I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
--Adam Raizen
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
--Adam Raizen
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a bit unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
Also, I would like to know how this bot handles it when articles are already there but it wants to put this data there. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
--Adam Raizen
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a bit unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
What's unclear about it? Also, do you think that there are too many statistics, or too few? There are a lot more statistics available, but I don't want to clutter up the pages with a bunch of useless statistics.
Also, I would like to know how this bot handles it when articles are already there but it wants to put this data there. LDan
I haven't worked out the details yet, but it will do it gracefully, without clobbering any existing data. I'll post an example article of a conflict soon. There are only a dozen or so existing articles, so it will be possible to go over them individually to make sure the bot's article is merged well with the existing article.
--Adam Raizen
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a bit unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
What's unclear about it? Also, do you think that there are too many statistics, or too few? There are a lot more statistics available, but I don't want to clutter up the pages with a bunch of useless statistics.
The city appears to be made up of 100.5% of its population. Of that, 20% of the population is made of 15.4%+4%=19.4%. We can safely conclude that the population is more than the population, from which the Arabs are less than the Arabs. I think that's a bit unclear. :)
Gutza
Gutza wrote:
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a bit unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
What's unclear about it? Also, do you think that there are too many statistics, or too few? There are a lot more statistics available, but I don't want to clutter up the pages with a bunch of useless statistics.
The city appears to be made up of 100.5% of its population. Of that, 20% of the population is made of 15.4%+4%=19.4%. We can safely conclude that the population is more than the population, from which the Arabs are less than the Arabs. I think that's a bit unclear. :)
That's the data that I got from the CBS's web site, so there's not too much I can do about it. I assume that the slight inconsistencies are a result of overlap or incorrect reporting or non-reporting by some residents.
-- Adam Raizen
I find those stats a little flaky (their groupings of people are a little odd and obtuse), but I'd prefer it to no stats. I say go for it (but be cautious with existing articles!).
--Jake
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
What's unclear about it? Also, do you think that there are too many statistics, or too few? There are a lot more statistics available, but I don't want to clutter up the pages with a bunch of useless statistics. --Adam Raizen
What do you mean "Jewish and other"? Are all christians there arab? are there no arab jews? Are you treating Jewish as an ethnicity or a religion? It looks like ethnicity from the context. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote:
What do you mean "Jewish and other"? Are all christians there arab? are there no arab jews? Are you treating Jewish as an ethnicity or a religion? It looks like ethnicity from the context. LDan
LD is correct to point out this distinciton. As I understand tit, an Jewish Arab, living in Israel, is virtually a contradiction in terms. An Arab in "disputed land" is not considered a citizen. An Arab cannot live for long in Israel without attempting to gain citizenship. Because the state wishes to artificially keep its proportions predominantly Jewish, there is an extreme hardship. On the other, (as I understand it) a Jew on "disputed land" considered an Israeli, because even "disputed land" is still Israeli land.
All of these are apartheid distinctions and it is right to point out that Jewishness is more of a context, than it is anything to generate statistics by. If there was a clear definition by the Rabbinate as to ultimately who is qualified for "Israeli citizenship" --and were there any accurate statistics dealing with Palestinian refugees, then there could be a way to establish the merits of such a system's statistics. As it stands, they are about as useful as those from South Africa in the 1980s or the US in the 30's.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote:
What do you mean "Jewish and other"? Are all christians there arab? are there no arab jews? Are you treating Jewish as an ethnicity or a religion? It looks like ethnicity from the context. LDan
LD is correct to point out this distinciton. As I understand tit, an Jewish Arab, living in Israel, is virtually a contradiction in terms. An Arab in "disputed land" is not considered a citizen. An Arab cannot live for long in Israel without attempting to gain citizenship. Because the state wishes to artificially keep its proportions predominantly Jewish, there is an extreme hardship. On the other, (as I understand it) a Jew on "disputed land" considered an Israeli, because even "disputed land" is still Israeli land.
All of these are apartheid distinctions and it is right to point out that Jewishness is more of a context, than it is anything to generate statistics by. If there was a clear definition by the Rabbinate as to ultimately who is qualified for "Israeli citizenship" --and were there any accurate statistics dealing with Palestinian refugees, then there could be a way to establish the merits of such a system's statistics. As it stands, they are about as useful as those from South Africa in the 1980s or the US in the 30's.
~S~
Well! Let's save the edit wars for the articles themselevs, okay? There will be a link to an article which explains the demographic groups in Israel, which we can fight over all we want.
--Adam Raizen
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Well! Let's save the edit wars for the articles themselevs, okay? There will be a link to an article which explains the demographic groups in Israel, which we can fight over all we want.
Well your right about us getting too carried away. On the other hand, your avoiding the issue --- this thread was about en masse stats uploaded via a bot. Unless there is a bot to go around and correct these, I think we can let my statement stand that we should pinch our collective nose at the odium of smelly statistics.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
What's unclear about it? Also, do you think that there are too many statistics, or too few? There are a lot more statistics available, but I don't want to clutter up the pages with a bunch of useless statistics. --Adam Raizen
What do you mean "Jewish and other"? Are all christians there arab? are there no arab jews? Are you treating Jewish as an ethnicity or a religion? It looks like ethnicity from the context. LDan
My explanation from [[User talk:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]:
It's other non-Arab. This is the CBS's category, and it doesn't break it down any further. In general, other refers to people who are married to a Jew, or whose father or grandfather was Jewish, and thus immigrated under the Law of Return, but aren't considered Jewish by the Rabbinate. Culturally, they're basically the same a secular Israeli Jew, so the category makes some sense.
