Talk:Facts on the Ground

Proposed merger

Nadia Abu El Haj is non-notable but for this book. I suggested months ago that her bio, which was nothing but a long book review, be renamed Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Now that the content of the book review has been moved into its own article, her bio is bare. Let's finish the process by merging the two articles and deleting Nadia Abu El Haj. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support I probably would have supported you before. Tewfik^Talk 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support (unless there's some reason she's notable beside writing the book, which doesn't appear in the Nadia Abu El Haj article page). AnonMoos 08:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Let's think this through. There have been a number of news articles about the tenure battle. True, the book is the reason other academics oppose tenure, but the tenure issue is independently notable and often referenced as part of a gorup of tenure battles being waged over politicized scholarship of the type exemplified by "Facts on the Ground" There is also the issue of the forthcoming book on Jewish Race Science. Highly likely to be controversial. I say she is controversial enough to warrant an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 (talk • contribs) 20:45, July 10, 2007
  • That's all well and good, but Nadia Abu El Haj doesn't mention the tenure battle or the forthcoming book. Also, with respect to the idea that the new book is "likely to be controversial", WP is not a WP:Crystal Ball. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UT
• Against I think she's notable enough for a bio article outside the article on her book. The article needs to be fleshed out, however. Bigglove 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Support I just read the other article. Would agree to merge and delete. Bigglove 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Against - she has several articles and a book forthcoming on topics like "genetic reinscription of race" and " Jewish racial science." these are controversial topics. Looks like she's going to be in the news for a long time and not merely for her first book—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 (talk • contribs) 16:32, August 17, 2007

You should take a look at Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can't write an article (or keep a bad article) because somebody might become notable. If El Haj becomes notable in the future, an article about her can be written then. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you. If you think Campus Watch will let Abu El Haj retire into obscurity you don't understand how they work. For the reasons listed above, I believe she IS notable & will continue to be. Her tenure battle has now received two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education, one in Inside Higher Education. When her tenure decision is made (likely sometime this fall) there will be a firestorm whatever the decision. In addition, the issue of academic free speech is HUGE & her tenure battle is right in the middle of it all. 05:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Richard

I think Malik shabaaz should tell us how many articles, about the person and the tenure battle, not just the book make ani individual noteworthy. There have been news articles in the Forward, the Cleveland Jewish News, the Connecticut Jewish whatever-its-called, the jewish telegraphic agency, Israel Natinoal News, the Chornicle of Higher Education, Indise Higher Ed, the New York Sun - I'm probably missing some here, those showed up on a quick search. All print media. plus online places, American Thinker, History News Network, IvyGate, and others.

OK Malik. I assume you were the one who decided to limit this to a book page instead of a page about Abu El Haj. What would it take to make someone newsworthy?

I think an individual professor who has had multiple articles in Inside Higher Ed AND the Chronicle of Higher Ed is definitionally newsworthy.

But go ahead. Set a standard. Two more articles? A total of ten news articles? Set something reasonable. If that may articles come out, the the page is on the person and her scholarship, not limited to her first book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 (talk) 19:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

First, why don't you read the title of this article. It's Facts on the Ground, not Nadia Abu El Haj. That means it's an article about the book, not its author. Likewise, Moby-Dick is an article about the book, not a biography of Herman Melville.

Second, why don't you read Wikipedia:Notability. As I wrote at the top of this page, the article about Nadia Abu El Haj didn't establish her notability. Three other editors agreed. That's why it was merged into this article.

Third, why don't you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Finally, why don't you read this page. When Richard wrote last week about the tenure battle, I wrote: "If there's an article to be written about El Haj, including her tenure battle — and it sounds like there is — I think the appropriate place is at 'Nadia Abu El Haj', not here. If you'd like to write that article, I'd be happy to help you. I'm sure other editors will help as well." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential vandalism

I would like to ask why people are removing some of the material I've added to this article. I am a blogger who has been intensively blogging about this issue for the past week & digging up important material about it all of which I can easily substantiate.

Since the article about Nadia Abu El Haj has been redirected here I added a section on her tenure battle, which is a very important academic free speech issue. That was removed only a few hrs after I added it & I see no note here fr. the person who did it. Before I add it again, I'd like to find out why it was removed & determine that it won't be removed again.

I also added two external links, one of them to a blog post I wrote about this issue which contains orginal research on the subject. The entire external link section was removed. Can someone suggest how to stop this fr. happening in future at least till there is a discussion about such wholesale removal of material I consider important.

I recognize that this is a highly charged article. But I have factual documentation for everything I write here & would like at least a chance to provide it before others vandalize my contribution.

I have provided the citation Malik requested on the Joffe review which attests that he was director of Campus Watch when he wrote his review. 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Richard

Hello, and thank you for all your recent contributions to this article.

