just happens not to have one presently; if you have reliable criticism sources then by all means add a Criticism section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

More citations

Let's get some more citations for Khalidi's view of the solution to the conflict for some perspective and balance. Currently there's just one.Ismee (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismee (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a direct quote from citation #3 about his position on the two-state solution for neutrality's sake. Currently, the text speaks on Khalidi's behalf, which is problematic. A direct quote would be better. Ismee (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr Brawer quote

The article features the following sentence, alleged to be a quotation from the 1945 Village Statistics. I have checked that it appears exactly like this in the review of Moshe Brawer.

The population estimates published here cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerably from the actual figures. (Brawer, Israel Affairs 1, 1994, p. 340)

However, the original primary source does not have that sentence at all. Brawer has constructed it by joining two sentences together with some contrary words removed. Note how the deleted words weaken Brawer's case that the source is unreliable:

The population estimates published here are the result of a very detailed work conducted by the Department of Statistics, by using all the statistical material available on the subject. They cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerably, from the actual figures. (Village Statistics 1945, Explanatory Note, para A/5)

This would be unacceptable even with an ellipsis to indicate that text is missing. Let's say it was an honest mistake; either way we shouldn't copy distortions into Wikipedia. The 1945 survey was not a census and obviously not as accurate as one, but it is the best available except in certain locations and is cited very frequently by scholars. Zero^talk 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As a general matter, the report of Brawer's review here is too long, and it violates NPOV to present it on its own without any contrary opinions. Zero^talk 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree (from p. 2.)

On a related matter; someone have inserted a lot of his data from "Transformation in Arab Settlement," Moshe Brawer, in The Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, by Ruth Kark in several articles. It is typically of the type "Between 1922 and 1947, the population increased by XXX%." Two problems: where did he get the 1947-data from? And some places, when I compare the 1922 data and 1945 data: the % increase simply do not match (unless there was a huge increase from 1945 to 1947). "Someone" said he was going to check the Jish-data for me? Huldra (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone got that book out of the library yesterday and will study it. Meanwhile, a 1978 paper of Brawer uses the Village Statistics without caveat. Zero^talk 01:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed a 2002 article of Brawer where he cited the Village Statistics without questioning its accuracy. See Talk:Jish for the 1947 data. Most of his work was in Hebrew and I can't be bothered to check further. Zero^talk 12:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the text is too long. I am also wondering about what Moshe Brawer writes about the listing of the land ownership. I can see that Sami Hadawi lists Arab land ownership while the original talks about Muslims and Christians. Is that right? If so, it should be presented as Brawer's opinion (that he thinks Muslims were Arabs and Christians were not, not that it is a fact). --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:IRISZOOM: yes, Hadawi groups all Muslims and Christian together. Btw, the original 1945 is now available on the net; I try to use both; take a look at Sirin, Baysan (just updated!) And the Brawer -section is way too long. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I got the original too. Then it is Brawer (assuming he has been cited correctly here) who is wrong that the original show Arab and Christian ownership when it shows Muslim and Christian ownership. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are the classifications as they appear.

Classifications in Village Statistics 1945

	Population	Land
Original	Moslems, Jews, Christians, Others	Arabs, Jews, Public, Others, Works
Hadawi	Arabs, Jews	Arabs, Jews, Public

