Tuesday, June 21, 2005
HNN has updated their entry on the question of plagiarism and Rashid Khalidi with his response. Basically, he's saying he contributed to the piece, but did not write it and it was attributed to him improperly.
Previous posts here, here, here and here.
Update: Todd Gitlin, in the comments to HNN's post, is on the war-path over "anonymous charges." He sounds vindictive and angry that the issue should be brought out in the first place--thereby inadvertently reinforcing the concerns in the mind of the source that caused them to wish to remain anonymous in the first place.
We all should be concerned and skeptical of charges made anonymously, particularly when anonymous sources bring forth evidence who's provenance thereby becomes impossible to confirm.
Such is not the case here. The anonymous source in this case is simply pointing out the issue. All of the evidence is publicly available and equally accessible by all, allowing each to make his or her own decision. The identity of the source in this case is meaningless one way or the other to the question of plagiarism or how serious a case it is. Whether presented by a university president or an anonymous poster on a message board, the issues remain the same.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Khalidi's Side.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/4364
You should write a reply to this Todd Gitlin commenter, who is more interested by the fact the person who pointed out the plagarism being anonymous than in the credbility of the charge.
I have updated the entry here, thanks. I think his tone just justifies the sources desire to remain anonymous.
Who is this Todd Gitlin clown? Does he have a blog or is he a contributor at HNN?
It's probably this guy.
Btw, did you ever post the interview with Landes? You were talking about that like a month ago?
Yes, Gitlin is the radical left professor at Columbia. But, remember, he is also a very distinguished sociologist. Take a look at his bibliography - you'll probably recognize some titles. http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/faculty/gitlin.asp
the thing is, he's typical of the radical left in that he beleives that you can demonize Israel with harsh and exaggerated criticism and then be shocked, shocked by the seque form demonizing Israel to hating and villifying Jews. Take a look att this article.
http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2002/000079.html
Larry,
You can log on to History New Network and reply to Gitlin. In fact, you should. You're very articulate and the Gitlin radical left types could use an earful of reality.
re: The Landes interview. I haven't posted it yet. After talking with his, I'll probably be posting it mid-August--sometime closer to the launch of his site.
there are replies there already.
"The identity of the source in this case is meaningless..."
Exactly. The person provided facts that are easily verifiable, not unsubstantiated rumors, so why does Gitlin need this person's name? Payback? So Gitlin can pull a Juan Cole and character-assasinate by somehow linking the guy to "the neocons" or some nefarious conspiracy?
And if this person (the information provider) is in academia, especially if he or she is a graduate student or untenured professor, then that person is in a very vulnerable position. Khalidi and Gitlin and Cole and the like love to play the victim but they know they have the power in their fields to sink others careers. And Gitlin's ramblings over at www.tpmcafe.com are rather irritating (the site where Sandinista-defending professors like Anne-Marie Slaughter go to let off steam). But I digress.