Talk:Hamid Dabashi

message: Verita, your description of Pipes as right-wing is a personal POV, though one that you share with others. He does not regard himself as right-wing, and neither do some others, especially those who think of "right-wing" as being old-fashioned blood & soil nativism, as opposed to the Enlightenment liberalism that Pipes says he supports and which is sometimes regarded as left-wing. Hence, "right-wing" is not acceptable. If you want to find a mainstream source who describes him as right-wing, then do so and attribute that characterization to them, rather than positing it as simple reality.
And "attack" is also unacceptable. Debate does not have to take place in an academic setting to count as debate rather than attack. You and I are not having this discussion in an academic setting, and yet no one would say that we are "attacking" each other. Pipes strongly disagrees with Dabashi's positions, just as Dabashi strongly disagrees with Pipes's. That is not a "fight," and neither is attacking the other. Again, if you can find a mainstream source that describes Pipes's criticisms of Dabashi as an "attack," then attribute it to them.
In the meantime, until sources and attribution are provided, I'm changing it back.
Finally, the "scholarly world" does not as one support Dabashi. Some do, others don't. It is unencyclopedic and inaccurate to assert otherwise. Babajobu 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with "severe criticism" from Pipes, that's a fair compromise. I can't accept unqualified assertions of "support in the scholarly world," plenty of eminent scholars think what he has to say is rubbish. And comparing him to Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky is pure original research and hagiography. Babajobu 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just added Marx and Freud to the influence box. His recent works, more specifically Shiism: A Religion of Protest is a rethinking of Shiism in light of Freud. Karl Montague (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence

message: Reproducing book blurbs as captions in wildly POV and simply not done in Wikipedia. If you insist on keeping evaluations of books in the captions, one of the captions should be from a critical review rather than a laudatory one. And I'm sorry, but saying Dabashi is a "high-profile academic..."like Edward Said or Noam Chomsky" is wildly POV. He has nowhere near the profile of either of those men. Babajobu 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book blurbs

message: This article is rapidly turning into a breathlessly laudatory fanpage for Dabashi; moreover, the main fan, User:Verita, is apparently unwilling to use the talk page. I don't have time to keep the article NPOV; if anyone else does, please do so. Babajobu 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagiographical tone

message: I pulled up this article because I was concerned it would focus entirely on the recent controversy at Columbia in which some Jewish students claimed Prof. Dabashi and his collegues, Joseph Massad and George Saliba, were intimidating students who supported Israel's policies toward its neighboring countries and the Palestinians.  The article's extensive discussion of Prof. Dabashi's work and views pleases me greatly (though I think it strays far from NPOV in places) but, as much as I hate to say it, the article's complete silence about the Columbia controversy is a serious flaw.  People threw a lot of mud at him and, as far as I'm concerned, essentially none of it stuck.  But regardless of one's position on the controversy and the allegations against Prof. Dabashi, it was a major part of an important nation-wide discussion about free speech, academic freedom and campus politics.  The article should -- without bias toward any participants - discuss the controversy at least at a basic level.
:I agree. I will tag the article as POV, until the article is meets the applicable Wikipedia standards. gidonb 17:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Columbia Speech Controversy