I deleted the section about the tenure battle, and I left an edit summary that said "This is an article about a book, and a battle over tenure is irrelevent to the book".

This article has a tortured history. It was originally titled "Nadia Abu El Haj", but many editors (including me) felt that it was a long book review and not a biography. So the information about Facts on the Ground was moved to its own article, and the article about El Haj ended up looking like this. That rump didn't say anything about El Haj except that she wrote Facts on the Ground, which is why her article redirects here now.

If there's an article to be written about El Haj, including her tenure battle — and it sounds like there is — I think the appropriate place is at "Nadia Abu El Haj", not here. If you'd like to write that article, I'd be happy to help you. I'm sure other editors will help as well.

You mention that you added an external link to a blog post with original research about her tenure battle. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability says that self-published sources such as blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons. What that means is that you can't cite the blog as a source, but you can cite the books or magazine articles that the blog used as its sources, provided that those are reliable sources and that the quotes in the blog are accurate.

One last thing. The issue with Joffe isn't whether he was E.D. of Campus Watch, it was whether "Defenders of Abu El-Haj's work note that Joffe etc." In other words, we need an example of one of El-Haj's defenders criticizing Joffe for not disclosing a conflict of interest.

If you have any questions, please post them here. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: A new biography has been created at Nadia Abu El Haj. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a merger. In the interim, I have tagged this article for lack of neutrality. The entire page is devoted to criticizing her work without very little in the way of rebuttal. Tiamat 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Added "Unbalanced" tag

Reviews listed in this entry are disproportionately unfavorable to her scholarship. Sources include right-wing blog American Thinker (I think referencing blogs is disallowed on Wikipedia) and hawkish source Campus Watch. More reviews from scholarly sources need to be added.--Kitrus 20:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitelan

Just to let you know, I was going to put it back. I still had it on my clipboard. I was checking to see if it was in one of the other sections. Bigglove^talk 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"mass revert"

One of my edits was just called a "mass revert". Please note that I was restoring material meeting criteria wp:v that is relevant to the article. This material had been removed by a new editor. I did not restore some stuff that had been posted from a blog and was not a good source. This is a very controversial book. Critical reviews need to remain in the Wikipedia article to be true to the subject. Bigglove^talk 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted material I had just added sourced to Keith Whitelam in the New York Times (which is definitely not a blog). Also, I find your restoration of that material to be a poor edit. There was an NPOV tag on the article before another editor came along and helpfully summarized the material here improving flow and balance. You restored the old text but didn't restore the NPOV tag. That's just a little inconsiderate no? Tiamut 02:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

DId you read the section above? I was still editing and was going to put that back in a new section JUST AS YOU DID. You beat me to it. I apologized once for that after I saw your edit summary comment, and I will apoligize again. To be fair, the new editor removed a lot of stuff that should not have been removed. If you feel the NPOV tag is needed, I won't argue. Bigglove^talk 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I missed the section above. Thanks for the explanation. Tiamut 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

About your resinsertion of this material to the introduction:

In the book, El Haj attempts to demonstrate how "(social) science generates facts or phenomena, which refigure what counts as true or real," and concludes that the existence of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah should be considered "a pure political fabrication."

You claim this is a direct quote from her work. It's not. On page 250, these words appear in the following context:

"In other words, the modern Jewish/Israeli belief in ancient Israelite origins is not understood as pure political fabrication. It is not an ideological assertion comparable to Arab claims of Canaanite or other ancient tribal roots." (Italics in original)

Both sentences are part of a summary of a paper by Israeli archaeologist Magen Broshi ("Religion, Ideology, and Politics and Their Impact on Palestinian Archaeology", Israel Museum Journal 6:17-32, 1987); in her summary, Abu El Haj does not refer to the Hasmonean and Davidic dynasties. It is Paula Stern who identifies this "absurd and unsupported assertion" as the theme of Facts on the Ground.[1]

So, please stop inserting this into the introduction. It is WP:OR and not WP:NPOV. Tiamut 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

this is much more helpful than referring me to the author's Wiki page (which does not refer to this stuff at all) as explanation for your removal of this material. Bigglove^talk 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article I referred you to, including the footnotes, you would have found all of that material since I essentially copy-pasted it from there. Perhaps it should be moved into the main text of the article to make it clearer however. Tiamut 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did not look at all of the footnotes. I didn't realize they contained text. Apologies, Bigglove^talk 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

References

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 at Nadia Abu El Haj. 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)

NPOV tag

Nadia Abu El Haj is the focus of a major debate over tenure at an important university, and has become an important figure for that reason. Since this book is a major part of the public debate, reporting on it and its reviews is appropriate. I have also modified some of the negative comments, as noted below, to make things more balanced. DaveBurstein 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I went back in and re-edited, after what looks like two strong partisans reversing each other. I believe the article is more effective because I have taken out a few things. I also reworded sections from Anthropologists say and historians say to "positive" and "negative" opinions. While the examples cited fit those categories, I wouldn't want to suggest that all anthropologists are likely to support the work and no historians and archaeologists without far more evidence. (It's more likely the break is on ideological grounds, although I haven't researched it. I am sure my cousin, a strong Zionist who once studied anthropology, would criticize the work.

