Talk:Steven Salaita

"Hiring controversy" v. "Academic Freedom"

I have retitled section "hiring controversy". Reason is that although one side in the controversy wants to use Salaita as a postor child on academic freedom, it hsould as well be titled, "anti-Semitism dispute," or ""Anti-Israel dispute" and characterized as a cooked-up issue to and part of the anti-Israel left. I believe that this reporter [1], among others, has it correct when he states that at bottom this is a contract or hiring disupute, being used to fight other battles. Calling it an "academic freedom" dispute valorizes one side of an argument (as did this page and , in particular, the lede when I came upon it this morning) . Stay neutral and stick to sourced facts, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.108.18 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

To 23.24.108.18 :If the issue were simply a matter of a hiring dispute, it would not have received the international attention it has. The issues are whether academics should have "academic freedom" or not (some people think they should, some think they should not...) and whether a professors' employment should be affected by their exercise of the right of free speech in America. It also appears that Salaita is saying that "criticizing the government of Israel" is not the same as being anti-Semitic and the two should not be confused, while others think that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Your own POV is very clear when you slap around labels like "the anti-Israel left." Vaneman

framing the topic as "academic freedom" is adopting Saliata's and his supporters view. The university's view is that this is not about academic freedom at all but about the freedom of contract - he was given an offer which was conditional on approval by the Board of Trustees. The board declined to provide such approval, because they judged Saliata to be unprofessional. The neutral way to phrase this is as a hiring dispute - we wouldn't call it "freedom of contract" or "unprofessionalism" (the University's POV), and we shouldn't call it "academic freedom" (Saliata's view) Avusi nabusi (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Framing the topic as "academic freedom" is precisely in line with the findings of the American Association of University Professors Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure in the report "Academic Freedom and Tenure: The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" published by AAUP on 4/28/2015. Lexy-lou (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Reported potentially libelous edits by User talk:ObserverStatus

I have reported potentially libelous additions repeatedly added by ObserverStatus, who states incorrectly that Salaita in now unemployed, even though reliable sources say his one year assignment at American U in Beirut began in the summer of 2015. He has also added unreferenced claims that Salaita is anti-Semitic. VanEman (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Avusi nabusi: It doesn't matter whether you think it's a mater of academic freedom or not. What matters is that many people do think it's a matter of academic freedom and freedom of speech. Both sides can be represented but we need to be clear with the readers that the matter has garnered international attention because it's about the limits and rules surrounding academic freedom and freedom of speech in the US. VanEman (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not a hiring dispute but rather an un-hiring dispute. The initial hiring wasn't contested, and was even unanimous. Calling it a 'hiring dispute' or 'hiring controversy' is taking sides in the proxy argument on whether he was under tenure protection the moment he received his 'un-hiring letter'. WP shouldn't go there. Find a (still) more neutral term ('Professorship controversy'?) 93.106.114.12 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-name article Steve Salaita Hiring Controversy

Fact is, this guy was utterly non-notable before this happened. And to date the only argument for giving him a page is this big controversy. Shod the page be moved to a page about the hiring controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.108.18 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

But now he is the symbol of the issue of academic freedom. All of your edits are about this one person. You have a distinct negative point of view which is shaping the article in a biased direction. Time for some balance here. Vaneman

Salaita meets WP:Prof, I don't see any reason to rename the article. Breadblade (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

There are 2 narratives regarding the hiring/un-hiring controversy. Saliata and his supporters' narrative is that he was just criticizing Israeli government policy, and that the decision to not hire him is a restriction of his free speech rights. The opposing narrative is that his criticism crossed the line into antisemitism, and that U-I was thus justified in not hiring a person who is incapable of civil discourse into its ranks- a purely professional decision. We are not here to judge which narrative is correct, and we certainly can't have just one narrative in the lead - we either have them both (as I have now done with regards to the criticism of Israeli government vs. antisemitism narrative, with sources) , or neither of them (as I have done with regards to the freedom of speech restrictions vs. lack of professionalism argument that preceded the Haaretz description). Brad Dyer (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Framing the hiring controversy