message: The origin of the so-called “Columbia controversy” is a maliciously fabricated so-called documentary that a Zionist propaganda outlet based in Boston, entirely unrelated to Columbia University has made. Based on this very so-called documentary, there is absolutely not a single allegation brought by any student from Columbia or anywhere else in the world against Dabashi. Allegations are brought against George Saliba and Joseph Massad (allegations that have been by and large dismissed) by three successive investigative bodies within Columbia itself (see all the sources by New York Times and Columbia News). Even in this document which is the origin of everything else that has been produced around the so-called “Columbia controversy” there is no single student who says anything against Dabashi so far as his conduct in his classroom or at Columbia is concerned. 
The charge that has been brought against Dabashi in this “documentary” are objections that their malicious and vicious distortion (deliberate distortion) of a passage in an article that he published in a weekly magazine in Al-Ahram. In this passage, Dabashi describes the physical and psychological consequences on individual citizens living in a militarized state. Not a single time in this article does Dabashi even use the word, “the Jews.” In the passage that Zionist propaganda outlet in Boston has manufactured, they deliberately take the words “these people” out of Dabashi’s sentence and maliciously insert the words “the Jews”. As a result the very assumption brought by some that Dabashi is “accused” of misconduct is entirely false and in fact a continuation of slander. , , , , , , . . 
Verita
:Well, if that is correct, why not put in the article that he was slandered? People may look for some information on this affair. This could make the difference between PR writing and encyclopedic writing. gidonb 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand why suggest? I will write something about it myself. gidonb 07:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Verita, I do not recognize myself in any of your allegations and would like to refer you to our policies WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith. These allegations violate both. gidonb 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add this just for the record, because it is so easy to hurt the reputation of bona fida longtime Wikipedians, who do not change their nick every Tuesday and Thursday, even with a proven record of bridging between concepts of people with opposite political views. I first came to this article while doing my usual Wikipedian chores. I cleaned up the root of :Category:Social scientists. After the cleanup the category was added to the Hamid Dabashi article almost immediately. I tried to cleanup the categories a few additional times, invested a lot of additional work, but this was many-a-times met by reverts and various threats, while the category spammers and vanity promoters worked from multiple "dedicated" identities. After the disgusting personal attacks above I had taken a break. While looking at old edits I saw that the problems of this article still linger on, with possible negative implications for the living person in question. I have called this to the attention of several of my co-editors. gidonb 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Dabashi is not even Arab, so I don't know why he'd necessarily support Arabs that have opted to immigrate to Israel, a state which he considers to be neo-colonial. What is more considerable is that he collaborates heavily with Jewish scholars that are also critical of Israeli policies. The comment should be included as a controversy, but let's not give it exaggerated weight. Dabashi's credentials are undisputed, and although he is incredibly assertive with what he knows, he generally is very convincing and his students generally love him. I suppose we could also include things regarding Campus Watch and Daniel Pipes (Pipes being a malicious anti-Islamic necon that spouts his racist polemic everytime he can find an outlet). The original poster here ought to provide proper context if he/she believes Dabashi's comments were taken out of context. Obviously, Dabashi is just as critical of the Islamic Republic, Hindu Nationalists, and the religious right, and the despotic Arab monarchies, so he's hardly a racist by any stretch. His support generally goes to the Palestinians, Lebanese, the new Iraqi and Afghan fledging, struggling Republics, and Turkey. -MadarB 03:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "he generally is very convincing and his students generally love him." I'm not sure whether I should cry or laugh at this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.79.186 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: so-called "Controversy"

message: I was asked to have an outside look. I approach this in the spirit of doing him and his views full justice -- with respect to both the opinions of his supporters and opponents. It does not benefit a subject in the light of intelligent readers for his article to adopt an uncritical style. the greater the man and the work, the less need for adjectives of praise. If a person is a highly respected scholar, the description of his work and its reception in the article will show it. If he is controversial politically, the article will show that. Ny concept of an encyclopedic style is the the classic advice of Strunk and White, "omit needless words" -- in my own WP formulation, "omit needless words, especially adjectives." There is a style appropriate for book jackets, and a style appropriate for works of reference. I'd urge some copy-editing, and if nobody else does it, I will. I am also startled to see no mention in the article of the controversies in NYC. I have my own view of them, which is not anyone's business, but I have not followed them with specialised attention & am therefore not the best person to write this part. a narrative supported by no-partisan newspaper articles should be possible. thee is no need to draw a moral, just state what happened and --very briefly--what was said.  I'd suggest a relatively neutral heading, such as "Career at Columbia". There is nothing too difficult to describe objectively, if people will be content with that and not try to indicate also whether his views and actions are right or wrong. The reader will judge that for himself.  DGG (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: outside look