"Works" is "Roads, Railroads, Rivers and Lakes". Hadawi has combined Moslems, Christians and Others into Arabs for population, and combined Arabs and Others into Arabs for land. Brawer's exact words are "while in the original Village Statistics land ownership was classified as Arab, Jewish or others, Hadawi converted into Arab ownership all non-Jewish lands including those of Christian churches, monasteries, institutions and organizations." I think it is a valid criticism. Zero^talk 10:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That is what then should be written as the current text says something else. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors may not remove sourced, academic material based on their personal research which leads them to question it. This is wikipedia policy. Epson Salts (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no such policy. NOR says what can be put in, not what can be taken out. But that is beside the point, since the insertion of false claims against living people is a violation of WP:BLP, which trumps all rules except Office Actions. Zero^talk 00:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourced material cannot be removed by editors performing original research to conclude that it is false. You are repeatedly violating Wikipedia policy and it is high time you were banned. Epson Salts (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no such rule, and there has never been a rule that every sourced thing has to be in articles. What the policy actually says is: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. And stop trying to insert material you know to be false and misleading. Zero^talk 02:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not everything that is sourced must be included- but this material has been in the article for a long time, and thus has consensus. if you want to remove it, you need consensus to do so. Epson Salts (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Longevity doesn't establish consensus, where on earth did you get that idea from? Ancient bad text is still bad text. You can see above that 2 other editors agreed when I raised this issue and nobody questioned it. You haven't provided any reason to keep it except for invoking nonexistent rules. The consensus (and the rules, especially BLP) are for removal. It is also notable that the article still has Brawer's criticism of Khalidi's use of Village Statistics for three whole sentences, which is already more than necessary and I plan to replace some of it by a different criticism from Brawer's review. Zero^talk 03:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I got it form WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. 'Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." You should get around to reading policy, it will not only make you a better editor , but might prevent your banning to to numerous policy violations. The reason to keep this consensus change in the article is that it was published in a reviewed academic source, which trumps your personal, WP:OR interpretation of the text. Epson Salts (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It was "disputed or reverted by another editor" several times since it was first inserted only a bit more than two years ago. So much for that argument. One editor can't invoke inertial consensus to prevent article improvement. Also, your silly personal remarks are getting tiresome. Zero^talk 08:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

In its current form, it has been in the article for at least 3 months with no dispute nor discussion == clear consensus. I'm glad you're at least intelligent enough to realize your bullshit about " "Longevity doesn't establish consensus," contradicts policy. As someone who started with the personal attacks on me several months ago, you have no leg to stand on. Either establish consensus for the change you want to make, or be gone. Epson Salts (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Last warning, at least from me. If you don't cut out your verbal violence and attacks on other editors, you'll be reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You get back exactly what you dish out. Epson Salts (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"for at least 3 months with no dispute nor discussion", heavens, what on earth is this whole section that I started one year ago except discussion? I raised a serious objection and nobody disagreed. I.e., discussion was held with conclusion against the text. The fact that I forget at the time to actually remove the text doesn't give you an excuse for preventing implementation of the consensus now. Zero^talk 01:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The section had been in the article without opposition for a year and a half before you voiced any objection, thus it had consensus. I have no idea why you didn't make the change a year ago when you thought you had consensus for the change - perhaps you just forgot , as you claim now, perhaps you realized how weak your argument was and thought better of it. Either way, this went unchallenged for more than two years before your recent revert (meaning it had consensus), and I challenged your recent revert as soon as you made it, which means there is no consensus for it now. You can try to get consensus for it again. Epson Salts (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you think this is a serious argument. One editor can't obstruct article improvement on such spurious grounds. Take it to a noticeboard if you think you have a case, but be prepared to explain why you are so anxious to insert something you know to be false into a BLP. Zero^talk 02:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What isn't hard to believe is that you guys are now following Epson around and tag teaming his edits.

Instead of completely removing Bower's point, suggest alternative wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I presume 'you guys' means myself and Zero.Depends on the quality of evidence one uses to establish a belief. I've been editing this article since 2014 at least, and last edited it in July this year. Then Epson Salts turns up, as he has turned up on quite a few obscure pages I have edited this year, to edit-war.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

ES seems to have adopted the mission of preventing me from editing but I'm not so easy to get rid of. Of course I'm happy to include a general statement that Brawer says the Village Statistics are unreliable. The only thing that is unacceptable (and strictly forbidden in a BLP) is to do it by means of a fake quotation. Zero^talk 08:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try to play the victim card here- it is not convincing. The record shows the opposite - you have been on my case for months, trying to get me banned. You've been following me around, to articles you've never edited (see for example [1] or [2] ) to undo my edits. So, what is you proposal for adding the Brawer criticism?

Please explain how this quotation is a BLP violation. Even if the quote was fake (and it isn't, Brawer said it, you yourself checked) it is not saying anything about the subject of the article we're not saying without that quote. So please show me the exact part of BLP this is violating. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts is technically correct in that text is usually assumed to have consensus unless someone challenges it. I see that this text was earlier edit-warred over: the last insertion was by a sock of AndresHerutJaim, who was himself reverting some random person who had blanked it. Overall, it seems to have been reasonably stable. Zero's argument is somewhat complicated, but looks good to me. I see Zero, Huldra, IRISZOOM, Nishidani and Sean.Hoyland in favour of rephrasing and only Epson Salts against (I don't know what NMMNG's position is). I can add my name to the rephrasing if it makes "consensus" easier. So, it's either 5-1 or 6-2. I suppose that's enough of a consensus. So, perhaps we can dispense with technicalities and get on with improving the article. Brawer is still quoted in the section, just given less space. The book in question (All That Remains) has been cited almost 450 times on Google Scholar. Surely, giving 80% of the space to a negative review fails WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I also share Zero0000's analysis.