Arabs who convert to Judaism are very rare, and I'm nearly certain that they're considered Jews in these figures. Likewise, non-Arab Muslims and Christians are negligible.
Are you refering to the fact that Judiasm, according to the laws therof, is transfered from mother to child (as written at [[Judaism#Who_is_a_Jew]])? If so, I'd suggest that you chage
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
to
Tje ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish by ethnicity and 20.0% Arab, consisting of 15.4% Muslim, and 4.0% Christian. There are 450 new immigrants since the last time the census was taken.
Distinguishing between Jewish ethnicity, Jewish religion, and who the State of Israel considers as Jewish is not an easy task. I'll add "See [[Population groups in Israel]]." to the end of the ethnicity paragraph, so that we can refine and expound the categories there in detail.
I don't see how your proposed change is an improvement (or even a change, really). The categories "Jewish" and "Arab" are clearly ethnicities (with some complications for "Jewish") as specified by "the ethnic makeup", but no one considers "Christian" or "Muslim" to be anything other than a religion, so there shouldn't be any confusion there.
By the way, for reference, the exact category names used by the CBS are: "Jews and others (percent)", "Arab population (percent)", "Muslim Arabs (percent)", "Arab Christians (percent)", and "Druze (percent)".
Yes, I do think a table would be easier to read, but there should also be some content in paragraph form.
Is there any more support for tables, even though it breaks with the style set in Rambot's articles?
I'll try to find content to put in the articles that is automated. So far, I've found http://www.iula.org.il/cities/citind.htm, a list of links to the websites of all of the big cities in Israel, but that's it, and it probably would go into the table. LDan
This is great. I'll be sure to include those, under "External Links".
--Adam Raizen
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Distinguishing between Jewish ethnicity, Jewish religion, and who the State of Israel considers as Jewish is not an easy task.
But it would be a good start to sort this out *before coming up with "statistics" wouldnt it?
This is great. I'll be sure to include those, under "External Links".
Ah. Such effortless effort should be noted for its notability.
;) ~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Distinguishing between Jewish ethnicity, Jewish religion, and who the State of Israel considers as Jewish is not an easy task.
But it would be a good start to sort this out *before coming up with "statistics" wouldnt it?
The statistics already exist; I don't have the means to do my own poll. Now it's just a question of whether to add them to Wikipedia, and if so, in what form and with what explanation. So far, you're the only one to object, and not on any specific reason to distrust the statistics, but just on a general distrust of Israel. For the nth time, this will be explained in detail in an article linked to from the bot's articles.
This is great. I'll be sure to include those, under "External Links".
Ah. Such effortless effort should be noted for its notability.
;) ~S~
What exactly are you objecting to?
Well your right about us getting too carried away. On the other hand, your avoiding the issue --- this thread was about en masse stats uploaded via a bot.
I'm not avoiding the issue. I've posted explanations of the demographic categories in a couple of different messages, and I'll expand upon that in the article which will be linked to from all the bot-generated articles. If you can't find the explanations, I'll collect them and repost them. If you have any specific objections, I'd like to hear them. If you have any specific questions that I haven't answered, ask away.
Unless there is a bot to go around and correct these, I think we can let my statement stand that we should pinch our collective nose at the odium of smelly statistics.
Of course, it will be a very simple matter to have a bot go around and correct/update these articles, if needed (much simpler than creating the articles in the first place). "We're" not pinching our collective nose at anything. I think that you need a better objection than just a general dislike for Israel.
WikiLove, Adam Raizen
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Steve Vertigum wrote:
The statistics already exist; I don't have the means to do my own poll.
Huh?
Now it's just a question of whether to add them to Wikipedia, and if so, in what form and with what explanation.
Add what -- the new statistics that "already exist" but you cant find, or the backup ones from a controversial POV source?
So far, you're the only one to object,
No Im not. I came into this thread after a couple people raised questions.
and not on any specific reason to distrust the statistics, but just on a general distrust of Israel. For the nth time, this will be explained in detail in an article linked to from the bot's articles.
This isnt good enough--you cant simply add statistics from Hamas and stipulate these with a buried link to an article which explains that "these stats may not be NPOV"
Ah. Such effortless effort should be noted for its notability.
What exactly are you objecting to?
The use of a bot to add Israeli government statistics, which we proved a few letters ago was not NPOV, and also was an apartheid state, which among decent thoughful people tends to raise a flag or two.
I'm not avoiding the issue. I've posted explanations of the demographic categories in a couple of different messages, and I'll expand upon that in the article which will be linked to from all the bot-generated articles. If you can't find the explanations, I'll collect them and repost them. If you have any specific objections, I'd like to hear them. If you have any specific questions that I haven't answered, ask away.
Im not the kind of guy to get sidetracked with specifics-- I am the kind to state some obvious things--that NPOV would be violated if we added POV-based data en masse. Add it by hand if you want-- let each stand up to scrutiny. As I understand it, in Israel-- even the names of towns and cities is a often a question of POV.