message: Well, this is what happens when you have an edit war. And now the page was protected after Verita committed another act of vandalism. Hey Verita - why don't you explain why you are constantly trying to censor the page? Prof Dabashi did write that quote for the Al-Ahram weekly (he does not deny it), and he was criticized for it. Why do you believe no one else should know about this? Wiki is not your personal space. If you think the quote was mistranslated, provide a better translation. If you think it was taken out of context, then provide the full context. But instead of doing either of those things, you keep deleting it - which to me is pretty good proof that you don't think you can explain it. For everyone else, here is the controversial quote, since it keeps disappearing from the article. You can judge for yourselves: Professor Dabashi has been criticized for the following quote which was part of an article he wrote for the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly. Referring to Israelis, he wrote: “Half a century of systematic maiming and murdering of another people has left its deep marks on the faces of these people. The way they talk, the way they walk, the way they handle objects, the way they greet each other, the way they look at the world. There is an endemic prevarication to this machinery, a vulgarity of character that is bone-deep and structural to the skeletal vertebrae of its culture." BuboTitan 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he wrote: “Half a century of systematic maiming and murdering of another people has left its deep marks on the faces of these people.", I don't think he was talking about airport workers... In any case, if you feel the remarks need better context, then write it into the article. BuboTitan 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protected on 26 October 2007

message: As anyone who has been reading this page knows, Verita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Verita) has been on a personal crusade to eliminate any info about Prof Dabashi that he doesn't like. Verita, the cited material is not "slander", since Prof Dabashi doesn't deny making the remarks. Also, the remarks were criticised. Once again, If you think the quote was mistranslated, provide a better translation. If you think it was taken out of context, then provide the full context. But instead of doing either of those things, you keep deleting it - which to me is pretty good proof that you don't think you can explain it. Frankly I am at the limit of my patience and if you change the page one more time without at least providing an explantion on the talk page then I'm going to request page protection and mediation from Wiki.BuboTitan (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with the wikiquette alert - it may backfire on you, since I haven't insulted anyone here. The point I don't think you understand is that the accusation was made against Prof Dabashi. Even he wouldn't deny that. If you think it's slander, put in the article evidence that the accusation was slander. A wikipage is for information, not for Prof Dabashi's self-promotion. Incidentally, I'm not your friend.BuboTitan (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: BuboTitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BuboTitan) is only out here to slander Dabashi and his task on wikipedia only seems to leave the stench of a poorly articulated pro-war, pro-torture, Zionist (by the way THAT is racism--belonging to something based on your blood) agenda. Dabashi HAS strongly objected to the false allegations of anti-Semitism and many have come to his defense incl. the Jewish Week of New York (see below). The charge of anti-Semitism is a very very serious one--one of racism and hatred towards a whole people! If BuboTitan really cared he would do some research before wasting his time here! In the Al-Ahram passage, Dabashi describes the physical and psychological consequences on individual citizens living in a militarized state. Not a single time in this article does Dabashi even use the word, “the Jews.” The very assumption brought by some that Dabashi is “accused” is entirely false and in fact a continuation of slander. The man has written over 17 books over 30 years and here comes a good-for-nothing BuboTitan and gives himself the right to slander a distinguished scholar. It is truly pathetic and I do sincerely hope that he DOES reach his “limit” of patience and gets out of here! Not that one can reason with people like him, but just for the record see all these outlets defending Dabashi: , , , , , , .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verita (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that slander? 1) He made the remarks, 2) He was accused of anti-semitism (the word "accusation" does NOT mean that the charge was proven). Once again (for the 100th time) if you think that Dabashi was misunderstood, then provide that information in the article. But by removing the quote, you are removing cited and relevant information on him.BuboTitan (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BuboTitan's edit war

