Talk:Village Statistics, 1945

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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

Brawer and Karsh
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. Zerotalk 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Zerotalk 13:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We can give a full quote as a note --Shrike (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Zerotalk 02:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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). Zerotalk 09:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)