Talk:Nadia Abu El Haj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Nadia Abu El Haj is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Move

An absurd blog - this whole site is questionable - and is evidence of Israeli paranoia.

I have moved this article from Nadia abu el haj for proper capitalization. This article was proposed for creation at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-02-01#Nadia Abu El Haj - academic controversy making news pages by 160.39.35.21. delldot | talk 19:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do

I've just done a large copy edit, but I think there's some work that still needs to be done on this article:

  1. References must be given for every quote, not just at the end of the paragraph
  2. References should be made consistent in their format (i.e. Author last name, first name, Title of work, Publisher... should be in the same order and style for each ref)
  3. Quoting is too extensive - remove unnecessary material from quotations and paraphrase other parts
  4. Sometimes quotations don't seem distinct enough from the article itself. Each quotation should be prefaced by "So and so said, "blar de blar"". Paragraphs should not start with quotations. We don't want it to look like the article itself is saying the material
  5. Some of the quotation marks are missing, making it difficult to distinguish quotations from article text.
  6. The article may have some WP:NPOV problems; it seems to focus heavily on criticism.

I've done some work on this but would appreciate more help. With a little work, I think this will be a great article! delldot | talk 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] One reaction

I am no expert, but my sense from reading this article is that it is heavily biased towards a critical view of Abu El Haj, and should be revised to be less biased.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.140.192.109 (talk • contribs)

I agree with your take. If you want to help fix it up, that would be great! First, we should look for sources that view her and her work in a neutral light. Thanks for the input! delldot | talk 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I did post both positive and negative reviews. The problem is that there are so many more more negative than positive review of this book.

OK. I looked for sources that "view her work in a neutral light" and came up with several additional articles and reviews by apparently qualified archaeologists who view her work in what seems to be a politically neutral light and find it badly wanting in scholarship. Maybe this is the odd case of a truly inferior book of a kind that would usually be ignored as not worth anyone's attention - except that it has gotten into the press because she is proposed for tenure at a major university. It is wierd, to propose womeone for tenure when it is this difficult to find a scholar with anything positive to way about her work.

This article is absurdly slanted against Nadia. What is the authority and even the purpose of reporting the supposed number of "votes?" I am an academic and never was given an opportunity nor was I informed of the "ballot." This is simply a propaganda piece for Israelis. Of course there are more negative reviews because the Israelis are upset someone pointed out some truths about their achaeology.

[edit] Reliable sources / Solomonia blog

I'm going to remove the Solomonia blog as a reference and replace it with citequote tags. According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, blogs may not be used as secondary sources.

“ Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference. ”

Find a primary source, or some other reliable source, for the material about Ussishkin. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision; I was leery about the blogs as sources myself. Especially since this is obviously a controversial topic about a living person. delldot | talk 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some citations form Solomonia are citations of passages from the book. This blogger has posted passages form the book relevent to the controversy. I suppose the page numbers could be psoted, but posting the link to the blog enables a reader to access the roiginal passages.

In other instances, Solomonia has posted book reviews ordinarily accessible only to users of computers linked to academic resources like JSTOR. Posting these reviews enables Wiki readers to access the full text of academic reviews not otherwise available to people without (very expensive) computer links to scholarly publications.

Linking to Aren Maeir's blog seems entirely legitimate. This blog is by an academic archaeologist. He publishes his original opinions there.

David Ussishkin chose to send his formal response to the charges leveled at him by Abu El Haj to Solomonia for posting. Perhaps because he does not have a blog of his own. The fact remains that this is an original letter or memo about this controversy written by the principal in the controversy. If we don't link to the solomonia blog, what can we link to that will enable an interested reader to access Ussishkin's response in his own words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence-based (talk • contribs) February 18, 2007