I left in some strong negative comments, as well as positive ones. I deleted one negative comment that was simply wrong, the bit about "condoning" the actions at Jacob's Tomb. I went to the original book, which described the crowd as "looters". That isn't "condoning". I also am deleting the bit about only modest Hebrew. That's stretching; clearly it's possible to do decent work about Israeli scholars (nearly all of whom are able to discuss their work in English) with modest Hebrew. On the other hand, if there were an specific, substantial error in the book because of something misinterpreted from the Hebrew I would think it appropriate and would not have edited.

This is the kind of thing best argued with solid facts. There are enough of those to make the points. Adding additional opinions that add little confuses more than strengthens the argument.

I've also taken out the neutrality tag, because I believe with this edit there are strong expressions on both sides, and the egregious opinions are cut. The remaining article clearly suggests a controversy and major points from both sides.

I urge anyone who edits this further not to pile on more quotes and opinion to emphasize their arguments and again make the article's neutrality questionable. It is already a long article, and if you want to add to it please emphasize facts that are clear and can be expressed quickly.

Dave Burstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveBurstein (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Those edits look generally fair to me and the tag's removal is welcome as a result. Thanks for your efforts. Tiamut 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved Dave's comments down here from the top of the page. I see that some editors continue to undo his edit, without replacing the NPOV tag that his edits addressed, thus justifying its removal. I also see that those editors are not engaging in discussion over the matter. This is the second time Dave has gone to the trouble of editing the article to address the NPOV tag and the second his edits have been reverted. Would those undoing his work care to explain? Tiamut 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted comments by Lassner and Segal

I've repeatedly deleted from this article comments by Jacob Lassner and Alan Segal because they refer to Abu El Haj herself and not Facts on the Ground. Here are the statements in question:

Jacob Lassner, Professor of History and Religion Philip M. & Ethel Klutznick Professor of Jewish Civilization at Northwestern University, said of el Haj's book, "The problem, of course, is that she is politically driven."

Alan F. Segal, Professor of Religion and Ingeborg Rennert Professor of Jewish Studies at Barnard College, Columbia University, where Abu El Haj teaches, told the New York times that "her work... is not good enough."

Now, the comments in context (emphasis is mine):

Critics of Dr. Abu El-Haj’s book, however, said her aim was to undermine Israel’s right to exist, and challenged her methodology and findings.

“Serious people are outraged when people who are rank amateurs come in,” Jacob Lassner, a professor of history and religion at Northwestern University who wrote a negative review of her book, said in an interview. “It’s insulting. Brain surgeons would be offended if a medical technician criticized their work. That’s what’s happened here. The problem, of course, is that she is politically driven.”

Note that the comment is from an interview with Lassner and not from his book review, and that it is about Abu El Haj and her motivation, not about Facts on the Ground.

Dr. Abu El-Haj has some opponents at her own college. “There is every reason in the world to want her to have tenure, and only one reason against it — her work,” said Alan F. Segal, a professor of religion and Jewish studies at Barnard. “I believe it is not good enough.”

Note that Segal is commenting about the corpus of Abu El Haj's work and whether she deserves tenure, not specifically about Facts on the Ground.

Including these remarks here, as if they were comments about Facts on the Ground, is WP:SYNTH. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. They are comments about her work as a whole, which includes this book. Please stop unbalancing this article. 6SJ7 03:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm not trying to "unbalance" this article. I haven't deleted a single thing from any book review, however negative; in fact, seven months ago I did what I could to turn a collection of pull-quotes from negative book reviews into the framework of an article.

2) I'm glad you agree with me that the comments are about Abu El Haj's work as a whole, which is what I wrote. Jumping to the conclusion, then, that they refer specifically to Facts on the Ground is as valid as saying that Lassner thinks her choice of Barnard College was "politically driven" and Segal thinks her poor spelling or short office hours is "not good enough."