Of course, it will be a very simple matter to have a bot go around and correct/update these articles, if needed (much simpler than creating the articles in the first place).
I love how you say "we can take care of it easy and simple"--just sign on the line--- You sound like a politician, young man.
"We're" not pinching
our collective nose at anything. I think that you need a better objection than just a general dislike for Israel.
Its not a "general dislike" --(dont start that pottytalk with me--or at least use LD's <rant> tags)-- its an nose for the smell of POV disguised as a field of "statistics", boosted en mass, up the rear end of the WP. The WP does'nt necessarily object to this course of entry, provided the proper prophylactic measures have been secured. (We dont want to catch any POV in other words) You could might as well name it the POV-BOT, since were all friends here.
WikiLove be upon you and your progeny, ~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Steve Vertigum wrote:
The statistics already exist; I don't have the means to do my own poll.
Huh?
Now it's just a question of whether to add them to Wikipedia, and if so, in what form and with what explanation.
Add what -- the new statistics that "already exist" but you cant find, or the backup ones from a controversial POV source?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've only had one set of statistics since the beginning, and I've never said anything about not being able to find some statistics. I downloaded the spreadsheet from http://gis.cbs.gov.il/Website/Localities2001/Rashuyot_htm/profilExcel2001.xl... from the website of Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, which contains data on the local authorities in Israel from the end of 2001. From http://gis.cbs.gov.il/Website/Localities2001/Rashuyot_htm/hakdama-CBS-h_IE.h...: "This publication is a joint venture between the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Interior Ministry. In the publication there are physical data (population, education and welfare, infrastructure, etc.) and financial data (execution of the budget) concerning the local authorities in Israel for the year 2001."
So far, you're the only one to object,
No Im not. I came into this thread after a couple people raised questions.
Some people have raised questions, but so far you're the only one to object to using the statistics at all under any circumstances.
and not on any specific reason to distrust the statistics, but just on a general distrust of Israel. For the nth time, this will be explained in detail in an article linked to from the bot's articles.
This isnt good enough--you cant simply add statistics from Hamas and stipulate these with a buried link to an article which explains that "these stats may not be NPOV"
Actually, I expect that stats from Hamas would be acceptible, if Hamas collects statistics, if they're attributed on the page itself (as these will be), and with a link to additional explanation in a prominent place (as these will have). Whatever gave you the idea that the link would be "buried".
Ah. Such effortless effort should be noted for its notability.
What exactly are you objecting to?
The use of a bot to add Israeli government statistics, which we proved a few letters ago was not NPOV, and also was an apartheid state, which among decent thoughful people tends to raise a flag or two.
So you object to adding links to the home pages of the local authorities in question (since that what you were responding to)?
I'm not avoiding the issue. I've posted explanations of the demographic categories in a couple of different messages, and I'll expand upon that in the article which will be linked to from all the bot-generated articles. If you can't find the explanations, I'll collect them and repost them. If you have any specific objections, I'd like to hear them. If you have any specific questions that I haven't answered, ask away.
Im not the kind of guy to get sidetracked with specifics-- I am the kind to state some obvious things--that NPOV would be violated if we added POV-based data en masse. Add it by hand if you want-- let each stand up to scrutiny. As I understand it, in Israel-- even the names of towns and cities is a often a question of POV.
Of course, it will be a very simple matter to have a bot go around and correct/update these articles, if needed (much simpler than creating the articles in the first place).
I love how you say "we can take care of it easy and simple"--just sign on the line--- You sound like a politician, young man.
"We're" not pinching
our collective nose at anything. I think that you need a better objection than just a general dislike for Israel.
Its not a "general dislike" --(dont start that pottytalk with me--or at least use LD's <rant> tags)-- its an nose for the smell of POV disguised as a field of "statistics", boosted en mass, up the rear end of the WP. The WP does'nt necessarily object to this course of entry, provided the proper prophylactic measures have been secured. (We dont want to catch any POV in other words) You could might as well name it the POV-BOT, since were all friends here.
WikiLove be upon you and your progeny, ~S~
Okay, you're obviously not going to like anything else I have to say, so I'm done. If anyone else has any objections, please bring them up.
I really find it incredible that you're objecting. A lot of things have been said against the government of Israel, but I haven't heard anyone questioning the statistics it gathers for its own bureaucratic purposes on its own citizens (these data do not include any information on Palestinians in the territories). How might the statistics be biased exactly? Too many or too few Jews? Too large a population, or too small? What would be the purpose of that? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I'm not going to debate this.)
-- Adam Raizen
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 14:32, Adam Raizen wrote:
I really find it incredible that you're objecting. A lot of things have been said against the government of Israel, but I haven't heard anyone questioning the statistics it gathers for its own bureaucratic purposes on its own citizens (these data do not include any information on Palestinians in the territories). How might the statistics be biased exactly? Too many or too few Jews? Too large a population, or too small? What would be the purpose of that? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I'm not going to debate this.)
As long as you cite the source, I have no objections. I don't think there's anything wrong with citing statistics collected by a government. Our citation of the comparable U.S. sources hasn't drawn this much fire.
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Okay, you're obviously not going to like anything else I have to say, so I'm done. If anyone else has any objections, please bring them up.