Regarding our rules: we cannot add WP:OR in an article but based on researches, we can remove precise and concise information that are proven to be false (a number, a date, a statement, ...). Pluto2012 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You jumped the gun a little here. Neither Nishidani nor Sean have said they support rephrasing. And I don't think you can gauge a consensus based on a year old discussion that nobody acted on.

That said, I don't have a problem with rephrasing, as long as the fact the publishers of the underlying data noted it may not be exact is retained. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the current wording is a BLP violation, considering it's attributed, an exact representation of what the source said, and is referring to a document and not the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone else amused by the hypocrisy of the editors supposedly concerned with a BLP violation (which they can't explain or describe), while conducting all their discussion under a heading they created and labeled "Naughty Dr Brawer"- a clear as day BLP violation? Epson Salts (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

More personal attacks for your charge sheet; keep it up. I was under the impression that Brawer is dead, but now I'm not sure. If he is still alive, he is 97. Zero^talk 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

let me get this straight: you inserted a BLP violation into this page, because you were "under the impression that Brawer is dead", and didn't bother to check? Do think that will be a good defense when the Wikimedia foundation is sued over your BLP violation? You are not playing the victim very well, I suggest you drop it. Epson Salts (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll explain why BLP applies. The BLP rules are different from other rules because Wikimedia's lawyers vetted them. Imagine if Brawer had written "Khalidi murdered Fred Nurk", but according to a multitude of great sources that nobody can challenge Fred Nurk is still alive. Can we write "Khalidi murdered Fred Nurk" in the article? Answer: obviously not. Can we write "Brawer wrote 'Khalidi murdered Fred Nurk'" in the article? The answer, and here is where the BLP situation is different, is still no. If we wrote that, Khalidi could sue Wikimedia Foundation for repeating a libel we know to be false, which is also libel. Obviously misquoting a source is a smaller offence than murder, but the principle is the same. Note that both the real situation and the example involve statement of fact; statements of opinion reported as opinion are different. Zero^talk 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Only problem is that the text we're discussing says nothing about Khalidi, it's about a note in Village Statistics. Village Statistics is not a living person. Here's a diff in case you forgot. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If I said "NMMNG used source XYZ but even that source itself says that it isn't reliable" would that statement be nothing about you? Zero^talk 05:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's sensible to rephrase, given the arguments, based by editors who actually go to the trouble to check in libraries and online, the several relevant primary sources, are solid. So we should simply offer constructive suggestions for a consensual description, neither insinuating that Brawer and Khalidi are incompetent. Just as a curiosity, in any case, it was very curious of Brawer to take Khalidi to task for inadequate field research'. That expression means Khalidi fell short by relying on the available documentation, rather than doing field research regarding 1948. The only 'field research' an academic could do regarding 1948 that is not documentary would be conducting interviews with the people affected (as indeed Aref al-Aref did extensively) which would not be considered material to precise estimates of the demographic status quo at that time (the issue here). Benny Morris for one would with some methodological logic refute the utility of field work like that: for him, as for many, the archives for the period are all that count. In sum, though it's impressively cited, Brawer's point is meaningless as a critical judgment. That's of course just a personal view, and doesn't affect the fact that it should be cited, even if it is stupid. My way of reading that was that between the lines, Brawer was saying:'I'm here, where it happened: Khalidi's in exile, and out of touch.' Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they did field research for the "all that remains"-book. From p. xix: researchers fro Birzeit research centre, or the Galilee research centre (In Nazareth) or the Jaffa research centre visited all the places (except 13 which were Military areas: no access), photographed and documented them. Many of these photos are in the book. What he did not do, was interviewing survivors. Which I consider a pity. Btw, even Morris concedes that the interviews made Nazzal, Nafez (1978). The Palestinian Exodus from Galilee 1948. (one of the first academic book to interview refugees, AFAIK, in Lebanese refugee camps) were very consistent with what Israeli military sources noted. Huldra (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Could you provide a link to (or a scan of) the page form the village statistics you claim to be looking at, so we can verify your claim? Please also include a scan of the page identifying the source, so we can be sure you are looking at the same document Brawer was. Epson Salts (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