I'm sorry, Evidence-based, a blog that reprint an article from an academic journal is a secondary source and the policy says that "blogs ... should not be used as secondary sources." As delldot wrote, this is particularly important when you're writing about a controversy involving a living person. Campuswatch.com probably isn't an appropriate source either.
“ Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject [my emphasis, see below concerning Aren Maeir's blog]. ”
FYI - Every reference in Wikipedia doesn't have to be published on the Internet, so long as it is published in a reliable source that can be verified. If Solomonia is reprinting portions of El Haj's book or journal articles, citing the originals instead of the blog might be better. Keep in mind, though, that Solomonia seems to be advancing an agenda, and he may or may not be manipulating what he reprints to suit his purposes. You should feel confident that the quotations are exactly as they appeared in the original.
With respect to El Haj's book, see if Amazon.com will let you search inside the book; you could check whether your quotes from the book are accurate and, if you want, find page numbers. If you have access to the journals, check your quotes from the journals. If you can't see the journals, consider looking for reliable newspaper or magazine articles that mention the reviews. You would probably end up with shorter bits of each review, but the sources would be considered more reliable and verifiable.
With respect to Maeir's blog, see the reliability policy:
“ When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. ”
Again, a blog is not considered the best source, but if no reliable newspaper or magazine has reported on Maeir's comments, you can use his blog if he meets the criteria described above. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with this take. Since the citation in the article is that 'so-and-so said such-and-such', using the guy's blog seems reasonable as a way to show that he said it. My only concern here is, how easy would this be to fake? Could this be the blog of someone claiming to be this guy? Not that I really think that's going on, I'm just saying in terms of verifiability, if it would be easy to fake it's probably not appropriate. Evidence-based, I admire your desire to have all info available on the web for easier fact-checking by readers, but I must echo Malik's sentiment that these could be being manipulated. Perhaps we could cite the original and say something in the ref like "duplicated at such-and-such blog". However, are you familiar with the policy against linking to violations of copyright? If these blogs don't have permission to be reproducing this material, it could be illegal for us to be linking to them. Thoughts? delldot | talk 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren Maeir is a real person and his personal blog (which appears to be written in some large part to attract volunteers and donors to his dig) is unquesitonably his own. Other archaeologists and ancient historians who know him personally accept his blog for what it is.

I checked with Solomonia - he posts an email address - he has checked with the academics Aren Maeir and alexander Joffe, and they have given permission to have their book reviews posted on his web page.

It is interesting that this whole blog is dominated by Israeli blogs and input. Therein lies the real reason they're upset. They can't accept that a person of Palestinian descent wrote such a provocative piece. Colonialism fears the colonized.

[edit] Unattributed quotations

It isn't appropriate for an article to include a paragraph, such as the one below, with no attribution. Who said it? Is he/she qualified to offer an opinion?

“ "At the heart of her critique is an undisguised political agenda that regards modern and ancient Israel, and perhaps Jews as a whole, as fictions… "Abu El Haj's anthropology is undone by her... ill-informed narrative, intrusive counter-politics, and by her unwillingness to either enter or observe Israeli society... "The effect is a representation of Israeli archaeology that is simply bizarre... Filling in what is missing from her text becomes fatiguing. In the end there is no reason to take her picture of Israeli archaeology seriously, since her selection bias is so glaring… "Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided. ”

As it turns out, it's from a book review posted by a third party on a blog -- which is contrary to WP policy on reliable sources (see above). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's from a book review in a reputable academic journal, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, echoed on the Solomonia blog. It's true that Solomonia has a pro-Israel agenda. And apparant that he is posting this review because of political opposition to Abu El Haj's bok. However, he does perform a service in posting a review that would otherwise be unavailable to everyone without access to a university library, or to expensive suvbscriptions. And the reviews he posts check out - they are unaltered from the original.

More evidence that this whole Wikipedia article is suspect as a sham by Israelis against Nadia Abu El Haj' scholarship.

[edit] General comments about this article

I edited the article today to standardize the footnotes and add leads into the quotes ("so-and-so said, "xxx"). I am left with a few thoughts:

  • This isn't really an article about Nadia Abu El Haj; it's an article about Facts on the Ground. Maybe we should consider moving it, unless something can be said about Abu El Haj herself.

I am just adding material about her current book project, as suggested

  • I think most of the quotes are much too long. An editor should be able to paraphrase what an author wrote without quoting yards of text. Quoting some phrases, or even a sentence or two, is one thing. But the whole article seems to be made up of quotes that have been cut and pasted from reviews of Facts on the Ground.
  • I think the article should include some positive reviews of the book and Abu El Haj's response to her critics. (I assume that there were some positive reviews and that she has responded to the criticism.)

Anyway, that's what I think. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Two positive reviews are posted, under anthropology.

Abu El Haj has not responded to the criticism that I can discover.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Athena's daughter (talk • contribs)

Why should she bother to respond to such absurdly construed and distorted blogs?

Malik, I totally agree about the quotations. I think when we get time one or the other of us should begin paring them down. Thanks to all for the hard work on this article! delldot talk 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a book review

This is suppose to be an article about an college professor not a book review. If she warrants mention in Wikipedia there needs to some background information about her that tells why anyone would care what she wrote in a book.

This article needs to be completely rewritten with the section on the book given the proper weight for an article about a borderline notable professor. FloNight 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gathering information for the article

Select Publications (from Barnard profile http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/anthro/bios_nadia.html )

"Edward Said and the Political Present," American Ethnologist, 32, 4, November 2004: 538-555.

Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. ** This book was the winner of the Middle East Studies Association's Albert Hourani Annual Book Award, 2002.

"Reflections on Archaeology and Settler-Nationhood," Radical History Review, 2002, 86: 149-164.

FloNight 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

more...

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/anthropology/ance/PhDadvisorchange.html

Date announcement was posted: 9-13-2006 Prof. Nadia Abu El-Haj has taken over the position of Director of Graduate Students and PhD Advisor.

FloNight 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] complaint of political vandalism

this professor is notable in a limited way for one reason only - the notoriety of her single book which has attracted a great deal of attention - almost all of it negative.

the article has recently been vandalized, clearly a political vandalism. the archaeological community is up in arms about this woman because of the fradulent nature of her book. When someone is notorious because of her work, it is necessary to post the negative reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 (talk) 18:58, May 16, 2007

I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you start accusing other editors of "political vandalism." The editor to whom you refer explained the rationale for her edits here. I expressed the same concerns earlier. This wasn't an article about Nadia Abu El Haj; it was a collection of quotes from bad reviews of Facts on the Ground. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Absent the bad reviews of Facts on the Ground (an extremely controversial book) and minus the press coverage of that controversy, this professor is not newsworth and the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 (talk) 09:01, May 17, 2007


[edit] External Links

I removed richard Silverstein's blog. It is a blog with an extreme political perspective and intense tone. If this sort of blog is appropriate for an external links section, and it is allowed to stay here, it needs to be balanced by other blogs that have been following this story longer, and from the other side.

PaulaSays.com, Solomonia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis (talk • contribs) 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The blog was listed as an external link, not as a source. Several of your references are blogs. I will remove them per your instructions. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS on the subject of blogs and partisan websites as sources. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed this material

In her recent paper "Rethinking Genetic Geneaology: A Response to Stephan Palmié." American Ethnologist 2007, 34:2:223-227. Abu El Haj states that one of the "accepted forms of knowledge" that has been "disproved" by genetic research is "the 'fact' that the Jewish maternal line originated in ancient Palestine." This is the precise opposite of an accurate statement of the matter. In fact, genetic research has recently established that geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors who originated in the ancient Levant. see: Thomas, M.; Weale, M.E.; Jones, A.L.; Richards, M.B.; Smith, A.; Redhead N.; Torroni A.; Scozzari R.; Gratrix F.; Tarakegn, A.; Wilson J.; Capelli C.; Bradman N.; Goldstein D.B. Founding mothers of Jewish communities: Geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors American Journal of Human Genetics 70, pp.1411-1420, (2002)

Can someone provide the text in question for all of these sources? The language makes strong conclusions that I want to make sure are borne out in the sources cited. Thanks. Tiamut 19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

MercyOtis. Would you mind responding to this request? You keep re-adding this information without addressing my questions. It would be nice if you could discuss your edits, rather than simply re-adding them as is. Tiamut 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, this juztaposition of information might be WP:SYNTH. What you need is a source that discussed Abu El Haj's work and raises this critique of it. You can't make that analysis or link yourself. It's considered WP:OR. Tiamut 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see this has been objected to before. It's all OR, and, as a matter of fact, wrong. "The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because, unlike the case with the men, their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations," according to the NYT. Hornplease 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for clarifying that Hornplease. I was pretty sure that was the case, but I didn't want to overstate it without being sure. Tiamut 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamet, Hornplease - I'm not sure what you want me to do. I have quoted the language of the article and provided the citation. El Haj has her facts wrong in this case. The New York Times is not a gentics journal.

I do not need an article by a New York Times reporter. El Haj makes a simple assertion of fact. This article from the American Journal of Human Genetics. It makes a simple, clear refuation of El Haj's erroneous fact. She is wrong. This is significant. Read the articles. they are available in any large university library.

MercyOtis. Please click on the link to WP:OR and read it. It's a policy here at Wikipedia. You cannot make original analysis. If a reliable secondary source has not refuted El Haj's work directly, you cannot do it yourself. Tiamut 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a page about a controversy. It is useless unless material explicating both sides of the controversy are posted. the American Journal of Human Genetics is a highly reliable source. I am not putting my own opinin here. Or anybody else's opinion. I am putting a direct , factual refutation of a fact . This is an encyclopedia. Of course it shold cite the American Journal of Human Genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to reading WP:OR or else you don't seem to be understanding it. Does the article in the American Journal of Human Genetics discuss Abu El Haj's scholarship and refute it directly? If it does, please provide the text in quotes. If it does not, you cannot use it in this article. That is what we call original research. I am going to revert your edits again. Please do not reinsert this material again unless it specifically names Abu El Haj and you provide the citation here. thank you. Tiamut 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

tiamet. You cannot keep removing important material merely because you do not like it. One of the points of Nadia Abu El Haj's genetics project is to deconstruct the Jewish ancestral ties to the land of Israel. This passage is a factual refutation of her recent genetics article. It belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to MercyOtis with citation from WP:NOR

The problem with your contribution, MercyOtis, is that it is considered "original research," and Wikipedia articles may not include original research. When Wikipedia editors refer to "original research," it includes the intuitive meaning of the phrase (a theory that you or I developed on our own) as well as "synthesis." According to the relevant policy, Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:
If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. (Italics in original, I added the bold-face.)