I really find it incredible that you're objecting. A lot of things have been said against the government of Israel, but I haven't heard anyone questioning the statistics it gathers for its own bureaucratic purposes on its own citizens (these data do not include any information on Palestinians in the territories). How might the statistics be biased exactly? Too many or too few Jews? Too large a population, or too small? What would be the purpose of that? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I'm not going to debate this.)
-- Adam Raizen
I can kinda see Steve's point, but I don't agree with it. I wouldn't, under any circumstances, accept data from Congo under any circumstances. But Congo has active massacres on its citizens, and on all measures is worse than Israel. I can refute any specific argument against Israel, just email me offlist, Steve. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Why dont you email Chomsky Daniel. Im not an expert. Read that link on the email too. I think you two would hit it off--dont axe me why.
We agree then that there are standards which would cause us to void some statistics-- we can refuse to be ignorant and admit that statistics are not unpolitical-- that we not take them at face value. We can agree to use the .il statistics, provided we violate their "moral" copyright-- And AS I SAID THREE times: Not with a bot. A bot represents a privelidged means of access to the Wikipedia.
l Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote: --- Adam Raizen wrote:
Okay, you're obviously not going to like anything else I have to say, so I'm done. If anyone else has any objections, please bring them up.
I really find it incredible that you're objecting. A lot of things have been said against the government of Israel, but I haven't heard anyone questioning the statistics it gathers for its own bureaucratic purposes on its own citizens (these data do not include any information on Palestinians in the territories). How might the statistics be biased exactly? Too many or too few Jews? Too large a population, or too small? What would be the purpose of that? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I'm not going to debate this.)
-- Adam Raizen
I can kinda see Steve's point, but I don't agree with it. I wouldn't, under any circumstances, accept data from Congo under any circumstances. But Congo has active massacres on its citizens, and on all measures is worse than Israel. I can refute any specific argument against Israel, just email me offlist, Steve. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Why dont you email Chomsky Daniel. Im not an expert. Read that link on the email too. I think you two would hit it off--dont axe me why.
We can agree then that 1. there are standards which would cause us to void some statistics-- we can refuse to be ignorant and 2. admit that statistics are not unpolitical-- that we not simply take them at face value. We can agree that 3. these statistics are of questionable statistical value since they deal with ethnic divisions which are based on dubious ethnic distinctions.
We can also agree to 4. use the .il statistics anyway provided we violate their "moral" copyright-- And AS I SAID THREE times: **Not with a bot. A bot's use represents a privelidged means of access to the Wikipedia. Such a privelige must not be given to POV numbers. They are not statistics---the science behind them is poor. They are merely numbers.
To use such numbers would require a disclaimer that essentially says "these are not statistics--they are politicized numbers."
~S~
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--- Steve Vertigum [email protected] wrote:
Why dont you email Chomsky Daniel. Im not an expert. Read that link on the email too. I think you two would hit it off--dont axe me why.
I'm sorry, I missed that link.
I've read some of Chomsky's works, linguistic and political, and I still find it surprising that so many liberals are anti-Israel. I'm sorry, anti-apartheid, whatever you want to call it.
We can agree then that 1. there are standards which would cause us to void some statistics-- we can refuse to be ignorant and 2. admit that statistics are not unpolitical-- that we not simply take them at face value. We can agree that 3. these statistics are of questionable statistical value since they deal with ethnic divisions which are based on dubious ethnic distinctions.
We can also agree to 4. use the .il statistics anyway provided we violate their "moral" copyright-- And AS I SAID THREE times: **Not with a bot. A bot's use represents a privelidged means of access to the Wikipedia. Such a privelige must not be given to POV numbers. They are not statistics---the science behind them is poor. They are merely numbers.
To use such numbers would require a disclaimer that essentially says "these are not statistics--they are politicized numbers."
~S~
I agree with you on the first point, but that's it. See [[Begging the question#Circular Arguments]]. You are proving your premise with itself. Both in this email, where you said "I think we can assume..." (we cant) and proved what you thought we could assume, and before, saying that you're not anti-Israel, just anti-apartheid (who isn't? But israel isn't apartheid).
And of course these numbers are collected for political and/or burocratic purposes, such as creating budget projections and accurately representing districts. Why else would they collect them. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
Why dont you email Chomsky Daniel. Im not an expert. Read that link on the email too. I think you two would hit it off--dont axe me why.
Chomsky is notorious for his advocacy; he is by no stretch of the imagination a trustworthy neutral authority.
We can agree then that 1. there are standards which would cause us to void some statistics-- we can refuse to be ignorant and 2. admit that statistics are not unpolitical-- that we not simply take them at face value. We can agree that 3. these statistics are of questionable statistical value since they deal with ethnic divisions which are based on dubious ethnic distinctions.
We can also agree to 4. use the .il statistics anyway provided we violate their "moral" copyright-- And AS I SAID THREE times: **Not with a bot. A bot's use represents a privelidged means of access to the Wikipedia. Such a privelige must not be given to POV numbers. They are not statistics---the science behind them is poor. They are merely numbers.
"In your opinion." A POV claim that "Israel is an apartheid state" does not constitute evidence that any numbers have been falsified.
Stan
At 02:44 PM 9/17/2003, you all wrote:
WAY TOO MUCH
OK, please stop. I'm getting more emails about a bot to generate Israel articles (and it's not even a particularly descriptive subject heading anymore) than I am ads for Viagra. That's a bad sign. PLEASE take this to the 'pedia on some obscure talk page where the rest of us don't have to be bothered by it?