Let me put it another way. If Lassner or Segal had Facts on the Ground in mind, they would have said so. Lassner didn't say that Facts on the Ground was politically driven, he said that Abu El Haj was. Segal didn't say that Facts on the Ground wasn't good enough for Barnard to consider granting Abu El Haj tenure, he said that "her work" isn't. Please stop trying to read something into it that isn't there. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the way statements are now in the article, as other comments. To be fair, this is this author's major work to date, her only book. It is fair to include these comments on her "work" therefore to a discusison of this book. Bigglove^talk 00:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jacob's tomb

I took out for the second time the section about the book "condoning" what happened at Jacob's tomb. In fact, on page 281 (checked on Amazon) the author called the incident "looting." That is inconsistent with the claim she "condoned" what happened, although she did supply context. It was restored with a note to me that "condoned" came from an outside source, but this that doesn't make it accurate or appropriate for wikipedia.DaveBurstein 22:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody with access to Aren Maeir's review in Isis should see how much of what you deleted was a Wikipedia editor's summary of Facts on the Ground and how much was a quote from Maeir. If it's a direct quote from Maeir's review, you can't delete it just because you think it describes the book incorrectly.

Here's the original paragraph, but its use of apostrophes is inconsistent.

Archaeologist Aren Maeir wrote that Facts on the Ground is "a deceptively well-written, well researched monograph that superficially bears all the signs of a state-of-the-art contemporary social science study.." The book "is the result of faulty and ideologically motivated research." To Maeir, the most astonishing part of the book is a discussion on the last page of the text (p. 281). Abu el-Haj describes and condones the attack, and subsequent ransacking, by a Palestinian mob on what is known as 'Joseph's Tomb' in Nablus in 2001. Several people were killed as a result of this attack; the gleeful tone in which she describes this act of vandalism exemplifies how her political agenda completely overcame her duties as a social scientist."

Note that the paragraph ends with an apostrophe, but it isn't clear where the quotation from Maeir begins. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a partisan website that purports to be a reprint of Maeir's book review. It includes this paragraph:

Perhaps the most astonishing part of the book is a discussion on the last page of the text (p. 281). Abu el-Haj describes and condones the attack, and subsequent ransacking, by a Palestinian mob on what is known as "Jacob's Tomb" in Nablus in 2001. Several people were killed as a result of this attack; the gleeful tone in which she describes this act of vandalism exemplifies how her political agenda completely overcame her duties as a social scientist.

Since the name of the website is "Deny Nadia Abu El Haj Tenure", I question its reliability as a source and hope that somebody with access to Isis can verify the quote. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have access to a university library so I'll try. Bigglove^talk 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just received a PDF of the ISIS article in my email. I'll come back and edit based on the contents later. (the quote looks accurate at first glance) Best, Bigglove^talk 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (and Avraham's recent edit is correct; it is a negative review) Bigglove^talk 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. Here's an exact quote from the pdf of the ISIS article: "Perhaps the most astonishing part of the book is a discussion on the last page of the text (p. 281). Abu el-Haj describes and condones the attack, and subsequent ransacking, by a Palestinian mob on what is known as "Jacob's Tomb" in Nablus in 2001. Several people were killed as a result of this attack; the gleeful tone in which she describes this act of vandalism exemplifies how her political agenda completely overcame her duties as a social scientist." In other words, the quote was reproduced completely verbatium on that Web site. I am going to add other content from the review. Bigglove^talk 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for verifying it. I wish there was some way we could summarize Maeir's review a little — I hate to quote such a long portion verbatim — but I doubt that (collective) we could hammer out a compromise that would satisfy everybody. I think the best thing may be to include the paragraph as it was/is, just making it clear that the whole thing is Maeir's words. Thanks again! — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) -- Avi 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I did my best to summarize. I left Jacob's tomb out for now. Bigglove^talk 00:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants a copy of the pdf let me know via my email and I'll be happy to send. OR EVEN BETTER, leave me a note on my talk page if you have a working Wikipedia email link and I'll email it to you. Bigglove^talk 01:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If, by some chance, you find yourself overwhelmed by requests, you might want to consider whether it's easier just to confirm whether this is an accurate copy of the review. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. I had not looked at that page at all previously; I just went off and got my own copy. I compared what is posted on the Web site to the PDF I have and they are the same. Anyway, if anyone doesn't trust my word they can write me and I'll send the pdf. Bigglove^talk 02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

subject headings

I'm wondering if some of the stuff in "reception" belongs in "positive reviews", or exactly what differentiates the two sections. Bigglove^talk 01:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

could someone answer this question? I am thinking that SAid and devlin belong in "positive reviews" and the higher ed thing (negatvie) should really just go away completely. What do people think? We could get rid of this section and add an "awards" section for the award. I don't want to be so bold as to do this, but think it would be appropraite. Bigglove^talk 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the question before. I think the "Reception" should include any quotes from news articles (such as the New York Times) that summarize the battle and say that feelings are strong on both sides. Any other views, including the award the book won, should probably be in the appropriate sub-section.