In this instance, the article says that Abu El Haj has written about Jews, genetics, and ancient Palestine. You would like to add a paragraph, published by a reliable source, that "The leading study of the subject found exactly the opposite." That is original research ("synthesis of published material serving to advance a position") unless a reliable source specifically comments on the conflict between what Abu El Haj has written and what the leading study of the subject found.

In other words, you can't write an encyclopedia article that says that Abu El Haj is wrong about genetics because her views are disproven by the leading study of the subject. If you want the article to say that she's wrong, you have to find a reliable source that says she's wrong. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations from Facts on the Ground

I strongly recommend that nobody rely on a second-hand source for quotations from Facts on the Ground, but instead go to Amazon.com and search inside the book. Some partisans cobbled together phrases that are separated by 30 pages to create a single "quotation" that they attribute to Abu El Haj. They also attribute to her language that appears in her summary of an article written by another person.

Some of these "quotations" are debunked in the footnotes I wrote for this article. In any event, I cannot stress enough the importance of verifying quotations for yourself and not trusting quotations found in petitions, blogs, or other second-hand sources. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

right. so why does Tiamet keep removing this quote "a tale best understood as the modern nation's 'origin myth' ... transported into the realm of history." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm speculating, but maybe because you're quoting the phrase out of context? Read pages 103 and 104, and it's clear that Abu El Haj is discussing the Israelite conquest and not the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. As I wrote at your Talk page, User talk:MercyOtis, and at Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society,
In Facts on the Ground, Abu El Haj describes a bitter debate between Israeli archaeologists Yigael Yadin and Yohanan Aharoni during the 1950s over how to reconcile and interpret the results of their excavations with respect to the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. She writes that they "shared more than they disagreed about: the historicity of the biblical tales, the 'fact' of an Israelite nation that entered Palestine during the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition"; she describes this assumed "social collectivity" of the ancient Israelites as "a tale best understood as the modern nation's 'origin myth' ... transported into the realm of history."
Please read your Talk page, User talk:MercyOtis, where User:Tiamut and I have both left you comments explaining the problems with your contributions. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underlining Zionist denialism

Important to focus on the fact that the 'movement' to lynch Abu El Haj is led by people who deny the existence of the Palestinian people and their basic rights (see Paula Stern, an illegal colonist as an example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.142.139 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Contributions to Wikipedia, especially those that describe living people, need to be attributed to non-partisan reliable sources. If you can produce such sources, your contributions will be included. Until then, they will continue to be removed. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Academic Tenure controversies

I want to make certain that non-academics helping construct this page know how extremely rare it is for a tenure battle over a hitherto obscure professor to get into the newspapers. (Israel Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz have both been well-known for years)

Moreover, it is almost unheard of for a leading scholar like alan Segal to come out in the press in opposition to the tenure of a colleague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis (talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While that may or may not be true, Wikipedia's policy says that giving undue weight to any viewpoint can violate the policy concerning neutral point of view.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. ... Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. WP:UNDUE
It seems to me that there is no "majority view" concerning Abu El-Haj, and the "Tenure controversy" section should be roughly balanced between supporters and opponents. By my very rough calculation, the two sides have about the same "screen-length" (although the pro side has a little more because the "Palestinians" template narrows the screen) — until we come to the three paragraphs about Segal.
I think that giving Segal three paragraphs in which his views are summarized seems excessive unless (a) he is so prominent in the field that his views trump all others or (b) some of the other criticism is cut back to achieve a rough balance. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "It has been characterized by reviewers"

I deleted this paragraph about Facts on the Ground, and I wanted to explain why:

It has been characterized by reviewers as "part of a relentless and continuing effort to delegitimize Israel and finally eliminate it through a false historical narrative that is repeated in Palestinian schoolbooks, in sermons, in the Arab press, in Middle Eastern study centers at universities, and in the politicized scholarship and dialogue generated by Israel-haters, anti-Semites, and Palestinian apologists around the world." http://hnn.us/articles/43602.html

First, that's not how "it has been characterized by reviewers" — it's a quote from one review. Second, that reviewer is director of Boston University's Program in Book and Magazine Publishing. How does that qualify him to write a credible review of Facts on the Ground]]?