message: Hi, my comments on the edit war:
*Phrases similar to 'hailed' aren't normally used.
*Similarly 'definitive' probably isn't neutral.
*In terms of finding a compromise, I've reverted in order to remove the above terms, but haven't reincluded the criticism section.
*I've trimmed the amount of external links.
Could I suggest that you don't continue the edit war, and instead discuss how a compromise can be reached? Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support some of the trimming that you made. In effort at a compromise, the criticism section could simply be titled "criticism" and not "allegations of anti-semitism", if that makes a difference. His controversial quote is authentic, however, since the Professor admits to it. But I don't mind also adding information that he vigorously denies that his remarks were anti-semitic (a compromise that Verita rejected). The article should, as much as possible, factually speak about the Professor; the purpose is not praising him or bashing him. But you can't have a balanced article if no criticism is allowed.BuboTitan (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi BuboTitan, looking at the results of this search, I gather the allegations were part of a wider controversy at Columbia, for example this New York Times article says "Professor Dabashi has been mentioned for canceling a class to answer his "moral duty" to attend a Palestinian rally and seems implicated chiefly for his published political viewpoints." Also, this New York Sun article indicates the New York Civil Liberties Union defended his actions. Addhoc (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a criticism section with a bit more context, using some of the links that you provided. This includes the findings of Columbia's committee. This is not definitive, but it is the first attempt at a compromise here. I welcome more addition and context. But before anyone deletes anything here, they might note that even Hamid Dabashi's own hand-picked references on his web page notes that he was accused of anti-semitism: http://www.hamiddabashi.com/refer.html (look under 2004 & 2005)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuboTitan (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten the criticism section, could I ask that you don't resume an edit war, and instead discuss major changes? Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to strongly disagree on this point. I'm afraid the section, as you modified it, isn't even a criticism section anymore. It's not NPOV. All it really says is that there was a controversy, and that professors were being wrongfully maligned. In other words, there's no actual criticism of Mr. Dabashi in it. If no one ever criticized him, then that would be understandable, but plenty of people have, and for more than just canceling one class. We don't need to smear the guy, but both points of view at least need a fair shake. It doesn't make sense to me that Hamid Dabashi's own web page mentions several times charges against him but we don't see any in the article?BuboTitan (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What you have now, I think, is a fairly acceptable compromise; if the people want to dig deeper into the critcism they can at least look it up themselves. But in an attempt at balance, I made a couple small changes. I don't think it's NPOV to only quote the ACLU in this case, when no one else is quoted, especially University President Bollinger. So I changed the quote to simply stating the NY ACLU's position, added a reference, and expanded one sentence a little. Tell me what you think.BuboTitan (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As it stands now, the page is tolerable. Unfortunately, it's had moderator help in the past, and then soon afterwards went back into an edit war. Hopefully we won't see that again.BuboTitan (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll close the case if the current version is a tolerable compromise. Addhoc (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine with me, but the pattern in the past is that the edit war starts soon again after the moderator leaves (sigh). But I thank you for your time here.BuboTitan (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the edit war 

message: These sections are problematic in that they describe Dabashi in his own words.  I might have had fun, too, writing my own  Wikipedia page and quoting my own views, books and articles to do it.  Alas, the page was posted by others (readers? students?) who quote form third parties discussing my work.  I did have the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to work that way,  That you had to find a source other thatn the subject of the article to quote on the work the subject of the article does. Post-modern truthsquad (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Works, Philosophy

message: Look, a lot of major intellectual figures were/are flaming anti-Semites.  T.S. Elliot, Martin Luther the list is long and distinguished.  We don't reject the good work that these important intellectual figures did on the grounds that they were anti-Semitic.  Insteead we put a small section on their Wikipedia pages documenting their hatred of Jews.  I suggest that we use the T.S. Elliot page as a model and cconstruct a modest section on Dabashi's well-documented anti-Semitism.Thomas Babbington (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thomas, the article mentions that allegations of antisemitism were made against him, and the result of an investigation which found the allegations to be without foundation. Addhoc (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing section on Dabashi's anti-Semitism

message: The image :Image:Cover IRAN.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Cover IRAN.jpg