The Inside Higher Ed article is interesting as meta-commentary about a national lobbying campaign being waged by advocates of Israel against professors believed to be anti-Israel. I'm not sure that it's so important here, except as a back-door to get Campus Watch's view in the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the Award can go into an "awards" section. Part of Said's thing is reception; part is positive review. See my question below on another cite. About the rest (higher ed), it is complicated. This book is a highly political one which has/will/can be used in a goal oriented way to achieve political ends. I think the article should either just stay out of all that and confine itself to a dispassionate discussion of the book itself OR we should have a section that adresses that aspect of the book explicity and separately. Does that make any sense? Bigglove^talk 16:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Quote" from Segal

Bigglove, the reason I removed it is that I don't think it's a quote from Segal:

In an interview with The Jewish Week, Segal, the Barnard professor, said there were ample reasons for the college to grant Abu El-Haj tenure; as a woman with Palestinian roots who approaches her subject from an interdisciplinary angle, she brings needed diversity and a novel outlook to campus.

But her work, he said, is lacking, failing to address specific inscriptions and other material culture that proves evidence of the existence of a people, Israel, in ancient lands. Her sources, too, said Segal, are flawed, sometimes anonymous and other times a small group of biblical minimalists who do not represent the archaeological establishment.

“It’s a calumny,” said Segal of Abu El-Haj’s work. “It’s simply not true. It’s slander.” [2]

Since only the last sentence has quotation marks, I believe it is the only direct quote, and the rest is a reporter's paraphrase of his remarks. Including it in the article in quotation marks suggests that the words are Segal's. Should we try to paraphrase what the reporter wrote, which is what we would normally do with information from a news article? Should we make it clear that the quote, with the exception of the last sentence, is the reporter's summary of Segal's remarks? I'm open to suggestions. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I completely see what you mean. I really appreciate your detail oriented editing, which is really improving the article. We might not have to paraphrase, since he did say pretty much the same thing in the columbia spectator, all his words, we could quote that instead. However, I am not completely sure whether or not it should be in the article at all. I feel anything about a tenure battle should be on the bio page of this author. I feel that this page should be about the book's own contents and merits, period. However, I know that others disagree. IF we are going to bring up the tenure battle here on this page, then I feel we should have the Segals comments on this topic in addition to the academic freedom being squlched pov which of course also has a right to be aired. Anywyay, the content was orig in "other comments from scholars. It was moved to "reviews" where I didn't think it belonged so I put it with the other tenure battle stuff, which is in the intro/lead. Bigglove^talk 16:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Some editors feel that any mention of Abu El-Haj's "work" is a reference to Facts on the Ground and therefore belongs in this article. During the past week or two, many (most?) of those mentions have been in the context of the tenure fight, so it's a difficult balance. I made my views clear last week but others disagree. I've agreed to compromise somewhat, but it's not like this article is lacking for criticism of Facts on the Ground.

And thanks for the kind words about the details. You've been doing great work yourself, you Zionist swine. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks.... Bigglove^talk 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gelvin

The cite here is sparse. Does anyone have more information? I wanted to read the orig. Bigglove^talk 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm / Book Review

I'm concerned that the article is no longer about the book, but instead has become little more than a collection of quotes from book reviews. I think we need to summarize the key points of the reviews — both positive and negative — keep some particularly insightful quotes, and call it a day.

What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But to start with, I moved the Davila review from "negative" to "mixed", as much as I dislike this whole scorekeeping outline. Anyone familiar with the cruelties of the academic review business should agree that if a reviewer has anything positive to say, it's a mixed review. Plus, its from his personal blog, and not subject to review. The game of dueling reviews is clear from the paraphrasing done by whoever included the Davila review; eg, the Wiki editor wrote "and various other errors, some of which he calls “striking”", although Davila only calls one purported error "striking."

Davila's review is interesting because it illustrates the sides of the duel--those who judge the book as an anthropology book (specifically, the anthropology/philosophy of archeology in the Israeli context), and those who seek to discredit it by erroneously judging is as an archeology book. By veering from the actual purpose of the Abu El-Haj book (stated quite clearly in the book's first chapter), and focusing on the archaeological science, reviewers are avoiding engaging the book's thesis, in particular, that ideology/politics plays a role in shaping a science, or when they do, countering with an incredulous "that's absurd!" while offering little or no evidence to counter the claims. Or they are complaining about Abu El-Haj's "anonymous" sources, even though this is standard practice in anthropology. The challenge is tantamount to accusing her of lying, since such sources are generally accepted on good faith (including, one would assume, by the book's publisher). So it's a mini-version of the Bernal "Black Athena" brouhaha, where he was attacked by the "experts" on the same ground, thus avoiding his thesis about similar factors in Ancient Greek studies. and as well, similar to some of the attacks on postmodern philosophers of science, who are accused of not being scientists (even if they are clearly operating as philosophers). It's kind of like a cognitive scientist doing a critique a Papal homily with a claim that the Holy See does not have a grasp of modern psychology. Apples and oranges.Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Davila's review is not "mixed"