If the anon editor who added this would like to add a sentence about how "it has been characterized by reviewers", I recommend that she or he look at Facts on the Ground, which largely consists of reviews of the book by anthropologists and archaeologists — i.e., people who are qualified to judge a book about anthropology and archaeology. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This section was badly in need of balance. I have attenmpted t do so by posting dueling descriptions of the book. One from the most favorable review the book received (in the MIT journal) The other by Jim Davila, a distinguished historian of the period who wrote a dispassionate and mixed review of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts on the Ground

Is there any reason why the section in this article on Facts on the Ground differs so much from the article Facts on the Ground? Shouldn't that section be a brief summary of the other article?

As an example, Davila is quoted in both articles, but the quotations are completely different. I don't think Zuriek, who is quoted in this article, is quoted in the other article at all. It almost seems like we're writing two different articles about the same book. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Zuriek should be quoted there, and I expanded the Davila reference there and trimmed it a bit here. -- Avi 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paelojudaica falls into the class of blogs that are reliable.

Per WP:RS

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

This applies to Davila, Harvard Phd, Principal of St Mary's College, St Andrews, and an oft-published author. -- Avi 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why his comments about Facts on the Ground have been part of that article for 2-1/2 weeks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Tiamut removed them today citing the "blog" explanation, and I wanted to emphasize that this is one of those rare exceptions. Thanks Malik -- Avi 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't noticed the reversion. I would have put them back. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to both of you. I forgot about the exception to self-published material. Thanks for catching that. Tiamut 12:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lecture Series

Flying three of the world's leading archaeologists of the ancinet Levant to Columbia, at some expense (form Arizona, North Carolina and Israel) for the specific purpose of refuting the arguments in a book is a rather dramatic move in a tenure battle. Tenure decisions are usually quiet, disrete. This one is making headlines almost daily.

And , Dever, Magness, and Maeir. They are bringing in the starts, the big guns in this field. To refute a tenure candidate, on her home campus. this is high drama (or what passes for it in academia.)

In tenure battle terms, it is the most dramatic move to date. Imean, an op-ed is one thing, but actually flying William Dever in from Arizona to refute a book... This is astonishing. And probably unprecedented.

I don't know how this weighs, but on many topics, Wikipedia is the only resuource that lets you follow a news story as it unfolds. Someone coming to this story would have to wade through dozens of news articles and hundreds of blog posts. I think a real service is performed in sorting out the major moves in what is rapidly becoming a national test-case for evidence based scholarship vs. post-modern scholarship.


Oh, and - we can edit the thing back down once the dust settles. tenure battles don't go on forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningside Clio (talk • contribs) 21:47, October 22, 2007

I agree that a public tenure battle is unusual, but in fields related to the Middle East they are becoming more common. I won't remove the information, but we'll see what other editors think. You're right that these are among the giants in the field of Ancient Near East archaeology. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged-Needs Expert

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

Hi - I tagged this article for neutrality concerns because it does not appear to represent a balanced picture of Nadia Abu El Haj's scholarship--the critical angle is emphasized while her many supporters are not cited. This is important becasue the tenure battle is ongoing and her work is highly disuputed--that is, she has both critics AND supporters, so both should be equally represented here. In addition, when critics misquote her work it is midleading to leave those quotes in the body of an article even if the misquotes are mentioned in a footnote (as they are here). Plenty of people, from many different angles, have discussed her work without misquoting it, so we could have better sources here even from the critical end. That said, I'm not an expert so I did not make any changes. This is extremely sensitive as a biography of a living person, so it needs attention from someone who is knowledgeable of the ongoing debate from all sides.

I would have rather tagged this article

Accuracy and/or neutrality dispute
 This biography of a living person may contain unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial claims.
Such content must be removed immediately.
Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people are strictly forbidden on all Wikipedia pages. In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, free of original research, and encyclopedic.
Please see discussion on the talk page and the living persons biography noticeboard.

So if someone else feels that is appropriate, please do.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.100.231 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe the sources for criticism are inadequate? What supporters do you think have not been cited? Beit Or 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Beit Or. The article cites both supporters and opponents of Abu El-Haj. If you think there's a viewpoint that isn't represented, please bring a source and add it to the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Assistant Professor?