'claim to be looking at.' Do you have any evidence at hand that in the last 11 years, Zero has pretended to cite a source and then found out not to have any familiarity with it? If you are asking people to do your work for you, instead of checking a library yourself, you should at least have some basis for being skeptical of their honesty or integrity.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am asking editors to comply with Wikipedia policy - amongst them WP:V. Zero is conducting orignal research , so the minimum he needs to do is enable other editors to verify his claims. Epson Salts (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:V 'All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

That condition was satisfied by Zero. Correct me if I am wrong, but WP:V nowhere states that an editor is under an obligation to prove he is not a liar making up his citations. If one distrusts a citation, one goes to a library and checks it independently. Of course, in a courteous editing environment, many solid editors do, on request, go the extra leg, take an half an hour out of their work day to get the book out again, scan it, and email a copy or post it on the page. If distrust is so deep, you have a marvelous opportunity to get Zero desysopped or de-admined, by taking on yourself the half hour of extra work you ask him to do for you, by getting the book yourself, scanning it and, if your suspicion is correct, raising the imbroglio discovereed at AE. If your hunch is right, he'll be banned.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Huldra has already provided an image of the relevant page above. Here it is, again. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am satisfied now that the original quote is as Zero stated. Epson Salts (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Now? Huldra gave that diff, you asked Zero for, in her contribution above Huldra (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC) I year 8 days ago, so you badgered Zero to provide what was already set forth on this page, meaning you are not reading the page, but arguing the point regardless of the evidence already marshalled. Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

yes, now. I am sorry , but my time machine is in the shop right now, so I was not able to go back and participate in a debate Huldra had a year ago, before I started editing. I asked Zero000 exactly once to provide the link, and a collegial editor provided the link. You could have done the same, instead of pontificating There' s no badgering here, simply wikipedia process. Try it sometime. Epson Salts (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Before this account started editing, not before you started. nableezy - 20:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

let me repeat. If you revert an editor because he hasn't participated on the talk page (but may have read it), while at the same time you don't read the talk page but argue while ignoring the thread and revert. . .Nishidani (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Repeat all you want, your claim is false. I read the talk pages and participate in discussions - of the current issue. I don't feel I need to go and read archives from years ago, unless specifically directed to them. If you knew that link had already been provided, all you had to do was point to it - that's what collegial editing is about. Try it.. . Epson Salts (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP

It's hard to follow the thread above regarding the BLP issue. Here's a new section. Someone please explain how correctly quoting and attributing to a source which is missing an ellipses but otherwise correctly quoting another source is a BLP violation that may result in Wikipedia being sued for libel. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't think this is necessary, because the claim that this is a BLP violation has already been evaluated at WP:AE, and found to be without basis: [3]. Epson Salts (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that at the time Sean reverted ostensibly for a BLP violation no such violation was established (or discussed, or had even preliminary evidence provided, etc). I think that's what Ed was referring to. Zero still maintains there's a BLP issue and I would like to get to the bottom of that. Both for this article and for my general knowledge. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect as a link to the misquoted document was provided above more than one year ago. Zero^talk 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I take it you are not familiar with academic standards on quotations. Fine, that's not a crime. The rest of your question is just plain silly. Zero^talk 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The document was provided a year ago but nobody even mentioned BLP until a few days ago, and nobody even tried to substantiate the claim until after I opened an AE about Sean's behavior and Ed said there is no clear BLP violation.

Brawer's quote is missing an ellipses. Maybe he did it on purpose. Maybe it's was a typo at the printers'. We don't and can't know. What we do know is that it doesn't change the essence of what the Village Statistics writers said, which is that some of the data might not be precise. They said "we tried very hard, but the data might not be precise" and Brawer either deliberately or by mistake dropped the "we tried very hard" part. Please explain how this amounts to libel and/or a BLP violation.