As was previously the case in the lead (which I have fixed, per the section above) - There are 2 narratives regarding the hiring/un-hiring controversy. Saliata and his supporters' narrative is that the decision to not hire him is a restriction of his free speech rights. The opposing narrative is that his criticism crossed the line into antisemitism, and that U-I was thus justified in not hiring a person who is incapable of civil discourse into its ranks- a purely professional decision. We are not here to judge which narrative is correct, and we certainly can't have just one narrative in the section heading - we either have them both (as I have now done with regards to the criticism of Israeli government vs. antisemitism narrative, with sources, in the lead) , or neither of them (as I have done in the section heading). But we can't have just AAUP's framing of the situation as the section header. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all controversial to suggest that academic freedom is an important facet of the Salaita controversy. Many non-AAUP sources have discussed this case in the context of academic freedom. I agree that it's important to give each side WP:DUE weight, but these viewpoints aren't absent from the article: there are several paragraphs already in the article covering the question of whether his tweets were or were not antisemitic. For BLP reasons I would additionally be concerned about pushing a anti-semitism claim into a section heading, especially when it has been disputed to the extent it has. Breadblade (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it is controversial to suggest that academic freedom is an important facet of the Salaita controversy - I said that highlighting just this one aspect , and ignoring the others, is a violation of NPOV. As you write above, 'there are several paragraphs already in the article covering the question of whether his tweets were or were not antisemitic" - so it is clearly a notable viewpoint. If you don't want to see the antisemitism claim in the heading, fine - we can leave it as just "hiring controversy'. But we're not going to have just one side's framing of the controversy in the heading - that violates Wikipedia policy. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning "Academic Freedom" in the header is not the same as saying that Steven Salaita's academic freedom was or wasn't violated, especially when it's presented as a controversy. For that reason I don't think it violates NPOV. Breadblade (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning "Academic Freedom" and only "Academic Freedom" in the header privileges that narrative over others. Even without getting into the question of if his academic freedom was or wasn't violated, it already frames the discussion as an issue of academic freedom - when there are other possible frames - i,e - as an issue of freedom of contract, or as one of hate-speech/antisemitism. All these aspects are discussed, in detail, in the body, so I can't think of a good reason to mention just one of them in the section heading. That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brad Dyer, Breadblade, and VanEman: I don't really have a horse in this race but I have noticed far too many reverts back and forth over the same issue over the past few weeks. Please work it out on the talk page, or if you can't do that, follow the steps set out at WP:DISPUTE. Edit warring is not going to resolve this, it needs to be worked out here before further reverts are made. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Support the Troops" not a controversy

Call it a 'flap' or something. A controversy requires two sides to actually argue about an issue. That's not what happened here. One side argued all right -- I read it and it's cogently written -- but the other 'side' just viciously attacked. No argument there at all. 93.106.114.12 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"flap" is not appropriate - its un-encyclopedic and could be construed as minimizing or dismissing what's being discussed. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

academia.edu

academia.edu is not an academic journal. There is no peer-review going on there. People who join (which is easy) can post anything they like and nobody will remove it. So the reliability of what is there is similar to what appears on private blogs. In other words, we can use it in the case of recognised experts only. Someone whose specialty is the economic history of New England can post a review of a book on the Middle East if they want but that doesn't mean it passes RS. Zero^talk 02:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

This article needs to be proof-read. Some of the sentences are poorly written, and I can't understand the one including " while the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana found that "Professor Salaita's appointment should have entitled him to the due process rights of a tenured faculty member," " -- what does the UIUC (Urbana-Champaign, not Champaign-Urbana) mean in this sentence?195.166.150.98 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