Where does one find that Davila's review is "mixed"? His upshot is “the book's tendenz is so transparent that no one's mind will be changed one way or another by reading it.…it consistently slants the presentation of the evidence according to this tendenz so that the conclusions are predictable and not very interesting. This book makes no contribution to the archaeology of ancient Palestine or what it can tell us about the history of ancient Israel. Others can decide whether the book makes a contribution in some other area.” -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above. Since Avi seems to want to illustrate my point about selective quotations, I'll add what he left out in his "To conclude, Facts on the Ground makes some interesting observations about how nationalism and politics have fed into and fed off of Israeli archaeology"

Davila himself admits "Much of the book deals with matters outside my expertise and on which I have no comment." His comment on what "much of the book" does deal with, he says the author "makes some interesting observations." He then critiques some secondary aspects, including the somewhat odd point that a book that does not claim to offer a contribution the archeology of ancient Palestine makes "no contribution to the archeology of ancient Palestine." howevr, on the books main content, he find "interesting observations." Hence a mixed review. i am reverting one time with that explanation.Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Content

Hi I removed the subject header of 'controversial content' and merged the body of that section into general criticisms of the book. I also corrected the quotes in this section. The page number reference was correct, but the actual quote was slightly different from that originally included. Now it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your change. First, the section is different than the preceding sections in that it's not a review of the book. Second, the quotes were from page 148 of the book and they were correct (except for a single comma, which I inserted).

Finally, the original quotes were clearer concerning Abu El Haj's assertions of what she saw: British and Israeli archaeologists using bulldozers (plural), a practice that is considered bad science. Your quotes, which were longer, were less clear: Who used the bulldozer (singular)? What is the Iron Age moat, and what is the significance of its direction and structure?

I hope you can see why the original quote is clearer to the reader. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the quote is clearer. It is not her quote. Abu El Haj does not assert HERSELF that bulldozers are a sign of bad science, she says that specific archaeologists assert that is is bad science. Referring to others' opinions is not the same thing as making an assertion. I kept the shorter version of the initial quote, but have reverted the second half to a form that correctly cites the text of her book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

review inclusion criteria

There are innumerable reviews of this book and we need some criteria for inclusion. Currently, we have reviews from scholarly journals, quotes from major newspapers, and reviews from Columbia publications. I'm willing to remove the last two categories - the article is tagged "quotefarm" for a reason. I am *not* willing to add reviews from blogs or random partisan publications like the Middle East Quarterly. There has to be a limit.

User:Fan613 has rather uncivilly accused me of vandalism and of deliberately removing all negative reviews. However, even a cursory glance through the article should show that there remain many negative reviews - often of dubious sourcing, eg the New York Sun. Let's try to work together to make this article an appropriate part of an encyclopedia, rather than a coatrack for any and all commentary. Kalkin (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my assumption. However, you took down Jacob Lassner's review, Lassner is a major scholar of Islam, at Northwestern University, writing in an academic journal the Middle East Quarterly, which is political, but well-regarded. The thing is you did not take down the review from the MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies. You do know that Abu el Haj is on the board of directors of this journal, yes? And that it is probably more partisan and, certainly, less respected than the Middle East Quarterly. Quite objectively so in terms of the calibre of scholars who write for it. That is, while everyone writing for the Middle East Quarterly believes in the right of Israel to exist and, as far as I can tell in a brief perusal, everyone writing for the MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies denies that Israel has that right, the MEQ regularly published well-established scholars like Lassner, while MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies self-describes as a venue for young scholars. Moreover, you did not take down the H-net review. H-net is an idea that, a few discussion groups excepted, has not worke out. Even at its peak, however, the reviewers were (and largely still are) graduate students. Not scholars of Lassner's stature, although they may be so someday. I therefore assummed that your reason for removing a major scholar like Lassner, and leaving the review from the MIT journal in place was not based on the caliber of the journal but on the reviewer's judgment of the book.Fan613 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613

I have copied the following response from my talk page:

I know basically nothing about either H-Net or the MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies, though I believe the latter's apparent association with MIT gives it some default credibility. MEQ is published by the Middle East Forum, the openly partisan think tank run by Daniel Pipes (a rather hysterical and credulous figure), and I do not believe it is well regarded among scholars who do not share Pipes' politics. I would rather remove all three reviews than keep all three, though I would like more reason to believe the MIT publication is not a genuine academic journal before barring it, perhaps an off-Wikipedia source on the subject.

