Talk:Nadia Abu El Haj

message: 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)
thread_title: Move

message: I've just done a large copy edit, but I think there's some work that still needs to be done on this article:
#References must be given for every quote, not just at the end of the paragraph
#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)
#Quoting is too extensive - remove unnecessary material from quotations and paraphrase other parts
#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
#Some of the quotation marks are missing, making it difficult to distinguish quotations from article text.
#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)
thread_title: To do

message: 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)
thread_title: One reaction

message: 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?
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)
thread_title:  Unattributed quotations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  General comments about this article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Not a book review

message: 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)
thread_title: Gathering information for the article

message: 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)
thread_title: complaint of political vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please review WP:RS on the subject of blogs and partisan websites as sources. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply to [[User:MercyOtis|MercyOtis]] with citation from [[WP:NOR]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Underlining Zionist denialism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "It has been characterized by reviewers" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ''[[Facts on the Ground]]'' 

message: Per WP:RS
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I hadn't noticed the reversion. I would have put them back. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paelojudaica falls into the class of blogs that are reliable.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lecture Series

message: 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 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tagged-Needs Expert

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Assistant Professor?

message: Reliable source says subject was brought up - presume still is Episcopalian. Irony of this fact is relevant to article on controversial figure. Reverting this without evidence is not good faith.Tzvee (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that she was raised in a family that attended Episcopal church twice a year. Assuming that she follows the Episcopal faith is just that — an assumption. Please read WP:BLP; we don't add information to biographies of living people based on assumptions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a non-disputable fact that a person continues their religious affiliation (e.g. "follows the Episcopal faith") unless you have evidence that they renounced their faith or converted to another religion. You could not enter any person's religion if you did not make such an assumption. Do you have such evidence that she is no longer Episcopalian or do you just want to downplay the subject's affiliation. If the latter, then you may safely remove the reference to childhood attendance at church since it is not a substantive biographical fact. It's like me saying the I attended Junior Congregation at an Orthodox synagogue when I was a child, not something that I'd put in my biography. You already have stated in the article that subject's father was a muslim - that establishes her credentials for your article's obvious tendentious purposes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzvee (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wrote, you are making assumptions about Abu El-Haj's faith. Per WP:BLP, especially WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, we do not allow information based on assumptions in biographies of living people. ("Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." [my emphasis]). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject's Religion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nadia Abu El Haj. 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/20100619085704/http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/anthro/elhaj.html to http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/anthro/elhaj.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 13:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nadia Abu El Haj. 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.columbiaspectator.com/webfeatures/elhaj.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628210939/http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/newnews/news100702d.html to http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/newnews/news100702d.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815195159/http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/excellence/hourani_winners_list.htm to http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/excellence/hourani_winners_list.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)