first stage of court case

University of Illinois failed to have Salaita's suit dismissed. Ruling here. Zero^talk 13:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll need secondary sources, esp. after a cursory reading of the whole document reveals impenetrable gems like:'The University argues that the claim is facially deficient.' Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Several secondary sources exist: [1], [2], dozens more seem to be present from a cursory Google search--too many to list here. Breadblade (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The first stage, on the motion to dismiss, evaluates if the plaintiff has a valid claim assuming the facts are as they stated. It is not a determination that the facts are as the plaintiff claim. See here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/08/salaita-lawsuit-against-university-of-illinois-will-proceed/ (my emphasis): 'What this means is that the judge concluded that if the facts are as Salaita alleged (and that qualification is important) he has stated valid legal claims. It is not a ruling on the merits. ". As such , it is too early to make the changes to the article that imply Saliata's claims were found true by a court. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct about what the court ruled, but your edits are wrong. The court ruled that if the facts as presented by Salaita are accepted then the offer was not conditional. Until a trial court rules on it, the issue is a matter of disagreement, i.e. the article cannot in its own voice describe the offer as conditional or unconditional. However your edits report the offer as conditional, not as a claim by the University but as a fact. It is quite unacceptable. Since the article before your changes does not say that the offer was "unconditional", it was better then. Zero^talk 23:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits brought the article to the state it was in after YOU last edited it - here- [2], and what it has been in the article for at least 6 months prior (i.e - the consensus version) . If the consensus was that it was appropriate for that language to be in the article on July 30th, why should the recent court decision , which has no bearing on this question, change the article? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no basis in Wikipedia rules and policies for not editing an article because it has been stable. Zero^talk 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To explain this more, the letter of offer said "This recommendation for appointment is subject to approval by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois." The university claims this means the offer itself was conditional, while Salaita argues that the sentence only means his appointment would be conditional on adequate performance. Without testing the facts before it (which is a legal requirement for dismissal motions), the court ruled that Salaita's argument was correct. Among other things, the court noted that the Board was not even scheduled to sit until after the start of semester and it did not believe that the university expected Salaita to start teaching before he was officially appointed. Zero^talk 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course there's no rule to prevent editing an article just because it's stable. But in such cases editors that change the article carry the burden of showing there's consensus for the change, per WP:BRD. Maybe I was reading too much into them, but to me your comments above seemed to imply that I was making some bold change, when in fact I was restoring the consensus version. The changes I undid were based on false premise - that the court has ruled one way or the other on the facts of the case (they explicitly said so in the edit summaries). I think you agree that it didn't. It could be that these changes can be justified on other grounds - that the article's previous version was stating the opposite POV (that there was no formal contract, as the University claims) as fact, which I agree it shouldn't do. But that wasn't the explanation given by the editors making that change, and as I note, even you seemed to be fine with the previous version as late as July 30th. It could be that you just didn't notice the problems back then, and do now. And that's fine. I think the current version (with one minor tweak I will be making shortly, to remove the "formally" from the lead, just like it was removed in the body) is a fair representation of the subject. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care much about the history of the article, I just want the article to be as good as possible. At this stage in the proceedings, it is not acceptable for the article to state as fact any matter which is disputed between the parties. This is a clear requirement of WP:NPOV, which trumps BRD and other such stuff. In particular, the article must not state as a fact that the offer received and accepted by Salaita was conditional. The dispute over that question is likely to be the major point of contention in the coming trial and we are not allowed to prejudge it. As to "offer" versus "formal offer", I'm not sure what the difference is. The distinction is not present at all in the recent court decision. Nobody is claiming that there would be another offer to come after this one. Zero^talk 00:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference is either, so let's not put in the article something we can't explain. It was removed in the body, so should not be in the lead. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Parts of the text are still highly biased to the university's position. Consider this in the lead: "University of Illinois withdrew its offer of employment". The whole point of what happened is that the university "withdrew its offer" after Salaita had accepted it and even moved his family to Illinois at the university's expense. The primary legal question is whether a binding contract had been formed, in which case the university didn't "withdrew its offer" but "broke its contract". So writing it as "withdrew its offer" is just a presentation of the university's case and not a neutral description. So far the legal process has gone in Salaita's direction. Zero^talk 00:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Support the troops" section

I have rewritten the section. The point of the section is the controversy, not pulling out random quotes from the article which he wrote. The article could basically be cited just to document that he actually wrote it (though a quote from an WP:RS would do as well). It is however, not permissible to randomly pull out quotes from there with no standards.

This CBS source (already present in the section) is the one which should be used. It describes the controversy, gives a summary of his argument, and provides the responses of all relevant actors. I don't really find too many other articles on Google about this, so feel free to bring up any more which you feel are WP:RS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Academic source by Diana Muir Appelbaum?

Academia.edu is not an academic journal. It is just a website where anyone can upload their articles. I can't find exactly where this piece was published, if anywhere. It should be removed unless someone gives a reason not to. I am not touching it right now, because of WP:1RR issues. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed her review. In fact, the other reviews at the end of the "career" section seem to be better suited for the "controversy" section, but I have left them as is for now. Breadblade (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have put in a tentative edit moving these reviews to the "controversy" section. Breadblade (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Removing a review of Salaita book by a blue-linked scholar seems inappropriate to me. Putting it back in now.Urbana61801 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what being blue-linked has to do with anything. This is not her area of expertise, nor is her article published in a peer-reviewed journal. The evaluation of Salaita's scholarship is not pertinent to the controversy anyway. Even the opponents did not oppose him based on his scholarship. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought you said that you couldn't find her article? I found it via google, with zero difficulty. There are very few published reviews of Salaita's work. The version of the Appelbaum article on Academia.edu contains extensive footnotes not included in the published version. IMHO, this makes it extremely valuable to the article on Salaita because, unlike many reviews, it enables readers to assess her claim that Salaita misrepresents sources. I think it belongs in the article, and that since you removed it on a claim that it was self-published - and that is not the case - you should put it back in until you have gotten consensus here for removing it.Urbana61801 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I said I couldn't find out if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is quite a different matter. As far I know, it is simply a self-published article on Academia.edu, which anyone can do, including you and me. Secondly, Salaita's scholarship was of course evaluated by the department when it offered him a job. He was not fired/denied the offer on the basis of his scholarship, as everyone, including his opponents say. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

But it is not self-published. It was published in The Tower Magazine. http://www.thetower.org/article/steven-salaitas-subpar-scholarship/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbana61801 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Her book review is self-published. Her article opposing the Salaita appointment based on his scholarship is indeed published in Tower, and (given the timing and context of the article) it makes more sense to be brought up in the Controversy section. I have moved it there. Breadblade (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments about Salaita's scholarship in the UIUC "controversy" section

The section is about the UIUC controversy. Nobody at UIUC raised any contention with his scholarship, indeed the department evaluated his scholarship before making him an offer. The comments about his scholarship do not belong there.

