Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Facts on the Ground article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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 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
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
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:
Now, the comments in context (emphasis is mine):
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.
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)
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
Bigglove, the reason I removed it is that I don't think it's a quote from Segal:
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)
Aw shucks.... Bigglove talk 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The cite here is sparse. Does anyone have more information? I wanted to read the orig. Bigglove talk 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Facts on the Ground article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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 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
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
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:
Now, the comments in context (emphasis is mine):
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.
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)
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
Bigglove, the reason I removed it is that I don't think it's a quote from Segal:
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)
Aw shucks.... Bigglove talk 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The cite here is sparse. Does anyone have more information? I wanted to read the orig. Bigglove talk 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)