Kalkin (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what's in the article currently (no MEQ, no blogs), I would suggest we further remove the (positive) H-Net review, as it's in a questionable publication and by a grad student, both quotes (one positive & one negative) from the Sun, and the three reviews (all negative) from the Current, which is a young, low-circulation (3-4 years old) Columbia student publication focused on the Jewish community.

New reviews added should be from university- or scholarly association-affiliated academic journals. The two reviews (both negative) or others from the Columbia Daily Spectator, a much older, wider circulation publication with an actual impact on campus discourse on Abu El Haj's institution and its own Wikipedia article, ought to stay as the only exceptions.

Kalkin (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan613, Lassner's high profile as a "major scholar of Islam" doesn't necessarily qualify him as a reliable source to comment on a book by an anthropologist about Israeli archaeology.

Kalkin, James Davila's blog should be considered a WP:RS. See Talk:Nadia Abu El Haj#Paelojudaica falls into the class of blogs that are reliable. for a discussion. That doesn't mean that this article needs any more reviews — I think it needs fewer, not more — but Davila's could be considered for inclusion if other editors want to include it.

PS: Fan613, please read Wikipedia's policy concerning vandalism, especially What vandalism is not. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The notion stated above by Fan613 that "everyone writing for the MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies denies that Israel" has the right to exist seems a bit of a stretch. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I did qualify that statement, a brief persual and all the names whose work I know oppose the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish State. But here's the list of editorial advisors (the journal is actually edited by a post-doc) Perhaps there is someone on it (who I don't know) who does not label Israel as an illegitimatte, colonial-settler state...

Philip Khoury, Chair, MIT Lila Abu Lughod, Columbia University Nezar Alsayyad, UC Berkeley Sibel Bozdogan, Boston Architectural Center Leila Fawaz, Tufts University Michael M.J. Fischer, MIT Timothy Mitchell, NYU A.R. Norton, Boston University Roger Owen, Harvard University Ilan Pappe, University of Haifa Elizabeth Picard, Aix en Provence William Quandt, UVA Nasser Rabbat, MIT Edward Said (1935 -2003), Columbia University Ghassan Salame, Institut d'Etudes Politiques Ella Shohat, NYU Susan Slyomovics, MIT Lawrence Vale, MIT

Editorial Board

Amer Bisat, Rubicon Nadia Abu El Haj, Barnard Jens Hanssen, University of Toronto Bernard Haykel, New York University Paul Kingston, University of Toronto Sherif Lotfi, Ernst & Young Joseph Massad, Columbia University James MacDougall, Princeton University Panayiota Pyla, U of Illinois Champagne Oren Yiftachel, Ben Gurion Amal Ghazal, Dalhousie University

Fan613 (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613

Here's the same list from MEQ, lot's of two-state solution proponents on it: Board of Editors Fouad Ajami Johns Hopkins University

Anthony Cordesman Center for Strategic and International Studies

Khalid Durán TransState Islam

David Fromkin Boston University

Paul Henze The RAND Corporation

Eliyahu Kanovsky Bar-Ilan University

Geoffrey Kemp Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom

Martin Kramer The Shalem Center

Habib C. Malik Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon

James Phillips The Heritage Foundation

Steven Plaut University of Haifa

Dennis Ross The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Barry Rubin The Global Research in International Affairs Center

Saliba Sarsar Monmouth University

Robert B. Satloff The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Sabri Sayari Georgetown University

Haim Shaked University of Miami

Steven L. Spiegel University of California, Los Angeles

[[Kenneth Stein\\ Emory University

Marvin Zonis University of Chicago Fan613 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613

It is not Lassner's many books and articles on early and early modern Islam that qualify him, it is his two most recent book: Jews and Muslims in the Arab World: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined written with Ilan Troen. This a careful consideration of the central issue in the El Haj book, the competing narratives given by the partisans of the two sides of the issue. I found the Troen/Lassner book to be a thoughtful, well-sourced, and - dare I say it - fair-minded narrative of just the kind of arguments that happen incessantly on these wiki pages. He is probably one of the most qualified reviewers the book had.Fan613 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613

• A compromise. I suggest that we restore Davila and Lassner, both major scholars, and leave the reviews frmo the MIT electronic journal and from the grad student who reviewd it fo rH-net in place. I know it's long, but this is the only place that gatheres all of the academic reviews and when her new book comes out people will be interested. "Her forthcoming book on genetics in the Zionist nation-building project, which is now in manuscript form, promises to be as provocative and intellectually stimulating." http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/JF/Feat/rabi.htm Fan613 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613

1) Per WP:BLP, I advise you to remove your unsourced characterizations of the academics named above or — at a minimum — remove their names. (WP:BLP applies on pages other than articles.)