By the way, as far as I can tell Brawer is still alive (or at least was in February when he commented to the authors on this[4] Haaretz article). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to check the history more carefully. I raised the BLP issue here about 32 hours before SH invoked it as a reason for reverting. And you are completely correct that the manner by which Brawer misquoted the source is not the important thing. The important thing is that it is misquoted and we should not copy misquotes into articles. Everything that needed to be substantiated was substantiated here more than a year ago. The fact that it is a BLP only makes that more serious. Zero^talk 03:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked very carefully. The first time you mentioned BLP was 3 days ago. You didn't explain why you think it's a BLP violation until yesterday. That's what I said above. It's not obvious to everyone (including apparently Ed) that missing the ellipses makes this a BLP violation.

If you agree that the manner in which Brawer misquoted is not important, then how can this be a BLP violation? There needs to be potential libel. There can't be potential libel if what Brawer said about VS (again, not about Khalidi) is essentially correct, and nobody is arguing it isn't.

I agree we should not copy misquotes in articles which is why I asked you in my first post here to suggest alternative wording. What happened was that several editors showed up and with complete disregard to both proper editing practices and NPOV, pretty much left Brawer's criticism devoid of most of its points. That's not something we should do either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Brawer's motivation is irrelevant to whether it is a BLP violation. It is a BLP violation because we must not knowingly insert false information into BLP, as I said the very first time I mentioned it. Zero^talk 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your claim about EdJohnston does not follow from what he wrote at AE either. Zero^talk 06:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the version as it is present now? If yes, propose another phrasing. If not, why are we discussing it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It needs a slight strengthening, like this: Brawer complains of the work's reliance on the modified version of Village Statistics 1945, which was edited by Sami Hadawi and published in 1970. Brawer also wrote that he doubts the reliability of the original version. Zero^talk 07:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite enough. We need to explain why Brawer doubts the reliability of the original - base don the fact that the original itself states these are just rough estimates. We can either quote just the second part of the sentence Brawer used, so as to avoid the missing ellipses, or rephrase, but we can;t just leave it without explanation. And we need to add the fact that Brawe criticizes him for to using other material available to him. Epson Salts (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link or can email/post the paper we're talking about? I can only find abstracts and references to it, not the full thing. From what I've seen quoted here and elsewhere, it seems to me Brawer's main points were that Khalidi used mainly/exclusively VS which may not be exact, as it itself notes; that he wasn't using the original VS but a modified version; and that there were other available sources that may have helped yield more exact numbers and which he didn't use. I'm open to any suggestions on how to word this as long as these points are retained rather than saying "Brawer thinks VS is not a good source" like we have in the article now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is my suggested text: "Prof. Brawer criticized Khilid's over-reliance on a modified version of the Vilage Statistics which he acknowledged to provide only rough estimates, while not making use of other sources such as the Village Files or RAF aerial photographs which would have yielded more accurate estimates". Epson Salts (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have implemented this proposal to concentrate the mind, so that we don't engage in random debates which go nowhere. If anyone has a problem with this, feel free to revert me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Khalidi

I really don´t understand why Brawer makes a fuss about this. If you have the 1992 "All that remains" (and I assume you do!), you will find that in preface p. xxi Khalidi writes:

"The 1945 land ownership and population figures are from Sami Hadawi (1970) Village Statistics 1945: A classification of Land and Area Ownership in Palestine. The statistics themselves are exactly as they appear in the Mandate Government´s 1945 Village Statistics (a largely internal document intended for government offices and a few interested private organisations) with one major difference: Hadawi amalgamated the original categories of "Muslim" Christian" and "Other" (essentially Druze) into the single category "Arab". This change is reflected both in the population and land ownership statistics."

Oh, and since both the Hadawi and the Mandate Government´s 1945 Village Statistics are now both online, anyone can check for themselves that what Khalidi writes here is true. (I have certainly not found any difference between the two, except the one that Khalidi pointed out). (I also discussed it here: User talk:Huldra#For the Mandate's map.)

Btw, AFAIK, I´m one of the editors who has added/used this book the most here on en.wp., and I have found Khalidi to be very reliable, and rather "conservative", compared to other scholars in the field. That does not mean he is perfect! He has his share of typos, and mistakes. I have been listing them here. Huldra (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Brawer's critique is limited to, or even focused on, this manipulation of the source performed by Hadawi and re-used by Khalidi. The main thrust of his critique is that Khalidi used only this single source, when he had multiple others available to him, and that this source, no matter how you treat the quote, explictly says the statistics "cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates " . Epson Salts (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And I have no idea as to why Brawer writes that, as Khalidi uses both the 1922 census of Palestine, the 1931 census of Palestine, the the PEF's Survey of Western Palestine (SWP) (1880s) and the Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1596 census (see User:Huldra/HA), Oh and Edward Robinson, of course. +loads of other sources.