message: The vast majority of this article currently consists of the "controversy" section which is pretty much overinflated with his critical views of Israel, giving them undue weight. This kind of zealotry really is something, both from the right and left wing types here on WP. Furthermore, the article as it currently stands is grossly in violation of WP:BLP. This is more an attack article than anything. IranianGuy (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you made a mistake by saying the Victor part is undue weight and removing it. The event was very notable, it came all over the news (for one). Second, I couldnt go into Hitler and remove things from there saying its undue weight, could I? The same is true for this guy. 90% of what he says in public is stuff that like that where he lands himself into the news, and rightly so. The wikipedia article should reflect that. If there's a serial killer, you cant cut details about his crimes because it looks like undue weight. So you cant remove well-sourced stuff like that. But I dont have time to battle this out so whatever you guys wanna do. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The problem here is that we have an article on a person whose every opinion seems to be worthy of inclusion. Your comparison with Hitler doesn't make a lot of sense. First of all, this guy is not Hitler, second, not every email exchange of Hitler's is worth mentioning. If every single one of Hitler's interactions were relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedic article, we would quickly run out of electrons to run this joint. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy's opinions are well documented and very notable. He's not commenting on what kind of kitty litter people should use - rather, he offers very critical (and quite provacative and offensive) opinions about many important topics (e.g. Israel, Islamophobia). That's why this article is structured the way it is.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if you feel any of his views have been incorrectly documented or have been misrepresented, feel free to revise them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is ridiculous and totally biased

message: Include his new book -- Brown Skin White Masks in his bibliography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.52 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: new book released April 15 2011

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hamid-Dabashi.png Nominated for Deletion

message: The issue of unreliable sources has been brought up at WP:BLPN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted my reply. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hamid_Dabashi (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, your attempt to get your way at BLPN failed, and now you are trying to come up with a new excuse? I admire your determination. Unfortunately, your latest effort is just as ridiculous and fanciful as your previous effort. If you believe the New York Sun is not a RS source, then please provide evidence to support this (you have not provided any evidence to date, except for your own opinions which are not based on facts or reality). Also, you accused me of trying to "deliberately misrepresent" Dabashi with this section - that is a very serious accusation. I assumed (naively, it seems) that you would provide evidence to support this accusation. Instead, all you have provided is double-talk and evasion. If you have no evidence to support this accusation, then I except an apology. In the meantime, I suggest you come up with a legitimate reason why this section doesn't belong here. Otherwise, please stop disrupting Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLPN 

message: And now, it is time to discuss the section on this page, rather than edit-warring over it.  I suggest this is a much better idea than blocking anyone. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already discussed this on BLPN (Roscelese lost) but I'm willing to discuss it here as well.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This has twice been brought to the BLPN notice board (see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive223#Hamid_Dabashi) by Roscelese and twice her claims that this material is improperly sourced or "deliberately misrepresent[s]" Dabashi have been deemed without merit. Unless she intends to make a third attempt at this, I suggest we let this issue rest and move on.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hamid Dabashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070207132542/http://www.hamiddabashi.com:80/books.html to http://www.hamiddabashi.com/books.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206065959/http://www.hamiddabashi.com:80/biography.html to http://www.hamiddabashi.com/biography.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hamid Dabashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.asiasoc.org/news/special_reports/dabashi.cfm
*Added  tag to http://www2.nysun.com/new-york/columbia-professor-calls-bollinger-white/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080110012256/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/797/special.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/797/special.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230045/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=9837485b-aef9-49aa-b04d-8c73c804862e to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=9837485b-aef9-49aa-b04d-8c73c804862e
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Hamid Dabashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111003832/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_2_67/ai_63787340 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_2_67/ai_63787340
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202232539/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/903/focus.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/903/focus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080114041047/http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=310240&rel_no=1&back_url= to http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=310240&rel_no=1&back_url=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112011322/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/709/cu12.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/709/cu12.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172520/http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/20/herb_denenberg/doc4975a46fde30d964905359.txt to http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/20/herb_denenberg/doc4975a46fde30d964905359.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110213221324/http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/boycott_divestment_campus_09.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_2 to http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/boycott_divestment_campus_09.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215220222/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/866/focus.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/866/focus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050301094823/http://www.makhmalbaf.com/persons.php?p=23&lang=2 to http://www.makhmalbaf.com/persons.php?p=23&lang=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201081702/http://www.hamiddabashi.com/newspaper.html to http://www.hamiddabashi.com/newspaper.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From Bashi's page, it seems that they are no longer married. The link on here to his personal website, corroborating their marriage, is broken and his personal website does not mention Bashi. Illang (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to Bashi 

message: The source is depreciated per  RFC: Electronic Intifada, can we consider it to be aboutself? I would argue for a removal (including the sources content), but am open to alternatives. FortunateSons (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the interview with EI considered aboutself, or is it subject to removal?