The article says she is an assistant professor but that she has tenure. This is not possible, assistant professor is the juniormost type of professor. She will be either associate professor with tenure or full professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.146.254 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

During this past semester Abu El-Haj was an assistant professor. She was granted tenure in November. I'm not sure whether her title has changed, or when it will change, to reflect her new position, but we can't revise the article until we have a reliable source. Her bio page at Barnard College still describes Abu El-Haj as an assistant professor. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of Slander removed

Out of sensitivity to the fact that this is a biography of a living person, I removed the 'accusation of slander' section, because it is a single accusation that has not been justified by any outside source--not even the person supposedly being slandered--or confirmed elsewhere. There is no evidence that one isolated and usubstantiated allegation is deserving of a section separate from the broader section on the controversy surrounding Abu El Haj's tenure, and furthermore a false accusation of slander (or the spread of such a claim) is considered justifiable for counter-legislative action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi please stop undoing my edits without any discussion. I have explained all of my edits on the talk page. This section (accusations of slander) is part of general criticism and not worthy of a separate section, especially considering that it is unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate way to deal with this is to raise your concern on this Talk page, not to repeatedly vandalize the article as you did. You didn't just delete the section about the allegations of slander. You butchered the section about the tenure controversy, moving some footnotes from one paragraph to another and deleting others altogether.
If you don't want other editors to consider your work vandalism, use the "Edit summary" under the edit box. And make constructive edits instead of disruptive edits.
Let's see what other editors think about the WP:BLP issue. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You moved it because you're afraid of being sued! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.122.36 (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected nationality

Does this person hold duel citizenship? If not, please leave as is and mention ethnicty elsewhere. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources say that "http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/education/10barnard.html?_r=2&oref=slogin The professor, Nadia Abu El-Haj, [who] is of Palestinian descent]". Another source in the article calls her a "Palestinian-American". I don't see why we should ignore what the reliable sources say about her background. Nationality is not the same as citizenship everywhere is the world (as you can see in the article). Please stop deleting the inclusion of this information. It's very relevant to the subject at hand. Some of the opposition to her tenure was based on her Palestinian background. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:MOSBIO and every other biography out there. Please stop or gain comsensus. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it's you you has to gain consensus for your deletion. This material has been in for months and it's reliably sourced. Further, MoS says clearly:

Nationality – 3a. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consenus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.) 3b. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Much of the controversy around El Haj's appointment was directly or indirectly related to her Palestinian background. It's imminently relevant to the article. Please don't delete sourced material again without getting consensus for your edit. Regards, Tiamuttalk 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I added that she is of Palestinian descent. Is that properly worded? If not, could you please correct, but leave nationality as is. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, just because there has been a mistake for months does not mean that it should stay. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not revert it again, but will ask for comment. Regards, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you are the one that originally added "Palestinian-American" to the article, and that other editors have questioned this? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It actually looks like one editor, wanted American-born, and he was adding alot of stuff that was not going to stick as it was against consensus. It seems that if you want to say "American of Palestinian descent", you have to then say why that is notable in the lead sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I thought you were going to wait for additional input before reverting again. You have again deleted "Palestinian-American", even though the sources throughout the article, establish her identity as such. For example, Abu El-Haj, a Fulbright Scholar and Palestinian-American. Further, as I explained to you, her background was part of the reason for the protest against her appointment, a fact discussed in detail in the article itself. Please self-revert. The repeated deletion of sourced material without trying to seek WP:CONCENSUS for your edit is considered WP:DE. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to go against 3 revert rule. This still reads much better per MOS. If you want to say American of Palestinian descent and explain why that is notable, then possibly it should be changed but I think it is fine the way it is now. Thanks --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not about 3RR. You said both here and on my talk page that you would not revert again. You suggested that we wait for others to give their opinion. And yet, you did revert again. I've explained to you that per MoS, mentioning her ethnicity as Palestinian is very relevant. I've also provided you with two sources in the article that say she is a Palestinian-American, or of Palestinian descent. In other words, this information is relevant, reliably sourced and verifiable and should be included in the intro since its related to her notability. I'm going to restore the information and ask that you do not delete it again. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 11:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While I agree that Abu El-Haj's Palestinian ethnicity is important, I'm not sure that it is "relevant to [her] notability", which is the threshold in WP:MOSBIO. Abu El-Haj is notable because she was at the center of a bitter tenure battle and because she is the author of a controversial book, not because she's of Palestinian descent.

Take a look at Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. (The articles, not the people. ) The lede of Mandela's article doesn't mention his race at all, and King's lede mentions his race only obliquely ("one of the few leadership roles available to black men"). I think leaving Abu El-Haj's Palestinian ethnicity out of the lede is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree Malik Shabazz. The petition organized by her supporters, for example, and highlighted in the article, clearly states:

"We also believe that Ms. Abu El-Haj has been singled out from among many other authors who make the same points essentially because of her last name, thus, we suspect that something like simple ethnic prejudice is at issue here."