The only "major" source he has not used, AFAIK, is Victor Guérin (that is, he only uses one (out of 7) books on Palestine). Huldra (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw, does Brawer name any other sources (except the original 1945 source) which Khalidi does not use? Also, the original 1945 source was virtually impossible to get hold of, until NLI put it online a year or three ago:

• Department of Statistics (1945). Village Statistics, April, 1945. Government of Palestine.

I know, as I (and others!) tried hard to get hold of it, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Brawer mentions "Village Notebooks" kept by village headmen and "village files" compiled by the Haganah, as sources that Khalidi didn't use. Then he writes "Failing to use the above-mentioned sources, Khalidi draws his entire information on the size of population, land possessions, cultivable lands of each village, hamlet and minor inhabited location from the Village Statistics 1945..", which is a bit hard to understand since he mentions Khalidi's use of the 1931 census earlier. I think the solution is that Brawer here is only intending to refer to the population and land holdings at the end of the mandate, in which case he is correct despite the unclear wording. Zero^talk 01:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea as to what the " "Village Notebooks" kept by village headmen" were, but the Village files certainly are well know (used lately both by Ilan Pappé and Meron Benvenisti). However, I was under to impression that they were not available for 50 years after 1948 (as most of the other Haganah intelligence), i.e. before 1998, in which case it is a bit harsh to condemn Khalidi for not using them in a 1992 book.

Also, the book is already 600+ (huge) pages long, (and I think it is the heaviest book which I have). If the Village files were also to be used, it would have to be split up into more books, for sure, Huldra (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Brawer says they were "available for perusal, to 'bona fide' researchers". You are right about size of the book, and it is the only book of its type and is very widely cited in scholarly articles. But nobody is claiming it is perfect. Zero^talk 04:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I take his word on it. Still, Khalidi has 6+ pages in the bibliography in this book (by my estimates: several hundred sources). To focus on one or two missing sources is absurd, IMO (especially, as say the Village files does not give much info on land ownership, if we can judge by the one example which is well know: Abu Zurayq.)

Khalidi also writes this (on p. xxi, directly below what I quoted above):

• "The land ownership figures, extracted by the Department of Land settlement from the the fiscal assessment records, reflect land holdings as of 1 April 1945. One might note that "public lands" figure, in addition to the relative minor item of land used for public buildings and roads, includes a number of categories of lands that were in fact cultivated and utilised by villagers as if they held actual title (note 12: For discussion of land tenure in Palestine and categories of public land, see A Survey of Palestine, volume I, chapter viii.)
• "It should also be stressed that the population figures are not the result of an actual census but extrapolations as at year-end 1944 prepared by the Mandatory Government´s Department of Statistics on the basis of the 1931 census. (Hadawi´s work includes a lengthy explanation of the methodology used.) It should also be noted that a listing of both Arab and Jewish populations for a given village generally denotes the existence of a Jewish settlement within the boundaries of the land recorded for the village question. The population figures and number of houses (1931) are from the Census of Palestine, 1931, the last census carried out in Mandatory Palestine."

.....which is why I really don´t understand why Brawer criticises Khalidi for using it: it is not Khalidi´s fault that the 1945 survey was not a proper census! And I don´t really care about the criticism of him for using Hadawi: it didn´t matter if you were Christian or Muslim: you lost your land in any case if you were from one of the villages mentioned in "All that remains". The Christian villagers of, say Iqrit and Kafr Bir'im lost their land, just like their Muslim neighbours. And, as I have said before: anyone can now compare the original 1945 data and Hadawi`s 1970 version.

