This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I've just done a large copy edit, but I think there's some work that still needs to be done on this article:
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)
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 did post both positive and negative reviews. The problem is that there are so many more more negative than positive review of this book.
OK. I looked for sources that "view her work in a neutral light" and came up with several additional articles and reviews by apparently qualified archaeologists who view her work in what seems to be a politically neutral light and find it badly wanting in scholarship. Maybe this is the odd case of a truly inferior book of a kind that would usually be ignored as not worth anyone's attention - except that it has gotten into the press because she is proposed for tenure at a major university. It is wierd, to propose womeone for tenure when it is this difficult to find a scholar with anything positive to way about her work.
This article is absurdly slanted against Nadia. What is the authority and even the purpose of reporting the supposed number of "votes?" I am an academic and never was given an opportunity nor was I informed of the "ballot." This is simply a propaganda piece for Israelis. Of course there are more negative reviews because the Israelis are upset someone pointed out some truths about their achaeology.
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)
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
“ | 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]. | ” |
“ | 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. | ” |
Aren Maeir is a real person and his personal blog (which appears to be written in some large part to attract volunteers and donors to his dig) is unquesitonably his own. Other archaeologists and ancient historians who know him personally accept his blog for what it is.
I checked with Solomonia - he posts an email address - he has checked with the academics Aren Maeir and alexander Joffe, and they have given permission to have their book reviews posted on his web page.
It is interesting that this whole blog is dominated by Israeli blogs and input. Therein lies the real reason they're upset. They can't accept that a person of Palestinian descent wrote such a provocative piece. Colonialism fears the colonized.
It isn't appropriate for an article to include a paragraph, such as the one below, with no attribution. Who said it? Is he/she qualified to offer an opinion?
“ | "At the heart of her critique is an undisguised political agenda that regards modern and ancient Israel, and perhaps Jews as a whole, as fictions… "Abu El Haj's anthropology is undone by her... ill-informed narrative, intrusive counter-politics, and by her unwillingness to either enter or observe Israeli society... "The effect is a representation of Israeli archaeology that is simply bizarre... Filling in what is missing from her text becomes fatiguing. In the end there is no reason to take her picture of Israeli archaeology seriously, since her selection bias is so glaring… "Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided. | ” |
As it turns out, it's from a book review posted by a third party on a blog -- which is contrary to WP policy on reliable sources (see above). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's from a book review in a reputable academic journal, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, echoed on the Solomonia blog. It's true that Solomonia has a pro-Israel agenda. And apparant that he is posting this review because of political opposition to Abu El Haj's bok. However, he does perform a service in posting a review that would otherwise be unavailable to everyone without access to a university library, or to expensive suvbscriptions. And the reviews he posts check out - they are unaltered from the original.
More evidence that this whole Wikipedia article is suspect as a sham by Israelis against Nadia Abu El Haj' scholarship.
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:
I am just adding material about her current book project, as suggested
Anyway, that's what I think. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Two positive reviews are posted, under anthropology.
Abu El Haj has not responded to the criticism that I can discover.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Athena's daughter ( talk • contribs)
Why should she bother to respond to such absurdly construed and distorted blogs?
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)
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)
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
Absent the bad reviews of Facts on the Ground (an extremely controversial book) and minus the press coverage of that controversy, this professor is not newsworth and the article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 ( talk) 09:01, May 17, 2007
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)
In her recent paper "Rethinking Genetic Geneaology: A Response to Stephan Palmié." American Ethnologist 2007, 34:2:223-227. Abu El Haj states that one of the "accepted forms of knowledge" that has been "disproved" by genetic research is "the 'fact' that the Jewish maternal line originated in ancient Palestine." This is the precise opposite of an accurate statement of the matter. In fact, genetic research has recently established that geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors who originated in the ancient Levant. see: Thomas, M.; Weale, M.E.; Jones, A.L.; Richards, M.B.; Smith, A.; Redhead N.; Torroni A.; Scozzari R.; Gratrix F.; Tarakegn, A.; Wilson J.; Capelli C.; Bradman N.; Goldstein D.B. Founding mothers of Jewish communities: Geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors American Journal of Human Genetics 70, pp.1411-1420, (2002)
Can someone provide the text in question for all of these sources? The language makes strong conclusions that I want to make sure are borne out in the sources cited. Thanks. Tiamut 19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Tiamet, Hornplease - I'm not sure what you want me to do. I have quoted the language of the article and provided the citation. El Haj has her facts wrong in this case. The New York Times is not a gentics journal.
