Talk:Nadia Abu El Haj

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)

To do

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

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

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

One reaction

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources / Solomonia blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, Evidence-based, a blog that reprint an article from an academic journal is a secondary source and the policy says that "blogs ... should not be used as secondary sources." As delldot wrote, this is particularly important when you're writing about a controversy involving a living person. Campuswatch.com probably isn't an appropriate source either.

“ Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject [my emphasis, see below concerning Aren Maeir's blog]. ”

FYI - Every reference in Wikipedia doesn't have to be published on the Internet, so long as it is published in a reliable source that can be verified. If Solomonia is reprinting portions of El Haj's book or journal articles, citing the originals instead of the blog might be better. Keep in mind, though, that Solomonia seems to be advancing an agenda, and he may or may not be manipulating what he reprints to suit his purposes. You should feel confident that the quotations are exactly as they appeared in the original.

With respect to El Haj's book, see if Amazon.com will let you search inside the book; you could check whether your quotes from the book are accurate and, if you want, find page numbers. If you have access to the journals, check your quotes from the journals. If you can't see the journals, consider looking for reliable newspaper or magazine articles that mention the reviews. You would probably end up with shorter bits of each review, but the sources would be considered more reliable and verifiable.

With respect to Maeir's blog, see the reliability policy:

“ When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. ”

Again, a blog is not considered the best source, but if no reliable newspaper or magazine has reported on Maeir's comments, you can use his blog if he meets the criteria described above. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this take. Since the citation in the article is that 'so-and-so said such-and-such', using the guy's blog seems reasonable as a way to show that he said it. My only concern here is, how easy would this be to fake? Could this be the blog of someone claiming to be this guy? Not that I really think that's going on, I'm just saying in terms of verifiability, if it would be easy to fake it's probably not appropriate. Evidence-based, I admire your desire to have all info available on the web for easier fact-checking by readers, but I must echo Malik's sentiment that these could be being manipulated. Perhaps we could cite the original and say something in the ref like "duplicated at such-and-such blog". However, are you familiar with the policy against linking to violations of copyright? If these blogs don't have permission to be reproducing this material, it could be illegal for us to be linking to them. Thoughts? delldot | talk 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Unattributed quotations

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

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

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

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

General comments about this article

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

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

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

• I think most of the quotes are much too long. An editor should be able to paraphrase what an author wrote without quoting yards of text. Quoting some phrases, or even a sentence or two, is one thing. But the whole article seems to be made up of quotes that have been cut and pasted from reviews of Facts on the Ground.

• I think the article should include some positive reviews of the book and Abu El Haj's response to her critics. (I assume that there were some positive reviews and that she has responded to the criticism.)

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

Two positive reviews are posted, under anthropology.

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

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)

Not a book review

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

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

Gathering information for the article

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

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

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

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

FloNight 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

more...

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

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

FloNight 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

complaint of political vandalism

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

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

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

Absent the bad reviews of Facts on the Ground (an extremely controversial book) and minus the press coverage of that controversy, this professor is not newsworth and the article should be removed.