It is debatable whether the whole paragraph belongs at all in the article. Firstly, why is Cary Nelson's viewpoint there? He is not a scholar in the area, and his opinion carries no weight. Similarly the Tablet Magazine source. Appelbaum is the only one which has some claim to be included: she is a historian, but not a scholar in this area either. If we are going to discuss his scholarship, use scholarly reviews rather than randomly adding hostile reviews. Every scholar has people who disagree with their scholarship: this is not by itself notable in any way.

I have removed this whole section. Feel free to revert and/or discuss. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The section is indeed about the UIUC controversy, and the commentators in the section you removed were making those arguments in the context of this controversy. I find it curios that you would exclude Cary Nelson, a professor at UIUC and former president of the American Association of University Professors, who wrote about this in Inside higher Ed, a journal dedicated to discussing just such issues , yet keep the opinion of Robert Mackey, a journalist with no relevance to either UIUC or issues related to Higher Education. I'm sure this could not possibly be because Nelson was supportive of UIUC and critical of Salaita, while Mackey was of the opinion that the un-hiring came as a result of a campaign by pro-Israel students, but I'm puzzled as to why else you would treat these opinions so differently. In any case, I disagree with your assessment that this paragraph does not belong in the article or in this section, and have reverted it. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brad Dyer: Not sure what on Earth you are talking about. The paragraph is devoted to examining Salaita's scholarship, while Mackey's article is talking about the job offer. I have no idea how one is related to the other. Nor did I remove the Cary Nelson piece from Inside Higher Ed, which is relevant: I removed his piece from the Jerusalem Post (commenting on his scholarship), which is not relevant. Cary Nelson's opinion carries no weight: he is not a scholar in the field and in no position to judge it. The commenters are indeed making the arguments in context of the controversy, but they are in no position to judge the scholarship. Some random comments by some random persons is not randomly worth including. If you want to discuss the scholarship, use scholarly reviews, not quotes by random journalists and writers. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Some in the "anti-Salaita" camp have pointed at his scholarship to retroactively justify his un-hiring, so it may be relevant to the controversy section. However, we may be giving that facet of the controversy WP:UNDUE weight, especially since some of these scholars are reaching outside of their areas of expertise, as you mentioned. Possibly we can cut the blurb by Liel Leibovitz or Diana Muir to avoid it turning into a laundry list. Breadblade (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure on how much we disagree, so I'll just say this. Some may indeed justify something retroactively by pointing to his scholarship, but there is no reason why they should be given space here. The university did not revoke/deny/whatever his job offer on the basis of his scholarship, nor does anyone claim they did so. Observers may comment on X or Y, but that does not by itself make it notable for inclusion. If the purpose is to discuss his scholarship, then one should use qualified academic sources, not random hostile comments from people who have no expertise in this area. Leibovitz and Nelson definitely fall into this category, Appelbaum is arguable, but then, she should be in a separate section devoted to analyzing his scholarship, in a proper context, which includes other scholarly opinion of his work. I am sure something exists, after all the university evaluated his work before making him an offer. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I moved the reviews in question to "controversy" since they seemed to have been written solely to prove a point about his un-hiring--all three scholars had written one or several articles arguing in favor of his dismissal. It's possible that this is a WP:FRINGEBLP viewpoint and should be removed, but if not, these statements could be balanced with an argument from the other side. For instance, Robert Warrior has a recent article in an AAUP publication which contradicts Nelson's arguments regarding Salaita's scholarship. Breadblade (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that they seem to have been written solely to prove a point about his un-hiring, though that is not relevant here. I am not arguing from a WP:FRINGEBLP standpoint at all, just common sense and WP:RS. These authors are not authorities or experts in the field, how are they supposed to judge the scholarship, and why should one care what they say on the topic? There is plenty of stuff written about everything under the sun. Nelson's viewpoint about the hiring process etc. is relevant and notable: I do not object to that, nor did I remove it. His viewpoint about Salaita's scholarship is not relevant or notable. Neither is Leibovitz's. Appelbaum is arguable. And simply balancing their viewpoint with people who disagree with them is not enough, in my opinion. This goes to the matter of WP:UNDUE weight you mention earlier. This material should be removed, unless someone gives an argument as to their relevance, per WP:ONUS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the paragraph, paring it down and/or balancing it. The latter two options may be more likely to bring the editors of this page to a consensus, however. Breadblade (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Kingsindian. It should be removed. In fact, I'm going to remove it myself right now. Strongly advise against restoring it until we have consensus for inclusion. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. Breadblade (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Fyddlestix, but that's not how Wikiepdia works with respect to consensus. As it says on WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The material Kingsindian removed was in the article for a long, long time. In fact, the Liel Leibovitz ‎ criticism was there almost from day 1 - since the 6th edit ever to it! It obviously had implicit consensus, as there were hundreds of edits to the article since then, which did not challenge it, and you personally implicitly consented to it, having made numerous edits to the article that did not challenge it since it was first introduced. Similarly, the Applebaum criticism was there since December of last year, and the Cory critique since February. None of this was challenged by you or Kingsindian in numerous edits you made to the article since its introduction, and thus it is assumed to have consensus. It is fine for Kingsindian to make a bold edit and remove it, but if he is then reverted (as he was), we need to discuss and the onus is on you to show that the consensus has changed, and that the new consensus is for removal of the material - you can't simply repeat his bold edit and admonish others against re-adding the material without consensus.