I do not need an article by a New York Times reporter. El Haj makes a simple assertion of fact. This article from the American Journal of Human Genetics. It makes a simple, clear refuation of El Haj's erroneous fact. She is wrong. This is significant. Read the articles. they are available in any large university library.
This is a page about a controversy. It is useless unless material explicating both sides of the controversy are posted. the American Journal of Human Genetics is a highly reliable source. I am not putting my own opinin here. Or anybody else's opinion. I am putting a direct , factual refutation of a fact . This is an encyclopedia. Of course it shold cite the American Journal of Human Genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
tiamet. You cannot keep removing important material merely because you do not like it. One of the points of Nadia Abu El Haj's genetics project is to deconstruct the Jewish ancestral ties to the land of Israel. This passage is a factual refutation of her recent genetics article. It belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
I strongly recommend that nobody rely on a second-hand source for quotations from Facts on the Ground, but instead go to Amazon.com and search inside the book. Some partisans cobbled together phrases that are separated by 30 pages to create a single "quotation" that they attribute to Abu El Haj. They also attribute to her language that appears in her summary of an article written by another person.
Some of these "quotations" are debunked in the footnotes I wrote for this article. In any event, I cannot stress enough the importance of verifying quotations for yourself and not trusting quotations found in petitions, blogs, or other second-hand sources. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
I want to make certain that non-academics helping construct this page know how extremely rare it is for a tenure battle over a hitherto obscure professor to get into the newspapers. (Israel Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz have both been well-known for years)
Moreover, it is almost unheard of for a leading scholar like alan Segal to come out in the press in opposition to the tenure of a colleague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this paragraph about Facts on the Ground, and I wanted to explain why:
First, that's not how "it has been characterized by reviewers" — it's a quote from one review. Second, that reviewer is director of Boston University's Program in Book and Magazine Publishing. How does that qualify him to write a credible review of Facts on the Ground]]?
If the anon editor who added this would like to add a sentence about how "it has been characterized by reviewers", I recommend that she or he look at Facts on the Ground, which largely consists of reviews of the book by anthropologists and archaeologists — i.e., people who are qualified to judge a book about anthropology and archaeology. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This section was badly in need of balance. I have attenmpted t do so by posting dueling descriptions of the book. One from the most favorable review the book received (in the MIT journal) The other by Jim Davila, a distinguished historian of the period who wrote a dispassionate and mixed review of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 ( talk) 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Per WP:RS
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
This applies to Davila, Harvard Phd, Principal of St Mary's College, St Andrews, and an oft- published author. -- Avi 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Hi - I tagged this article for neutrality concerns because it does not appear to represent a balanced picture of Nadia Abu El Haj's scholarship--the critical angle is emphasized while her many supporters are not cited. This is important becasue the tenure battle is ongoing and her work is highly disuputed--that is, she has both critics AND supporters, so both should be equally represented here. In addition, when critics misquote her work it is midleading to leave those quotes in the body of an article even if the misquotes are mentioned in a footnote (as they are here). Plenty of people, from many different angles, have discussed her work without misquoting it, so we could have better sources here even from the critical end. That said, I'm not an expert so I did not make any changes. This is extremely sensitive as a biography of a living person, so it needs attention from someone who is knowledgeable of the ongoing debate from all sides.