----- Dante Alighieri [email protected]
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Dante Alighieri [email protected] wrote:
At 02:44 PM 9/17/2003, you all wrote:
WAY TOO MUCH
OK, please stop. I'm getting more emails about a bot to generate Israel articles (and it's not even a particularly descriptive subject heading anymore) than I am ads for Viagra. That's a bad sign. PLEASE take this to the 'pedia on some obscure talk page where the rest of us don't have to be bothered by it?
I'm sorry that I've been contributing to this useless talk. Let's use [[m:Israeli statistics]] instead of the list. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This is nonsense. The information is not from a questionable source, the material is to be presented in a meaningful matter. Your only objection is your unreasonable hatred for the Israeli government, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Unless someone has any objections other thatn Stevertigo, can we PLEASE end this and continue with discussing the merits of the BOT per se, and not the source of the material?
RickK
Steve Vertigum [email protected] wrote: Why dont you email Chomsky Daniel. Im not an expert. Read that link on the email too. I think you two would hit it off--dont axe me why.
We agree then that there are standards which would cause us to void some statistics-- we can refuse to be ignorant and admit that statistics are not unpolitical-- that we not take them at face value. We can agree to use the .il statistics, provided we violate their "moral" copyright-- And AS I SAID THREE times: Not with a bot. A bot represents a privelidged means of access to the Wikipedia.
l Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote: --- Adam Raizen wrote:
Okay, you're obviously not going to like anything else I have to say, so I'm done. If anyone else has any objections, please bring them up.
I really find it incredible that you're objecting. A lot of things have been said against the government of Israel, but I haven't heard anyone questioning the statistics it gathers for its own bureaucratic purposes on its own citizens (these data do not include any information on Palestinians in the territories). How might the statistics be biased exactly? Too many or too few Jews? Too large a population, or too small? What would be the purpose of that? (Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I'm not going to debate this.)
! >
-- Adam Raizen
I can kinda see Steve's point, but I don't agree with it. I wouldn't, under any circumstances, accept data from Congo under any circumstances. But Congo has active massacres on its citizens, and on all measures is worse than Israel. I can refute any specific argument against Israel, just email me offlist, Steve. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
At least Im not preaching to the choir. :)
I have yet to see an direct response to my statements-- Rick said "It's not from a questionable source" --(as if we were to accept these numbers as gospel) what utter crap is this? ...On the one hand people argue 'there is no unquestionable source (its all fine)-- there is no absolute NPOV. On the other hand they think that an apartheid state is "not questionable." (Its all fine.) Then LD stated that 'if these numbers were from the Congo, he wouldnt want them.' -- what standard is he using? What standard are *you using?
I frankly dont care -- I raised the objections not because they were popular, but because they were not. Nobody dealt with my basic oppositon to using a bot to add these particular POV statistics-- nobody could prove that they were accurate --plenty of calls to "prove" that they were not. What utter nonsense.
But its irrelevant--All numbers be taken with a grain of salt, right? Im afraid not-- the inclusion of these numbers sets a precedent, where the WP takes a side in an ethnic dispute. When edit wars do happen over these numbers, the use of a bot as an "offical" WP-sanctioned body of data will hold weight disbalancing any disputed terms. To say that this is not the case is heresy against intelligence.
And Senor Dante-- who were you shutting up?
~S~
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Steve Vertigum wrote:
At least Im not preaching to the choir. :) I have yet to see an direct response to my statements-- Rick said "It's not from a questionable source" --(as if we were to accept these numbers as gospel) what utter crap is this? ...On the one hand people argue 'there is no unquestionable source (its all fine)-- there is no absolute NPOV. On the other hand they think that an apartheid state is "not questionable." (Its all fine.) Then LD stated that 'if these numbers were from the Congo, he wouldnt want them.' -- what standard is he using? What standard are *you using? I frankly dont care -- I raised the objections not because they were popular, but because they were not. Nobody dealt with my basic oppositon to using a bot to add these particular POV statistics-- nobody could prove that they were accurate --plenty of calls to "prove" that they were not. What utter nonsense. But its irrelevant--All numbers be taken with a grain of salt, right? Im afraid not-- the inclusion of these numbers sets a precedent, where the WP takes a side in an ethnic dispute. When edit wars do happen over these numbers, the use of a bot as an "offical" WP-sanctioned body of data will hold weight disbalancing any disputed terms. To say that this is not the case is heresy against intelligence.
I suppose I'm not convinced, largely because I haven't heard any claims, even from anti-Israeli groups, that their statistics are false. There are plenty of disputes over historical information, but the counts of who, at this exact moment, is living in various cities in Israel seem to be generally accepted (or at least I haven't been able to find any major groups who dispute them). In particular, the count of Arabs living in Israel proper (i.e. not the territories) seem to be in line with generally accepted facts--it's the issue of which Arabs *used* to live in Israel and whether they should be allowed to return that's hotly debated, not the issue of who lives there now.
-Mark
At 04:25 PM 9/18/2003, you wrote:
And Senor Dante-- who were you shutting up?