At the moment, it appears like Kingsindian and you are for removal, I am opposed to it, and Breadblade is fine with removing the paragraph, paring it down and/or balancing it, with the last two option being his preferred ways to reach consensus. This is NOT a consensus for wholesale removal of material that has been here for over a year, unchallenged.

As to the arguments for removal - they simply do not hold water, and give a distinct feel of using double standards. The first argument proffered by Kingsindian was that UIUC did not advance criticisms of Salaita's scholarship when it withdrew its offer. That is true, but irrelevant. Others did offer that as (retroactive) justification , in the context of the controversy, and that is a notable view point. UIUC also did not say it was withdrawing the offer due to pressure from pro-Israeli groups, but that is a notable viewpoint, which is presented in the article, but non-experts. The second argument is 'why should one care what [Nelson|Applebaum|Leibovitz] say on the topic?' and the answer to that is simple - their viewpoint is notable, as evidenced the fact that it was published in mainstream newspapers with broad readership. That's practically definition of notability. Finally , there an argument that since the critics are not historians of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they can not fairly judge the scholarship. I'll ignore for a moment the fact that this is an odd argument to make about books written by someone who is himself not a historian of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (his degree is in "Native American studies with a literature emphasis", and his teaching position was American and ethnic American literature, and later English - pretty much like Nelson's), and point out the double standard here. One of Salaita's supporters, who praises his books is an "Iraqi poet, novelist" with a Ph. D. in Arabic and Islamic Studies, the other specializes in 'modern Arabic literature' and that's apparently good enough to appraise his scholarship and praise it, but a professor of English is not qualified to critique it. So one, standard for critics, quite another, far less strict standard for supporters. Either we toss out the non-expert praise along with the criticism, or we keep both.

I am open to a rewording of the paragraph or a trimming down of it, but do not support wholesale removal. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be criticisms of Salaita from people who have a competence in his area of study. Liel Leibovitz's ponly connection as a professor of journalism, is that he is of Israeli origins; Cary Nelson is a professor of English, and his competence is limited to the fact he is an advisor to the advocacy group Israel on Campus; that leaves Diana Muir, who indeed is an historian like Salaita, whose doctoral work is in American Indian studies.

Muir's work is as an historian of eco-systems. Her review is an astonishing flourishing of false naivity. As an American historian she appears to be feigning not to know what any historian familiar with both Zionism and American history would know. She says the following kind of things:

• 'These are grand claims. Supporting them on the sweeping scale on which they are made would require evidence that the Yiddish and German-speaking subjects of the 19th century Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires who founded the movement first called Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) were inspired by Daniel Boone and Miles Standish. Or, at least, that “Zionist leaders” regularly framed their movement in reference to the American narrative. To prove his case, Salaita would need to show that Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders used America not just as a comparison, but as a model, and did so not merely when speaking in America, but when speaking in Baghdad, Salonika, and Kiev. . he fails to provide evidence for what she describes as his central assertion that "Zionist leaders drew inspiration from American history in conceptualizing ways to rid Palestine of its Indigenes.'

Question-begging rubbish. The Palestinian-Red Indians analogy, which I happen to have studied at some length, was all over early Zionist discourse in Palestine, and in the U.S. It was well known in Germany, also, Klemperer's wife alludes to the meme in 1933: The analogy between Zionism and the American pioneering myths is so well documented that there is no point, other than rebutting her, for mentioning it. Salaita was stating the obvious, and she claims he has not provided the kind of footnoting for the kind of Zionism she imagines.

• M. Shahid Alam Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism, Palgrave Macmillan 2009 p.43

‘Leading Zionists, during the 1920s and 1930s, wrote numerous articles for the leading American newspapers describing the Zionist “pioneers” as Jewish versions of America’s “brave and religiously pious settlers”

• Lawrence Davidson, America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood, University Press of Florida, 2001 p.46

‘In these years the comparison of Palestine to the United States developed into a popular and persistent tactic on the part of the Zionist seeking to build American support for their cause.’