As for Zero000´s comment above (from 10:06, 18 September 2015): "Hadawi has combined Moslems, Christians and Others into Arabs for population, and combined Arabs and Others into Arabs for land. Brawer's exact words are "while in the original Village Statistics land ownership was classified as Arab, Jewish or others, Hadawi converted into Arab ownership all non-Jewish lands including those of Christian churches, monasteries, institutions and organizations." I think it is a valid criticism." Well, I´m not sure it is very relevant ...for "All that remains". All the churches in the 1948 villages were also "abandoned", is it was called, as their congregation was expelled/left. (Take Ma'alul as an example, though it (as some mosques) is kept restored, as there is a law about that.) (In a broader sense it is more relevant; as various Churches have had large land holdings on the West Bank and in the Jerusalem area.) I would be interested in knowing who actually owns the land that these mosques and Churches in the 1948-villages stands on? I frankly don´t know. Huldra (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and the Efraim Karsh version is laughable: (p. 12): "For example, the veteran Israeli geographer Moshe Brawer has proved Khalidi´s All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992) to be highly partisan and fundamentally flawed. Brewer points to several categories of invaluable source material totally overlooked by Khalidi, ranging from "Village Notebooks" in which headmen recorded for the administration, until 1947, social and economic information of their respective villages, to air photos taken by the RAF in the early 1940s, to the "village files" compiled by Havana Jewish underground organisation. Failing to use these vital sources, Khalidi drew his entire information from a single source - The Village Statistics 1945 - which in itself is of doubtful reliability. Worse than that, Khalidi did not even consult this source in the original, but relied on a tampered-with version published in Beirut in 1970, and edited by Sami Hadawi. See Moshe Brawer, All that remains? Israel Affairs, I, 2 (Winter 1994) pp. 334-46"

Heh, this is almost funny; Karsh calling Khalidi unreliable, while telling his readers that "Khalidi drew his entire information from a single source(!) (To repeat: Khalidi uses hundreds of sources. And except for Pappe and Benvenisti; no-one to this day have used any of the above "invaluable source material" AFAIK: certainly not Karsh or Brawer :) ) Huldra (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, I assume the Village files are in Hebrew? If so, I am not sure that Khalidi reads that. He does have sources in Arabic, English, French and German. And that Karsh calls info gathered by Zionist spies and informers "invaluable source material" and " vital source", well I assume they were....for Haganah. But Khalidi also used Mustafa al-Dabbagh: "Biladuna Filastin", (="Our homeland, Palestine"), (published in Arabic in 11 volumes during 1970s and 1980s), based on info from the displaced villages themselves......that apparently counts for nothing for Brawer and Karsh. Point taken. Huldra (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

what you are doing here is trying to substitute your personal research and evaluation of Khalidi's work for Brawer's. Problem is, Brawer is an acknowledged expert in this area, who published his research in a peer-reviewed academic journal. You, OTOH, are an anonymous internet user, writing on a Wiki talk page. If and when you get you research published in an equivalent academic outlet, we'll consider it. Until then, this WP:OR carries zero weight here. It might be better suited for your blog. Epson Salts (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are of course correct, we are both just anonymous internet users, but when Khalidi writes, say that Hadatha is mentioned in SWP I: 201 ...(he does; on p. 518 in "All that remains") ...then I absolutely refuse to put that into the article about Hadatha. Why? Because SWP I: 201 is about Haddatha (in S-Lebanon). Apparently I am mistaken, as I am only an "anonymous internet user"? And not an "acknowledged expert" like Khalidi?

When I see that "acknowledged experts in the area" are wrong; I say so. (And they are all wrong, at one time or another; Khalidi, Benny Morris, Israel Finkelstein ...or Brawer); And you should have a better argument than "they are experts in the area", say, explaining to us all how/why what they have written isn´t wrong. Anything else is wikilawyering, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The argument to include it is that Wikipedia is based on Verifiability (this is policy - WP:V), not truth. I have neither the time nor inclination to research if your anonymous comments are correct, especially since they can;t be used here. If Brawer's work is faulty, a reliable source would have commented on it. Epson Salts (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"If Brawer's work is faulty, a reliable source would have commented on it.", Excuse me, but that is rubbish. AFAIK, no reliable source have said that Khalidi, p. 518 is mistaken....but he still is. Huldra (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What you describe as "rubbish" is wikipedia policy. Epson Salts (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between those who are here to "build an encyclopaedia", and those who are here to use wikilawyering to get their POV across. I think few editors have any difficulty seeing the difference, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