~S~
I'm not shutting anyone up, I'm politely asking people to shut up. The people of whom I'm making that request are those who see fit to flood the mailing list with a superfluity of postings about an issue that really (at this point) belongs on a talk page or the meta and not in the list.
----- Dante Alighieri [email protected]
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Rick [email protected] wrote:
This is nonsense. The information is not from a questionable source, the material is to be presented in a meaningful matter. Your only objection is your unreasonable hatred for the Israeli government, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Unless someone has any objections other thatn Stevertigo, can we PLEASE end this and continue with discussing the merits of the BOT per se, and not the source of the material?
RickK
I think all the objections to the content, layout, etc. were resolved a while ago. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Rick [email protected] wrote:
This is nonsense. The information is not from a questionable source, the material is to be presented in a meaningful matter. Your only objection is your unreasonable hatred for the Israeli government, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Unless someone has any objections other thatn Stevertigo, can we PLEASE end this and continue with discussing the merits of the BOT per se, and not the source of the material?
RickK
I think all the objections to the content, layout, etc. were resolved a while ago. LDan
Okay, since discussion seems to have been exhausted and 7 or 8 people are in favor and 1 against, can User:IsraBot on both en.wikipedia and he.wikipedia be given bot status? I should get a chance to start it running tomorrow evening.
--Adam Raizen
Adam Raizen wrote:
Okay, since discussion seems to have been exhausted and 7 or 8 people are in favor and 1 against, can User:IsraBot on both en.wikipedia and he.wikipedia be given bot status? I should get a chance to start it running tomorrow evening.
I wonder if you could post for us, here or (preferably) on the wiki somewhere, the template you plan to use? This would be helpful in trying to find some common ground, if possible, with even Stevertigo.
The potentially controversial tidbit in all this would be exactly how you link to an explanation of where the numbers come from, I guess.
Stevertigo would like for you to say "These are politicized numbers from the murderous apartheid Jews". But that isn't NPOV. :-)
Others might argue, though, and legitimately, that the exact wording that you do choose should not inappropriately legitimize or validate the statistics beyond a level that would be uncontroversially accepted by reasonable partisans.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales [email protected] wrote:
Stevertigo would like for you to say "These are politicized numbers from the murderous apartheid Jews". But that isn't NPOV. :-)
Although I understand Jimbo's desire to caste me as Troll, I cant accept this-- and am disappointed in Jimbos hastly, inappropriate, and slanted characterization. You must not have read my comments well enough, Senor Wales.
Others might argue, though, and legitimately, that the exact wording that you do choose should not inappropriately legitimize or validate the statistics beyond a level that would be uncontroversially accepted by reasonable partisans.
This is reasonable -- again, my last word on this (only in response to the slander) was that there be too many articles to edit by hand. Several hundred is not such a number.
~S~
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.-- Albert Einstein
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Steve Vertigum [email protected] wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales [email protected] wrote:
Stevertigo would like for you to say "These are politicized numbers from the murderous apartheid Jews". But that
isn't
NPOV. :-)
Although I understand Jimbo's desire to caste me as Troll, I cant accept this-- and am disappointed in Jimbos hastly, inappropriate, and slanted characterization. You must not have read my comments well enough, Senor Wales.
Well, what ''do'' you want written there, then?
Others might argue, though, and legitimately, that the exact wording that you do choose should not inappropriately legitimize or validate the statistics beyond a level that would be uncontroversially accepted by reasonable partisans.
This is reasonable -- again, my last word on this (only in response to the slander) was that there be too many articles to edit by hand. Several hundred is not such a number.
~S~
Why must they be edited by hand? What editing are you talking about, exactly? LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Steve Vertigum [email protected] wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales [email protected] wrote:
Stevertigo would like for you to say "These are politicized numbers from the murderous apartheid Jews". But that isn't NPOV. :-)
Although I understand Jimbo's desire to caste me as Troll, I cant accept this-- and am disappointed in Jimbos hastly, inappropriate, and slanted characterization. You must not have read my comments well enough, Senor Wales.
Steve,
It is my experience that Jimbo is quite careful at reading comments. I would simply suggest that you might exercise more diligence in drafting your comments, so as to avoid them being understood in a manner which you did not intend.
Thanks in advance.
===== Christopher Mahan [email protected] 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I wouldn't, under any circumstances, accept data from Congo under any circumstances.
I think I agree with Daniel, but let me be a bit more specific.
I wouldn't *personally* trust data from Congo, but I think that if they publish detailed statistics on anything, it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to publish them, assuming we did so in such a fashion that legitimately indicated why some people might have reason to doubt those numbers.
Clearly, and as Adam Raizen has indicated, the use of statistics from the government of Israel should be appropriately sourced, and a page could legitimately discuss how those statistics might be biased. (But even here, NPOV is necessary, so actual complaints against the data or actual support for the data needs to be appropriately sourced.)
--Jimbo
I haven't read the entire thread, but it's really getting pretty out of control already. I think Steve's objections are specious and typical of him.
Steve Vertigum wrote:
This isnt good enough--you cant simply add statistics from Hamas and stipulate these with a buried link to an article which explains that "these stats may not be NPOV"
Is Hamas in the practice of publishing population statistics?
If so, then it would be appropriate to add their statistics with exactly that same sort of disclaimer. This would actually make for a very interesting and useful set of articles, and a more general article could cover the different claims of different organizations.