• Etan Bloom (ed) Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Pre-Israeli Culture, BRILL, 2011 p.309

Lord Melchett comparing, with Ruppin and Weizman present, Arabs in Palestine to Red Indians and the pioneers in Palestine to American pioneers “who pushed out to the West on wagons (…) is they hadn’t been quick on the guns rather than poring over books, they would all have been toma-hawked.'

• Noam Chomsky,Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, Black Rose Books Ltd., 1999 p.481

'American journalist Vincent Sheean, who arrived in Palestine as an avid Zionist in 1929, left a few months later a harsh critic of the Zionist enterprise largely because of the attitudes among the Jewisah settlers towards what they called the “uncivilized race” of “savages” and £”Red Indians,”

• Mark A. Raider The Emergence of American Zionism, NYU Press, 1998 p.116

• Shulamit Reinharz,Mark A. Raider American Jewish Women and the Zionist Enterprise, UPNE, 2005pp.120f.

Wiki editors can't criticize their sources, but if they know their subject matter they can detect what is a good source, and what is crap, even if well published. All three sources are mediocre,if not crap and Muir's is a travesty. So none reflect on Salaita's area of competence. They reflect on the three critics' political identity with Israel, and general ignorance of Salaita's area of competence. They have no place in this section.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brad Dyer: I do not see where Breadblade say that they prefer to keep the paragraph (pared down) rather than removing it. They said that they are fine with removing it, but suspect that paring the paragraph down might find easier consensus. Of course, that would be easier, but that does not make it right. Breadblade can clarify their position.

As to the points about notability, they are quite irrelevant. As I noted, accurately, the university did not question his scholarship. Just because some random persons did after the fact, is not sufficient. In this area, everyone and their uncle have an opinion.

As to the charge about double standards, let's take a look at this. The two things praising Salaita you mention are Sinan Antoon's review and Miriam Cooke's statement. Sinan Antoon is discussing this book, ≤which comes under "Literary criticism". Pray tell us why a writer, poet, novelist and academic in Arabic literature is not qualified to offer judgement about a book concerning literary criticism in a refereed academic journal, and how this compares with a random writer in a general news magazine (Tablet), or an op-ed in a newspaper by an English professor with no qualifications on the Middle East (his expertise seems to be on American poetry). Nelson's claim to fame is that he was the past president of the AAUP, that is the basis on which he is quoted in the Inside Higher Ed piece. Any of his pontifications on Salaita's scholarship are irrelevant unless shown otherwise. Cooke's statement is not a review, but simply a blurb for the book, as far as I can determine. See here. I am fine with removing the blurb if you want. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my personal preference would have been for the paragraph to be removed, but paring it down seemed at the time to be a better compromise. Reading Nishidani's argument above, I am starting to see the harm in leaving the paragraph in. I'll echo the sentiment that if we are discussing Salaita's academic work, we should probably source it from experts in the field instead of putting Nelson et al on a pedestal--it appears that they might be out of their depth, in addition to the political motivations discussed earlier. Breadblade (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is supposed to bring about consensus. If Breadblade thinks rewriting is a better option for achieving consensus, that would seem to indicate he is in favor of that, but he can clarify. I addressed the non-argument that the university did not advance criticism of his scholarship (twice) - it's true, but quite irrelevant to the fact that others have advanced that position, and that it is a notable viewpoint relevant to the controversy. I also compared that with claims that the University bowed to pro-Israeli pressure - the University did not say that, either but we happily quote some random journalists' blog saying that. You can keep on saying that nelson's or others' point of view is irrelevant, but here on Wikipedia, we don't care what you think., we care what reliable and notable sources say, and they have found Nelson;'s opinion to be notable - and we simply echo what they write.