He is an acknowledged Israeli expert, with an obvious POV, as Khalidi is an acknowledged Palestinian expert, with a clear POV. Intelligent editing, that takes to heart, WP:NPOV, obviously takes note of source bias: if an authority screws up, as did Brawer, and Karsh, alerting the talk page is natural because we are under an obligation to to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia of attributed views, but a guide to reliable information. Many editors labour under the impression East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are annexed because a lot of thoughtless sources repeat this: technically, neither is. One's duty is, at a minimum, to alert them. Whether they take the facts on board or not is another matter. Usually POVs trump quality and WP:BLP obligations.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed [5]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: Nishidani modified [6] his above comment after I responded to it, ignoring best practices outlined in WP:REDACT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR does not refer to arguments given on the talkpage about whether or not to quote some source and to what extent. If WP:NPOV is the goal, why would a source with 450 Google Scholar citations have a reviews section which focused 80% on one particular negative review (it was 100% before Zero added a positive review). NPOV does not mean that people are free to add unbalanced stuff in the article, while leaving it to others to clean up after them. Now, everyone has limited time, so people add stuff which they know about. That's fine. But one hopes that they will make an effort to move towards the ideal NPOV state instead of wikilawyering. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually that's exactly what NPOV means. It means that individually every editor must write the content s/he adds neutrally, and collectively we're obliged to represent all views neutrally and proportionally. You can't expect every editors who edits this page to know the balance of all reviews written about Khalidi's book. All we can do is NPOV to the best of our knowledge. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As you can see from the link to the discussion I had with Nishidani on another page, the idea that an editor's reading of a primary source allows us to modify what an RS says is not universally accepted. From my experience since that would technically be an OR violation, unless everyone agrees it can't happen. It's definitely not wikilawyering. Having a discussion in order to solve the problem, even if someone disagrees with you, is not wikilawyering. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Leveraging the rules in an attempt to prevent article improvement is the definition of wikilawyering. Also, NPOV would have no meaning if any editor could use "someone else can add balance" as an excuse for endlessly attempting to unbalance articles. So you are wrong on both counts. Zero^talk 01:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The only people who have made suggestions on how to improve the article are No More Mr Nice Guy and myself. I've asked you for your suggestion 5 days ago, you have yet to respond. Epson Salts (talk)

Nope, this entire unnecessary argument arose because you refused to accept my improvement of the article by deleting a fake quotation. I have been correct on this issue, both on the facts and on the rules, from the very beginning. Zero^talk 04:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. I know you're not stupid, so you're deliberately misconstruing what I said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are not defending ES's wikilawyering, you can say so and I'll withdraw my comment. If you are defending it, you are wrong. Zero^talk 04:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

a. I was speaking in general. b. I have no interest in your little feud with Epson. c. If anything here is wikilawyering it's the patently ridiculous claim that a missing ellipses in a quote from a document about the very same document (on an issue that even Khalidi acknowledges) is a BLP violation that might get wikipedia sued for libel. This claim is so obviously false that not a single uninvolved editor at AE is willing to support it. The guys who want to let Sean off the hook have to resort to saying an editor with 50k+ edits was "entrapped" like a clueless n00b rather than put their name on that BLP argument (it will be interesting to observe if that changes now that I pointed it out). That high horse you think you're sitting on? It's a pile of bull. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You are distorting both the situation and what I wrote about it. If my students omit an ellipsis they lose some marks. If the elided text tells a story contrary to the remaining text, they are in big trouble. I said as much a year ago and I am still right about it. I also never said that Khalidi could sue Wikipedia over this so you have no point to make there. Zero^talk 23:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the analogy you were trying to make and what "principle is the same" when you said If we wrote that, Khalidi could sue Wikimedia Foundation for repeating a libel we know to be false, which is also libel. Obviously misquoting a source is a smaller offence than murder, but the principle is the same [7]. Regardless, this BLP claim is not receiving much (read: any) support outside the usual group of editors, now is it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I explained how the BLP rules came to be the way they are (I was here at the time); it doesn't mean that plausible legal considerations apply to every application of the rules. Zero^talk 00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think Khilidi could sue, what's the basis of your BLP claim? Epson Salts (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Repeating this nonsense about wikilawyering won't make it any truer. While you were busy bitching and stalling, we've already resolved the issue - no thanks to you, since you are not interested in actually improving the article, only in promoting your POV Epson Salts (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing this? Nobody is going to change anyone's mind, nor is anyone interested in having their mind changed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)