--Jimbo
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a bit unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
Are these catagories legally defined in Israeli law? (Or at least, the same terms from the Israeli census materials?) If so, I would like to see those terms hyperlinked to an article explaining the legal definitions, much as was done for the U.S. cities.
Also, I would like to know how this bot handles it when articles are already there but it wants to put this data there. LDan
Good point. I would also add some kind of referent that helps a user to locate where in Israel these municipalities are. Both the US & France listings include the name of the local government, which offer useful information for locating the habitation in question.
I believe adding collections of habitations of more countries -- especially non-English speaking ones -- will tremendously the usefulness of Wikipedia exponentially. Anyone willing to do the same for, say, Egypt, Iraq, or Thailand?
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a bit unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
Are these catagories legally defined in Israeli law? (Or at least, the same terms from the Israeli census materials?) If so, I would like to see those terms hyperlinked to an article explaining the legal definitions, much as was done for the U.S. cities.
Kind of. For Jews, the Interior Ministry (whose data is the source of the data used here) basically accepts as Jewish whoever the Rabbinate says is Jewish (with some complications), and this is a hotly debated political issue. I'm not sure of the situation for Muslims and Christians, but I assume it's similar (i.e. whatever the local religious authority says). There probably should be an article explaining all this somewhere anyway.
Also, I would like to know how this bot handles it when articles are already there but it wants to put this data there. LDan
Good point.
Since there aren't many already existing articles, I will just merge these in with the previous text manually.
I would also add some kind of referent that helps a user to locate where in Israel these municipalities are. Both the US & France listings include the name of the local government, which offer useful information for locating the habitation in question.
The local government is the subject of the article, and there aren't any other divisions of local government. The article mentions the Interior Ministry's District or Region, which will tell you whether the city is a suburb of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or Haifa, or otherwise whether it's in the North, South, or Center, or in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. If I could find geographic coordinates, I would add a lot more detailed information.
A user on he.wikipedia suggested that tables are easier to read than paragraphs. Am I correct that this has already been debated with regards to Rambot's articles and settled that short paragraphs are okay, at least for the English wikipedia?
--Adam Raizen
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see
an
example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a bit unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
Are these catagories legally defined in Israeli
law? (Or
at least, the same terms from the Israeli census
materials?)
If so, I would like to see those terms hyperlinked
to
an article explaining the legal definitions, much
as
was done for the U.S. cities.
Kind of. For Jews, the Interior Ministry (whose data is the source of the data used here) basically accepts as Jewish whoever the Rabbinate says is Jewish (with some complications), and this is a hotly debated political issue. I'm not sure of the situation for Muslims and Christians, but I assume it's similar (i.e. whatever the local religious authority says). There probably should be an article explaining all this somewhere anyway.
Are you refering to the fact that Judiasm, according to the laws therof, is transfered from mother to child (as written at [[Judaism#Who_is_a_Jew]])? If so, I'd suggest that you chage
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
to
Tje ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish by ethnicity and 20.0% Arab, consisting of 15.4% Muslim, and 4.0% Christian. There are 450 new immigrants since the last time the census was taken.
A user on he.wikipedia suggested that tables are easier to read than paragraphs. Am I correct that this has already been debated with regards to Rambot's articles and settled that short paragraphs are okay, at least for the English wikipedia?
--Adam Raizen
Yes, I do think a table would be easier to read, but there should also be some content in paragraph form. I'll try to find content to put in the articles that is automated. So far, I've found http://www.iula.org.il/cities/citind.htm, a list of links to the websites of all of the big cities in Israel, but that's it, and it probably would go into the table. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can
see
an
example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a
bit
unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish
and
other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
Are these catagories legally defined in Israeli
law? (Or
at least, the same terms from the Israeli census
materials?)
If so, I would like to see those terms
hyperlinked
to
an article explaining the legal definitions,
much
as
was done for the U.S. cities.
Kind of. For Jews, the Interior Ministry (whose
data
is the source of the data used here) basically accepts as Jewish whoever the Rabbinate says is Jewish (with some complications), and this is a hotly debated political issue. I'm not sure of the situation for Muslims and Christians, but I assume it's similar (i.e.
whatever
the local religious authority says). There probably should be an
article
explaining all this somewhere anyway.
Are you refering to the fact that Judiasm, according to the laws therof, is transfered from mother to child (as written at [[Judaism#Who_is_a_Jew]])? If so, I'd suggest that you chage
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
to
Tje ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish by ethnicity and 20.0% Arab, consisting of 15.4% Muslim, and 4.0% Christian. There are 450 new immigrants since the last time the census was taken.
A user on he.wikipedia suggested that tables are easier to read than paragraphs. Am I correct that this has already
been
debated with regards to Rambot's articles and settled that short paragraphs are okay, at least for the English wikipedia?
--Adam Raizen
Yes, I do think a table would be easier to read, but there should also be some content in paragraph form. I'll try to find content to put in the articles that is automated. So far, I've found http://www.iula.org.il/cities/citind.htm, a list of links to the websites of all of the big cities in Israel, but that's it, and it probably would go into the table. LDan
Oh, yeah, and if you make a table, you should wait until the new table markup is put up (or it is decided that we don't want it). LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I think the point of the argument against is that statistics from an apartheid state (regardless of how much the US happens to sanction it currently) must be treated as suspect. UN statistics should be better--ie, more NPOV--even if they are not as "complete."