I would have rather tagged this article {{BLPC}}
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)
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)
Out of sensitivity to the fact that this is a biography of a living person, I removed the 'accusation of slander' section, because it is a single accusation that has not been justified by any outside source--not even the person supposedly being slandered--or confirmed elsewhere. There is no evidence that one isolated and usubstantiated allegation is deserving of a section separate from the broader section on the controversy surrounding Abu El Haj's tenure, and furthermore a false accusation of slander (or the spread of such a claim) is considered justifiable for counter-legislative action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 ( talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi please stop undoing my edits without any discussion. I have explained all of my edits on the talk page. This section (accusations of slander) is part of general criticism and not worthy of a separate section, especially considering that it is unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 ( talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You moved it because you're afraid of being sued! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.122.36 ( talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this person hold duel citizenship? If not, please leave as is and mention ethnicty elsewhere. Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nationality – 3a. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consenus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.) 3b. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
I will not revert it again, but will ask for comment. Regards, -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I thought you were going to wait for additional input before reverting again. You have again deleted "Palestinian-American", even though the sources throughout the article, establish her identity as such. For example, Abu El-Haj, a Fulbright Scholar and Palestinian-American. Further, as I explained to you, her background was part of the reason for the protest against her appointment, a fact discussed in detail in the article itself. Please self-revert. The repeated deletion of sourced material without trying to seek WP:CONCENSUS for your edit is considered WP:DE. Thanks. Tiamut talk 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) While I agree that Abu El-Haj's Palestinian ethnicity is important, I'm not sure that it is "relevant to [her] notability", which is the threshold in WP:MOSBIO. Abu El-Haj is notable because she was at the center of a bitter tenure battle and because she is the author of a controversial book, not because she's of Palestinian descent.
Take a look at
Nelson Mandela and
Martin Luther King, Jr. (The articles, not the people.
) The lede of Mandela's article doesn't mention his race at all, and King's lede mentions his race only obliquely ("one of the few leadership roles available to black men"). I think leaving Abu El-Haj's Palestinian ethnicity out of the lede is appropriate. —
Malik Shabazz (
talk ·
contribs)
23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"We also believe that Ms. Abu El-Haj has been singled out from among many other authors who make the same points essentially because of her last name, thus, we suspect that something like simple ethnic prejudice is at issue here."
I reverted per forming consensus. Tiamut, please look at the 100s of bios out there where the person's ethnicity is important but is not mentioned in the lead. It is brought out elsewhere in the article. There are only a handfull out of 10,000s of bios that mention ethnicity in the lead, and in those cases, it is made clear why it is being mentioned. This is not about censorship, nor about denying her ethnicity or anything else for that matter. Thanks, -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
POV Check added. Article far from neutral POV in tone and content. This is not the place to prove points. It is a reference encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Editor Shabazz shows blatant POV, even vandalism. Must be asked to desist from editorial activity on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 ( talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
At times aggressive and selective deletions are merited to improve a poorly constructed article. Thanks for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 ( talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This template has been removed several times and repeatedly restored. I think it's time for a talk page discussion to establish a consensus we can point to in the future.
In my view the template should absolutely stay. Abu El Haj is a diaspora Palestinian, like Edward Said, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, and Rashid Khalidi, all listed as "notable Palestinians" on the template. She is notable primarily for a controversy around her allegations that Israeli archeology systematically neglects or destroys Palestinian and other non-Jewish history and artifacts in its quest to prove the truth of the Old Testament narrative - which is clearly related to Palestine & Palestinians. Finally, many of her supporters, such as Paul Manning who used to be quoted to this effect in the article, believe that her tenure was controversial only because she was a Palestinian - ie due to anti-Palestinian racism.
Those who wish to remove the template seem to believe that the label "Palestinian" should be applied only to Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. This not only has the effect of a decidedly POV denial of the real existence of a Palestinian people as such, but also is in explicit contradiction to the purpose of having a "Palestinians" template, as discussed on the template talk page and on its failed AfD. Kalkin ( talk) 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Several talkers have seriously misread El-Haj's point in her American Ethnologist (AE) response to Stephan Palmie (2007. AE Vol.34, No.2 pp.223-226). Rather than a misleading quotation from page 225 of this article--e.g., "the 'fact' that the Jewish maternal line..."--it would be better to remove the quotation altogether until someone with suitable expertise in anthropology can provide a better gloss of her point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.168.203 ( talk) 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nadia Abu El Haj. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/webfeatures/elhaj.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I've just done a large copy edit, but I think there's some work that still needs to be done on this article:
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)
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 did post both positive and negative reviews. The problem is that there are so many more more negative than positive review of this book.