Nelson was critiquing the exact same book Antoon was praising - a book that is about "Meticulously examining histories, theories, and literary depictions of colonialism and interethnic dialects" - is a poet and Ph. D. in Arabic studies qualified to judge that kind of scholarship? If so, why is an English Literature prof not qualified? Bad Dryer (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brad Dyer: Your comparison with the "pro-Israeli pressure" stuff makes no sense. Of course the University will not say that they bowed to pro-Israeli pressure. Salaita claimed so, and it was in that context that the New York Times blog is quoted. Indeed, the university has responded to the claims, and this is a central part of the story. I will add the latter reference to the article now. To compare this with the question of Salaita's scholarship is absurd. The latter is a total red herring. As I said before, in this area, everyone and their uncle has an opinion. WP:NPOV does not say that one has to give all of them equal weight, but to give WP:DUE weight. I have already said why Antoon's review is not comparable with Nelson's: one is a novelist, poet and academic expert on Arabic literature reviewing a work of literary criticism writing in a refereed journal, the other is an op-ed in a newspaper by a random English professor with no expertise on the Middle East or on the topic. I find that I am now simply repeating my points, so I will say no more. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are indeed repeating your claims, which I have already rebutted. Whether UIUC made an argument related to the controversy or some other people made that argument is not relevant to the question of inclusion. It might be relevant to the weight we give to those other opinions vs. the weight we give to the University's position, but we can't completely exclude a significant point of view, covered in mainstream newspapers and made by notable people who are related to the controversy just because it was not a position advanced by UIUC. Antoon is a poet who has a Ph.d in Arabic studies. He is not any notable 'expert on Arabic literature'. Nelson is UIUC alum, a former president of the American Association of University Professors, a former Schusterman Fellow in Israel Studies at Brandeis University, a publisher author of academic books on the topic of "The Politics of Cultural Memory", AND an accomplished literary expert. He is just as qualified to critique a book which comes under "Literary criticism" as an Iraqi poet. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In controversies sections (which are mostly grubbed up by stupid POV fishing expeditions to find authoritative crap or glamorous appraisels thrown on, or at, a figure one dislikes on wikipedia), one should distinguish peer review (see the 'Criticism' section for Karl Popper to grasp the point), from public controversies quite distinctly, esp. in the I/P area where anxiety fits and politicized hysteria are commonplaces even in the commentariat. That is what mist be sharply distinguished here.Nishidani (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"multiple 6 figure donor"

Shouldn't we identify the "multiple 6 figure donor" and his affiliation, following the Forward article which is already cited in the article?
http://forward.com/news/israel/205543/de-hired-professor-steven-salaita-is-a-universitys/
De-hired Professor Steven Salaita Is a University's Worst Nightmare
Nathan Guttman
The Forward
September 14, 2014
a donor wrote in with an unveiled threat: “Having been a multiple 6 figure donor to Illinois over the years, I know our support is ending as we vehemently disagree with the approach this individual espouses.” While names of the email authors were redacted, one, mistakenly left in, revealed that the writer was Steve Miller, a board member of the Chicago federation. Miller refused to comment on the issue.
--Nbauman (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced and Potentially libelous edits by ObserverStatus

I have reported on administrator board for living person bios the potentially libelous additions repeatedly added by ObserverStatus, who states incorrectly that Salaita in now unemployed, even though reliable sources say his one year assignment at American U in Beirut began in the summer of 2015. He has also added unreferenced claims that Salaita is anti-Semitic. VanEman (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Jacobson

The role of William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection in getting Salaita not hired should probably be mentioned in the article.ImTheIP (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixing POV content

There's significant POV content in this article, which needs to be modified.

For example, the contention that he was fired for tweets critical of Israel and Zionism is false, as it is reported by multiple reliable sources that he was unhired due to those tweets being considered antisemitic. For example, from the first source "The profanity of the tweets led to accusations of him being anti-Semitic." And from the second source (which should not be used in this context as its an opinion piece.) "Salaita condenses boycott-divestment-sanctions wisdom into a continuing series of sophomoric, bombastic, or anti-Semitic tweets"

From more reliable sources:

"The university rescinded Salaita’s job offer after some donors complained his tweets were anti-Semitic."

"following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

Additionally, the sentence "Salaita posted hundreds of tweets criticizing Israel and its indiscriminate bombings of Gaza". To begin with, "indiscriminate bombings of Gaza" is non encyclopedic and non NPOV. Secondly, the source cited uses Salaita himself as its reference for the statement, so that is a no-go.

First, remember that WP:BLP applies. Second, note that the article doesn't state why Salaita was un-hired. The following facts are uncontested: 1. Salaita tweeted critically about Israel and Zionism. 2. The university came under pressure from donors to un-hire Salaita. 3. Salaita was un-hired. It is not Wikipedia's job to put two and two together and conclude that donor pressure was the reason Salaita was un-hired (unless reliable sources assert that, perhaps). Thus, I'm not sure what your objection is here.

The article isn't putting "two and two together", nor is it concluding anything. That would be original research. What Wikipedia should do is accurately represent the conclusions of reliable sources. Presently, the article does, incorrectly, present original research, it claims Salaita was unhired due to "objections to a series of tweets critical of Israel and Zionism." This is contrary to the sources, which state that "The university rescinded Salaita’s job offer after some donors complained his tweets were anti-Semitic."

"following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

You cannot assert that "indiscriminate bombings of Gaza" is non-encyclopedic if it is true. HRC wrote: "Deploring the massive Israeli military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June 2014, which have involved disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks and resulted in grave violations of the human rights of the Palestinian civilian population." Amnesty wrote: "There is overwhelming evidence that Israeli forces committed disproportionate, or otherwise indiscriminate, attacks which killed scores of civilians in their homes, on the streets and in vehicles and injured many more."