While some have denied that their opposition to her appointment was influenced by her ethnicity, many believe that if she wasn't Palestinian, her scholarship would not have been the source of controversy. I don't see why we should downplay her ethnic background when many people in the debate surrounding her appointment, did in fact discuss it. Tiamuttalk 09:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted per forming consensus. Tiamut, please look at the 100s of bios out there where the person's ethnicity is important but is not mentioned in the lead. It is brought out elsewhere in the article. There are only a handfull out of 10,000s of bios that mention ethnicity in the lead, and in those cases, it is made clear why it is being mentioned. This is not about censorship, nor about denying her ethnicity or anything else for that matter. Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My two cents, I think her ethnicity is highly relevant. The controversy about her tenure had everything to do with Palestine, and sources discussed in the article have argued that her ethnicity particularly had a lot to do with it. That makes it worth a short phrase in the intro.
While I'm commenting, the tenure section is way too long. I'm not sure exactly what should be cut, but it's kind of ridiculous. If it were to stay as long as it is, it would deserve its own article. Maybe it does, but I don't think so. Kalkin (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
How would you phrase it? I am open to suggestions. Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I think either of "Palestinian American" or "American professor of Palestinian descent", the two suggestions I see above, is fine. Kalkin (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That does not provide any context or tell me why ethnicity is being introduced in the lead. Maybe "is an American acadamic whos Palestinian ethnicity caused a tenure battle at Barnard, ect ect". I personally think that sucks and but it is lightyears ahead of inserting ethnicity into the lead against guidelines and without any context for why it is being introduced. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an article about Palestinian Americans. I think this should be used in the opening paragraph, as it is relevant to the controversies covered in the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Check added. Article far from neutral POV in tone and content. This is not the place to prove points. It is a reference encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV editing

Editor Shabazz shows blatant POV, even vandalism. Must be asked to desist from editorial activity on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your aggressive but selective deletions have the effect of introducing your own POV into the article, and some inaccuracies, and I will continue to revert them as appropriate.
Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:No personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At times aggressive and selective deletions are merited to improve a poorly constructed article. Thanks for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cutting only things that cast Abu El-Haj in a favorable light, while leaving intact every negative point in the article, is not an improvement. It's an imposition of your POV on the article.
But thank you for starting the process of pruning back the quotes, even if you only cut the positive ones. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinians template

This template has been removed several times and repeatedly restored. I think it's time for a talk page discussion to establish a consensus we can point to in the future.

In my view the template should absolutely stay. Abu El Haj is a diaspora Palestinian, like Edward Said, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, and Rashid Khalidi, all listed as "notable Palestinians" on the template. She is notable primarily for a controversy around her allegations that Israeli archeology systematically neglects or destroys Palestinian and other non-Jewish history and artifacts in its quest to prove the truth of the Old Testament narrative - which is clearly related to Palestine & Palestinians. Finally, many of her supporters, such as Paul Manning who used to be quoted to this effect in the article, believe that her tenure was controversial only because she was a Palestinian - ie due to anti-Palestinian racism.