OK. I looked for sources that "view her work in a neutral light" and came up with several additional articles and reviews by apparently qualified archaeologists who view her work in what seems to be a politically neutral light and find it badly wanting in scholarship. Maybe this is the odd case of a truly inferior book of a kind that would usually be ignored as not worth anyone's attention - except that it has gotten into the press because she is proposed for tenure at a major university. It is wierd, to propose womeone for tenure when it is this difficult to find a scholar with anything positive to way about her work.
This article is absurdly slanted against Nadia. What is the authority and even the purpose of reporting the supposed number of "votes?" I am an academic and never was given an opportunity nor was I informed of the "ballot." This is simply a propaganda piece for Israelis. Of course there are more negative reviews because the Israelis are upset someone pointed out some truths about their achaeology.
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)
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
“ | 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]. | ” |
“ | 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. | ” |
Aren Maeir is a real person and his personal blog (which appears to be written in some large part to attract volunteers and donors to his dig) is unquesitonably his own. Other archaeologists and ancient historians who know him personally accept his blog for what it is.
I checked with Solomonia - he posts an email address - he has checked with the academics Aren Maeir and alexander Joffe, and they have given permission to have their book reviews posted on his web page.
It is interesting that this whole blog is dominated by Israeli blogs and input. Therein lies the real reason they're upset. They can't accept that a person of Palestinian descent wrote such a provocative piece. Colonialism fears the colonized.
It isn't appropriate for an article to include a paragraph, such as the one below, with no attribution. Who said it? Is he/she qualified to offer an opinion?
“ | "At the heart of her critique is an undisguised political agenda that regards modern and ancient Israel, and perhaps Jews as a whole, as fictions… "Abu El Haj's anthropology is undone by her... ill-informed narrative, intrusive counter-politics, and by her unwillingness to either enter or observe Israeli society... "The effect is a representation of Israeli archaeology that is simply bizarre... Filling in what is missing from her text becomes fatiguing. In the end there is no reason to take her picture of Israeli archaeology seriously, since her selection bias is so glaring… "Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided. | ” |
As it turns out, it's from a book review posted by a third party on a blog -- which is contrary to WP policy on reliable sources (see above). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's from a book review in a reputable academic journal, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, echoed on the Solomonia blog. It's true that Solomonia has a pro-Israel agenda. And apparant that he is posting this review because of political opposition to Abu El Haj's bok. However, he does perform a service in posting a review that would otherwise be unavailable to everyone without access to a university library, or to expensive suvbscriptions. And the reviews he posts check out - they are unaltered from the original.
More evidence that this whole Wikipedia article is suspect as a sham by Israelis against Nadia Abu El Haj' scholarship.
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:
I am just adding material about her current book project, as suggested
Anyway, that's what I think. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Two positive reviews are posted, under anthropology.
Abu El Haj has not responded to the criticism that I can discover.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Athena's daughter ( talk • contribs)
Why should she bother to respond to such absurdly construed and distorted blogs?
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)
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)
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
Absent the bad reviews of Facts on the Ground (an extremely controversial book) and minus the press coverage of that controversy, this professor is not newsworth and the article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 ( talk) 09:01, May 17, 2007
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)
In her recent paper "Rethinking Genetic Geneaology: A Response to Stephan Palmié." American Ethnologist 2007, 34:2:223-227. Abu El Haj states that one of the "accepted forms of knowledge" that has been "disproved" by genetic research is "the 'fact' that the Jewish maternal line originated in ancient Palestine." This is the precise opposite of an accurate statement of the matter. In fact, genetic research has recently established that geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors who originated in the ancient Levant. see: Thomas, M.; Weale, M.E.; Jones, A.L.; Richards, M.B.; Smith, A.; Redhead N.; Torroni A.; Scozzari R.; Gratrix F.; Tarakegn, A.; Wilson J.; Capelli C.; Bradman N.; Goldstein D.B. Founding mothers of Jewish communities: Geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors American Journal of Human Genetics 70, pp.1411-1420, (2002)
Can someone provide the text in question for all of these sources? The language makes strong conclusions that I want to make sure are borne out in the sources cited. Thanks. Tiamut 19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Tiamet, Hornplease - I'm not sure what you want me to do. I have quoted the language of the article and provided the citation. El Haj has her facts wrong in this case. The New York Times is not a gentics journal.