2) With respect to your proposal concerning Davila and Lassner: the goal is to shorten the article, not lengthen it. You can put them back if you want; I won't remove them but somebody else might. I recommend that we get more editors involved than the four of us and try to reach some consensus about who stays and who goes, and then I think we need to start summarizing the reviews instead of quoting them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Facts on the ground" as a generic term

Right now, the phrase "facts on the ground" redirects to this article. I believe the generic use of "facts on the ground", referring in general to any situation (not just this one specific situation) where a land dispute or other controversy has been effectively overtaken, decided, and rendered moot by events, needs to be acknowledged in some way — possibly involving a disambiguation page, a note at the top of the article, and/or a pointer to the phrase's Wiktionary page. Otherwise, a reader trying to look up the meaning/usage of "facts on the ground" could get the misimpression that the phrase refers solely and exclusively to current events in and around Israel. Comments? Richwales (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is only appropriate if there is another encyclopedia article about "facts on the ground", which there isn't. There is a good definition at Wiktionary (wikt:facts on the ground) that I'll link from this article. We'll see whether other editors think some sort of hatnote is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wiktionary link is better than nothing, I suppose, but I'm really not happy with it because the article itself still doesn't give any sort of clue suggesting that the phrase "facts on the ground" is anything other than an exclusive reference to this one specific book or set of events. Richwales (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "facts on the ground" seems sufficiently notable to have its own article, where the redirect is now. That article can then have either a disambiguation note or "see also" referring to this book. In theory, you could start the article as a stub, but in order to avoid the inevitable complaints based on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it might be better to find some "reliable sources" that discuss the usage of the term (as opposed to sources that simply use it, although the latter could be used as examples.) 6SJ7 (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 6SJ7. There's a lot that can be said about "facts on the ground", especially in the Israeli-Palestinian context. During the British Mandate of Palestine, Zionists built tower and stockade settlements (usually during the night) to create new "facts on the ground", and the term is still used when colonists build settlements in the West Bank without government permission. Frankly I was surprised that there wasn't already a Wikipedia article on the subject.

Until somebody starts an article, I think the Wiktionary link will do here, unless somebody has a better idea. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See also / category problem

There is a "See Also" here for "Israeli-Palestinian history denial" and a category of "Historical revisionism (political)."

In the "history denial" article, the only "denials" discussed are "Claims that Jews never inhabited Biblical sites, Claims that Jews have no connection to the land of Israel, The existence of Jews as a people, Holocaust denial."

But nothing in the article indicates that "Facts on the Ground" engages in any of these, or that anyone has ever accused the book of engaging in these denials.

The category of "Historical revisionism (political)" is understood to refer to negationism and denialism. The "main article for this category" "deals solely with the distortion of history" not "the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge." The category is full of articles like "David Irving," "Soviet Historiography," and (George Orwell's) "Memory Hole."

It seems to me that both of these absolutely do not belong, they are blatantly non-NPOV - whether or not you agree with this book's claims, whether or not you think the scholarship is strong. The critics say that "Facts" is ideological and polemical and bizarre and wrong. They don't say it is Holocaust denial. There are a lot of books about Israel or Palestinians that critics say are ideological and bizarre and wrong; the articles about those books don't have links to holocaust denial categories (unless they are actually accused of being holocaust denial books.) It's totally inappropriate.

I will remove these if nobody objects. EvanHarper (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are generic complaints made against Abu El-Haj that don't seem to be supported by the book she wrote. I don't have any problem with removing them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the complaints are actually made by published critics of el-Haj, maybe the links belong. But I don't see that they are. To be blunt I suspect that some Wiki editor made the link on his/her own, and slipped those complaints into the "see also" and category section. EvanHarper (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Facts on the Ground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060612234526/http://web.mit.edu:80/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200210/zureik.htm to http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200210/zureik.htm#_ftn1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Facts on the Ground. 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/20100619085704/http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/anthro/elhaj.html to http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/anthro/elhaj.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215014543/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/current/articles/fall2007/searching-for-facts-on-the-ground.html to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/fall2007/searching-for-facts-on-the-ground.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215014543/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/current/articles/fall2007/searching-for-facts-on-the-ground.html to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/fall2007/searching-for-facts-on-the-ground.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Facts on the Ground. 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/20070815195159/http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/excellence/hourani_winners_list.htm to http://mesa.wns.ccit.arizona.edu/excellence/hourani_winners_list.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/fall2007/searching-for-facts-on-the-ground.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313144738/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/fall2007/ideology-over-integrity-in-academe.html to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/fall2007/ideology-over-integrity-in-academe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)