Finally, note that contemporary newspaper articles aren't great sources. It's preferable to use books and other more reliable sources. For example, the New York Times article you cited are from September 2014, about a year before the university was forced to release the emails. ImTheIP (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is clear cut. Multiple reliable sources state that it was due to his tweets being considered antisemitic, it is an obligation on Wikipedia to accurately reflect reliable sources.

It may be true in your opinion, or in the opinion of UNISPAL or Amnesty, but it is an allegation, which is why we can't claim it through Wikipedia's Neutral voice. You could say "Israel's bombings of Gaza which were described by Amnesty as indiscriminate"

Contemporary newspapers are good sources, and are used throughout this article as well. You can't just claim the NY Times and The Guardian are bad sources when you don't like what they're saying.

In any case, here are non contemporary sources:

"By August, the university rescinded its written job offer, while critics on campus and off accused Salaita of anti-Semitism and supporters pledged to boycott the school until his offer was reinstated."

"Calling his comments anti-Semitic and questioning his ability to foster civil dialogue in his classroom, students, faculty and others lobbied Wise to block Salaita’s appointment."

Looking at an earlier version of the article, the wording was perfect. "The tweets were seen as criticism of the Israeli government by some, and as expressions of antisemitism by others." We should go back to this non POV version. Drsmoo (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Presently, the article does, incorrectly, present original research, it claims Salaita was unhired due to "objections to a series of tweets critical of Israel and Zionism." That claim is not made. There is a temporal correlation to Salaita's tweets and his un-hiring. You want to add the claim to the lead that the content of his tweets caused his un-hiring. I don't agree and if you look at The Guardian article, that is not how its presented:

A leading academic group voted on Saturday to censure the University of Illinois’ flagship campus over its decision not to hire a professor following his anti-Israel Twitter messages, a vote the university’s chancellor said would have repercussions.

Note! The university denied that it was donor pressure that caused Salaita's un-hiring.

Regarding his tweets, all sources agree that his tweets were critical of Israel. The WaPo article you cited has the headline: "University of Illinois censured after professor loses job over tweets critical of Israel." Thus, this is what should go into the lead. Your proposed characterization is deceptive: "The tweets were seen as criticism of the Israeli government by some, and as expressions of antisemitism by others." It gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position - that his tweets were anti-Semitic. Note also that WP:BLP applies, which means that the lead shouldn't delve too deep into controversies.

Amnesty and HRW are both impeccable sources. If they both state that Israel engaged in indiscriminate attacks, then that can be stated without attribution on Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Drsmoo is correct, the new content is highly biased and paints a false picture.--Floral suffrage (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC) sock

We don't remove reliably sourced information because a word isn't present in the headline. That would be ridiculous. A tweet can be both anti-Israel and antisemitic. What you're falsely describing as the "minority position" is simply a statement of fact attested to by multiple reliable sources. Regarding Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, that may be your opinion that they are impeccable sources, but their allegations (against both Israel and Hamas) are not conclusions, only allegations. Please see 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict for how such allegations are presented in Wikipedia. With that said, while you may personally feel that this information is relevant. It has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and as such is inherently POV.

Additionally, Floral Suffrage is permitted to opine on talk pages, but not to edit (until he has 500 edits). Drsmoo (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The sentence as you have phrased is not even grammatically correct. Furthermore, the article is about Steven Salaita; his career and what he has published. That a small minority accused him of anti-Semitism is not lead-worthy material. I consider stating it in the lead to be smearing and a clear WP:BLP-violation. Especially since the view of the tens of thousands of academics that saw nothing anti-Semitic in the tweets isn't represented. ImTheIP (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please link to a reliable source indicating that only a small minority of the people who complained about his tweets thought they were antisemitic. Additionally, please feel free to solicit contributions at the BLP noticeboard if you feel Wikipedia must hide information present in reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that so many came out in his defense implies that very few thought his tweets were anti-Semitic. Fwiw, would you be willing to "compromise"? Why can write that the tweets were "inflammatory" or "incendiary" or "angry." But I'm very much opposed to the "anti-Semitic" word being in the lead. It is, in my opinion, smear. ImTheIP (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be an example of WP:OR. You would need a reliable source, you can't just infer things and put them in Wikipedia based on your opinions. Regarding the lead, please make a suggestion for wording you would agree with. Drsmoo (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've quoted sources characterizing his tweets using the mentioned adjectives on the Steven Salaita hiring controversy page's talk page. My suggestion: He became the center of a controversy when University of Illinois un-hired him as a professor of American Indian Studies, following objections to a series of inflammatory tweets he had posted about Israel. ImTheIP (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to that, my only modification would be "...following objects to a series of inflammatory tweets he had posted about Israel and Zionism." Drsmoo (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

References