Those who wish to remove the template seem to believe that the label "Palestinian" should be applied only to Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. This not only has the effect of a decidedly POV denial of the real existence of a Palestinian people as such, but also is in explicit contradiction to the purpose of having a "Palestinians" template, as discussed on the template talk page and on its failed AfD. Kalkin (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The point of Abu El-Haj's book is that Israeli archaeologists have destroyed evidence relevant to Palestinian history in their rush to find evidence of ancient Israelite history — in effect, erasing Palestinian history to write their own history (she might say "to fabricate their history", but I don't want to put words in her mouth). I think the template is appropriate here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Subject says she is not a public intellectual, meaning she claims to do scholarship, not politics, unlike like Edward Said, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, and Rashid Khalidi. Do we want to let her have it both ways? If you let the template stand, then remove the claim to not be a public intellectual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this. It's not a question of "letting her have it both ways" - we're not including the template because she asked us to. Kalkin (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Subject's father was a diaspora Palestinian, mother was American of European ancestry. So subject is, at most, a 2nd generation diaspora Palestinian: at what point does someone become assimilated? Is someone still black or Jewish if they have even just 1 grandparent who was?
Yes, for many purposes. American racism has always operated by the one-drop-of-blood rule; Israel's Law of Return gives anyone with a Jewish grandmother the right of immigration. Kalkin (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To call subject a diaspora Palestinian is itself a POV assertion. My ancestry is Polish, and while that may have made me more than typically interested in Solidarity's political activism in the 1980s, it wasn't a significant factor in my opinions about it, and no-one ever discounted my opinions because of my anceestry. Practical headlining of subject's Palestinian ancestry is prejudicial to subject's scholarship. Moreover, subject's work is within a well-established tradition examining social & political contexts of archaeological theory & practice (e.g., Bruce Trigger); work is basically an anthropological history of Israeli archaeology. This tradition of scholarship is most strongly associated with Anglo-American anthropology & archaeology; it is virtually absent in classical/Biblical archaeology. Work may be about Palestinians, but Abu El-Haj is an American of partial Palestinian ancestry, educated internationally, and practicing within a strongly Anglo-American scholastic vein. Furthermore, subject's work has general concurrence of practicing Israeli archaeologists, while having been strongly criticized by Palestinian archaeologists: the opposite, in fact, of what one would expect were subject a Palestinian activist.
What is your source for this? I've read plenty of hostile comments by angry Israeli archeologists and none by Palestinian archeologists. Kalkin (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Finally, Edward Said was not just a Palestinian scholar but a member of the Palestinian National Council; the Palestinians sidebar on Said's page is not included in his biographical section but his Pro-Palestinian Activism section. You will not find anything like Said's (or Abu Lughod's or Khalidi's) pro-Palestinian activism in subject's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.28.192 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Being a diaspora Palestinian does not require being an activist. It just requires having Palestinian descent and identifying as a Palestinian. But see below. Kalkin (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"Those who wish to remove the template seem to believe that the label 'Palestinian' should be applied only to Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. This not only has the effect of a decidedly POV denial of the real existence of a Palestinian people as such...." That's an awful lot to read into the couple of sentences accompanying the deletions. No one disputes that she is ethnically Palestinian on her father's side. But is she Palestinian in the sense implied by the Palestinian sidebar? Her opponents' focusing on her Palestinian heritage (and ignoring her American heritage) is a rhetorical strategy, and shouldn't be given much weight in evaluating her identity. Do we really want use the "anti-Palestinian raci[sts']" own arguments? You also argue that her research "is clearly related to Palestine & Palestinians," which is a red herring. At issue is whether the woman is a Palestinian, not whether her research is related to Palestine. That would be relevant only if there were some causal relationship between being Palestinian and doing Palestine-related research. The only thing left to your argument is whether she is, in fact, "a diaspora Palestinian, like Edward Said, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, and Rashid Khalidi". In the broadest sense (simply having Palestinian ancestry), yes. But the Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian indicate that this is only one of several possible senses, the choice of which is a matter of POV. More particularly, the Palestinian diaspora page touches on three things: (1) departure (emigration/exile/deportation) from Palestine, (2) desire to return to Palestine, and (3) personal significance of Palestine. The first does not apply to Abu El-Haj: she was born in the U.S., she has lived in the U.S., Iran, and Beirut. Regarding the second point, she has not publicly indicated whether she would like to live in Palestine. But in the New Yorker article, she explicitly attributed her ability to do research in Israel to her being American. Also, Israeli archaeologists agree with her book and some use it in the classes they teach. It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that she could live and work in Palestine if she wished. Thus, she does not seem to have a particular desire to return to an ancestral home in Palestine. (Note that I am not saying she doesnʻt support an abstract right of return for Palestinians: only that she doesnʻt seem to have any such personal, emotional desire.) Thirdly, the Palestinian diaspora article says "Robin Cohen in his book Global Diasporas (1997), explains that for Palestinians, and others like Armenians, Jews, and some African populations, the term 'Diaspora' has 'acquired a more sinister and brutal meaning,' signifying 'a collective trauma, a banishment, where one dreamed of home but lived in exile.'" Again, she has not publicly expressed any sense of being traumatized or banished or living in exile. Her tenure controversy seems to have been more traumatic than her paternal family's 20th century history. She is a student of the Palestinian diaspora; the thing itself seems to be of greater academic than personal interest to her. Since not one of Wikipediaʻs own three major elements of the Palestinian diaspora applies to her, the argument that she is a diaspora Palestinian is severely weakened. She is Palestinian only in the least restrictive sense. After reading the Palestinian template discussion, I don't think that's enough to warrant the Palestinians sidebar. It suggests a stronger identity with Palestine and the Palestinians than is justified by her public comments. Including the sidebar seems to be a political claim more than a substantive one. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the most persuasive argument. I think the question comes down to whether Abu El Haj identifies as a Palestinian. If that's how she describes herself, together with her ancestry that's certainly enough to include the template, given that it's relevant to the article in other ways. If it's not how she describes herself, we probably shouldn't include the template. I don't have time right now to try to carefully review her self-descriptions, but I think this is the key criterion. Kalkin (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)