I do not need an article by a New York Times reporter. El Haj makes a simple assertion of fact. This article from the American Journal of Human Genetics. It makes a simple, clear refuation of El Haj's erroneous fact. She is wrong. This is significant. Read the articles. they are available in any large university library.
This is a page about a controversy. It is useless unless material explicating both sides of the controversy are posted. the American Journal of Human Genetics is a highly reliable source. I am not putting my own opinin here. Or anybody else's opinion. I am putting a direct , factual refutation of a fact . This is an encyclopedia. Of course it shold cite the American Journal of Human Genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
tiamet. You cannot keep removing important material merely because you do not like it. One of the points of Nadia Abu El Haj's genetics project is to deconstruct the Jewish ancestral ties to the land of Israel. This passage is a factual refutation of her recent genetics article. It belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
I strongly recommend that nobody rely on a second-hand source for quotations from Facts on the Ground, but instead go to Amazon.com and search inside the book. Some partisans cobbled together phrases that are separated by 30 pages to create a single "quotation" that they attribute to Abu El Haj. They also attribute to her language that appears in her summary of an article written by another person.
Some of these "quotations" are debunked in the footnotes I wrote for this article. In any event, I cannot stress enough the importance of verifying quotations for yourself and not trusting quotations found in petitions, blogs, or other second-hand sources. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
I want to make certain that non-academics helping construct this page know how extremely rare it is for a tenure battle over a hitherto obscure professor to get into the newspapers. (Israel Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz have both been well-known for years)
Moreover, it is almost unheard of for a leading scholar like alan Segal to come out in the press in opposition to the tenure of a colleague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MercyOtis ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this paragraph about Facts on the Ground, and I wanted to explain why:
First, that's not how "it has been characterized by reviewers" — it's a quote from one review. Second, that reviewer is director of Boston University's Program in Book and Magazine Publishing. How does that qualify him to write a credible review of Facts on the Ground]]?
If the anon editor who added this would like to add a sentence about how "it has been characterized by reviewers", I recommend that she or he look at Facts on the Ground, which largely consists of reviews of the book by anthropologists and archaeologists — i.e., people who are qualified to judge a book about anthropology and archaeology. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This section was badly in need of balance. I have attenmpted t do so by posting dueling descriptions of the book. One from the most favorable review the book received (in the MIT journal) The other by Jim Davila, a distinguished historian of the period who wrote a dispassionate and mixed review of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.59 ( talk) 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Per WP:RS
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
This applies to Davila, Harvard Phd, Principal of St Mary's College, St Andrews, and an oft- published author. -- Avi 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Hi - I tagged this article for neutrality concerns because it does not appear to represent a balanced picture of Nadia Abu El Haj's scholarship--the critical angle is emphasized while her many supporters are not cited. This is important becasue the tenure battle is ongoing and her work is highly disuputed--that is, she has both critics AND supporters, so both should be equally represented here. In addition, when critics misquote her work it is midleading to leave those quotes in the body of an article even if the misquotes are mentioned in a footnote (as they are here). Plenty of people, from many different angles, have discussed her work without misquoting it, so we could have better sources here even from the critical end. That said, I'm not an expert so I did not make any changes. This is extremely sensitive as a biography of a living person, so it needs attention from someone who is knowledgeable of the ongoing debate from all sides.
