Talk:Village Statistics, 1945

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Israel Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.
- Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Village Statistics, 1945. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140720232249/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5FBCED3943293BBD0525656900654AA6 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5FBCED3943293BBD0525656900654AA6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brawer and Karsh[edit]

The "quotation" from Brawer ~~and Karsh~~ that I just reverted was constructed by joining together parts of two different sentences. The missing words read "are the result of a very detailed work conducted by the Department of Statistics, by using all the statistical material available on the subject. They". How Brawer came to publish a doctored version that supported his case more than the original is not for us to determine, but we are not obliged to follow suit and perpetrate the falsehood. ~~We can be generous to Karsh and assume that he copied from Brawer without checking.~~ This is certainly within the rules as we have here a proof that Brawer is not a reliable source for the contents of the document. Beyond that, we have WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE for a reason. Tomorrow I will quote the full paragraph from the Explanatory Note that refers to the accuracy of the data, but I don't see how we can cite what Brawer inferred from it without noting his unfortunate omission. Zero^talk 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We go according to WP:RS and not you own WP:TRUTH and there is no proof that Karsh quoted Brawer that you own WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those Wikipedians who never deliberately insert material they know to be false. That's because I care whether articles have the facts correct or not. The old misleading slogan "verifiability, not truth" was deleted from the policy pages years ago. I agree that Karsh didn't quote Brawer, but he used an ellipsis to hide words that disturbed his claim and there is no reason we have to hide them too. Tomorrow I will insert the entire paragraph verbatim and then we can decide whether Brawer gets a mention. We are obviously permitted to quote directly from the document this article is all about. Zero^talk 13:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can give a full quote as a note --Shrike (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also its scholar right to quote primary source to make their conclusions its done regularly iuts just you don't like the conclusions .We can omit the primary text and just say that it was criticized for its unreliability.--Shrike (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, isn't this a rehash of the discussion on Talk:Walid Khalidi? I recall a Nocal sock "selling" the same article....Huldra (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Shrike, please read more carefully. Brawer did not quote the primary source at all. He wrote a sentence that does not appear in the primary source. When we are aware of mistakes in sources that are not just a matter of opinion but clear objectively verifiable mistakes, we shouldn't just copy them into the article. Now the article has the full quotation of what the report says about its accuracy and I don't see why adding Brawer would be useful. Zero^talk 02:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he forgot some ellipses that doesn't mean we shouldn't include his conclusions about primary source also we have Karsh that tells the same both academics in the field and there is no reason not to include them.--Shrike (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can include Brawer's substantial criticism, namely that the data is often at variance with estimates based on aerial photos. I'll add that. Karsh says nothing interesting that I can see. His whole article relies on the very document he claims to be unreliable (and he silently omits to update it from 1945 to 1948). Zero^talk 09:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]