I would have rather tagged this article {{BLPC}}
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)
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)
Out of sensitivity to the fact that this is a biography of a living person, I removed the 'accusation of slander' section, because it is a single accusation that has not been justified by any outside source--not even the person supposedly being slandered--or confirmed elsewhere. There is no evidence that one isolated and usubstantiated allegation is deserving of a section separate from the broader section on the controversy surrounding Abu El Haj's tenure, and furthermore a false accusation of slander (or the spread of such a claim) is considered justifiable for counter-legislative action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 ( talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi please stop undoing my edits without any discussion. I have explained all of my edits on the talk page. This section (accusations of slander) is part of general criticism and not worthy of a separate section, especially considering that it is unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 ( talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You moved it because you're afraid of being sued! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.122.36 ( talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this person hold duel citizenship? If not, please leave as is and mention ethnicty elsewhere. Thank you. -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nationality – 3a. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consenus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.) 3b. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
I will not revert it again, but will ask for comment. Regards, -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I thought you were going to wait for additional input before reverting again. You have again deleted "Palestinian-American", even though the sources throughout the article, establish her identity as such. For example, Abu El-Haj, a Fulbright Scholar and Palestinian-American. Further, as I explained to you, her background was part of the reason for the protest against her appointment, a fact discussed in detail in the article itself. Please self-revert. The repeated deletion of sourced material without trying to seek WP:CONCENSUS for your edit is considered WP:DE. Thanks. Tiamut talk 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) While I agree that Abu El-Haj's Palestinian ethnicity is important, I'm not sure that it is "relevant to [her] notability", which is the threshold in WP:MOSBIO. Abu El-Haj is notable because she was at the center of a bitter tenure battle and because she is the author of a controversial book, not because she's of Palestinian descent.
Take a look at
Nelson Mandela and
Martin Luther King, Jr. (The articles, not the people.
) The lede of Mandela's article doesn't mention his race at all, and King's lede mentions his race only obliquely ("one of the few leadership roles available to black men"). I think leaving Abu El-Haj's Palestinian ethnicity out of the lede is appropriate. —
Malik Shabazz (
talk ·
contribs)
23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"We also believe that Ms. Abu El-Haj has been singled out from among many other authors who make the same points essentially because of her last name, thus, we suspect that something like simple ethnic prejudice is at issue here."
I reverted per forming consensus. Tiamut, please look at the 100s of bios out there where the person's ethnicity is important but is not mentioned in the lead. It is brought out elsewhere in the article. There are only a handfull out of 10,000s of bios that mention ethnicity in the lead, and in those cases, it is made clear why it is being mentioned. This is not about censorship, nor about denying her ethnicity or anything else for that matter. Thanks, -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
POV Check added. Article far from neutral POV in tone and content. This is not the place to prove points. It is a reference encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Editor Shabazz shows blatant POV, even vandalism. Must be asked to desist from editorial activity on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 ( talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
At times aggressive and selective deletions are merited to improve a poorly constructed article. Thanks for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.233.75 ( talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This template has been removed several times and repeatedly restored. I think it's time for a talk page discussion to establish a consensus we can point to in the future.
In my view the template should absolutely stay. Abu El Haj is a diaspora Palestinian, like Edward Said, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, and Rashid Khalidi, all listed as "notable Palestinians" on the template. She is notable primarily for a controversy around her allegations that Israeli archeology systematically neglects or destroys Palestinian and other non-Jewish history and artifacts in its quest to prove the truth of the Old Testament narrative - which is clearly related to Palestine & Palestinians. Finally, many of her supporters, such as Paul Manning who used to be quoted to this effect in the article, believe that her tenure was controversial only because she was a Palestinian - ie due to anti-Palestinian racism.
Those who wish to remove the template seem to believe that the label "Palestinian" should be applied only to Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. This not only has the effect of a decidedly POV denial of the real existence of a Palestinian people as such, but also is in explicit contradiction to the purpose of having a "Palestinians" template, as discussed on the template talk page and on its failed AfD. Kalkin ( talk) 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
Several talkers have seriously misread El-Haj's point in her American Ethnologist (AE) response to Stephan Palmie (2007. AE Vol.34, No.2 pp.223-226). Rather than a misleading quotation from page 225 of this article--e.g., "the 'fact' that the Jewish maternal line..."--it would be better to remove the quotation altogether until someone with suitable expertise in anthropology can provide a better gloss of her point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.168.203 ( talk) 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nadia Abu El Haj. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/webfeatures/elhaj.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)