The same could in many ways be said for the US as well-- the US until very recently was more or less an apartheid state, and still has lingering aspects of this left over, in terms of its sociological/financial barriers. Etc. If this was the case today in the US--as it was 1950--there would be every justification for Wikipedians to look upon statistics coming out of such a country's official machinery as smelly. We should trust more open neutral statistics than those of any state agency. The CIA factbook for example is only usable is because its extremely short descriptions belie any attempt at pov.
To deal with the basic concept--what people forget is that "racism" and the apartheid that was synonymous with it, (which came first?) in the US was, (as it is everywhere) simply a way to keep people separated--firstly for imperialist/corporate control reasons. The US began as an English corporate venture into tobacco, youll remember. Whatever the reason, ''[[the hand that rocks the cradle]] is the hand that rules the world'', and we would be remiss to not challenge such statistics, that ask us to overlook some glaring inconsistencies.
Apply these fundamental metaphors for understanding humanity as you like. ~S~ Between any two disparate points of view is a buffer zone, which makes for a nice way for tricksters to get around. --戴眩
= = = =
- Daniel Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Adam Raizen [email protected] wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles
on
cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau
of
Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can
see
an
example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
I wouldn't object, but the following part is a
bit
unclear:
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish
and
other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
Are these catagories legally defined in
Israeli
law? (Or
at least, the same terms from the Israeli
census
materials?)
If so, I would like to see those terms
hyperlinked
to
an article explaining the legal definitions,
much
as
was done for the U.S. cities.
Kind of. For Jews, the Interior Ministry (whose
data
is the source of the data used here) basically accepts as Jewish whoever the Rabbinate says is Jewish (with some complications), and
this
is a hotly debated political issue. I'm not sure of the situation
for
Muslims and Christians, but I assume it's similar (i.e.
whatever
the local religious authority says). There probably should be an
article
explaining all this somewhere anyway.
Are you refering to the fact that Judiasm,
according
to the laws therof, is transfered from mother to child (as written at [[Judaism#Who_is_a_Jew]])? If so,
I'd
suggest that you chage
The ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish and other, and 20.0% Arab (15.4% Muslim and 4.0% Christian). There are 450 new immigrants.
to
Tje ethnic makeup of the city is 80.5% Jewish by ethnicity and 20.0% Arab, consisting of 15.4% Muslim, and 4.0% Christian. There are 450 new immigrants since the last time the census was taken.
A user on he.wikipedia suggested that tables are easier to read than paragraphs. Am I correct that this has already
been
debated with regards to Rambot's articles and settled that short paragraphs are okay, at least for the English wikipedia?
--Adam Raizen
Yes, I do think a table would be easier to read,
but
there should also be some content in paragraph
form.
I'll try to find content to put in the articles
that
is automated. So far, I've found http://www.iula.org.il/cities/citind.htm, a list
of
links to the websites of all of the big cities in Israel, but that's it, and it probably would go
into
the table. LDan
Oh, yeah, and if you make a table, you should wait until the new table markup is put up (or it is decided that we don't want it). LDan
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
I think the point of the argument against is that statistics from an apartheid state (regardless of how much the US happens to sanction it currently) must be treated as suspect. UN statistics should be better--ie, more NPOV--even if they are not as "complete."
The same could in many ways be said for the US as well-- the US until very recently was more or less an apartheid state, and still has lingering aspects of this left over, in terms of its sociological/financial barriers. Etc. If this was the case today in the US--as it was 1950--there would be every justification for Wikipedians to look upon statistics coming out of such a country's official machinery as smelly.
Oh geez... If you have some proof, let's see it. Otherwise you're just spreading FUD. Almost every official statistic in Wikipedia has a political opponent or conspiracy theorist ready to challenge its validity; that's why we say "according to the Census Bureau" or whatever, so if somebody has some differing numbers, they can add those, citing the alternate source, rather than having an edit war. In the case of Israel, there are plenty of reasons to challenge any UN numbers - and plenty of books doing just that, in great detail - so it's not neutral to simply declare that UN numbers must be better than Israeli numbers.
Stan
--- Stan Shebs [email protected] wrote:
Oh geez... If you have some proof, let's see it. Otherwise you're just spreading FUD.
Proof of what?
Almost every official statistic in Wikipedia has a political opponent or conspiracy theorist ready to challenge its validity;
Can you "prove" this?
that's why we say "according to the Census Bureau" or whatever, so if somebody has some differing numbers, they can add those, citing the alternate source, rather than having an edit war.
This is valid.
In the case of Israel, there are plenty of reasons to challenge any UN numbers - and plenty of books doing just that, in great detail - so it's not neutral to simply declare that UN numbers must be better than Israeli numbers.
What reasons are those?
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
--- Stan Shebs [email protected] wrote:
Oh geez... If you have some proof, let's see it. Otherwise you're just spreading FUD.
Proof of what?
You asserted that official statistics of an "apartheid state" are "smelly". To me that means you're suggesting that the numbers have been fabricated or falsified in some way.
Almost every official statistic in Wikipedia has a political opponent or conspiracy theorist ready to challenge its validity;
Can you "prove" this?
It would be a pretty long list, but one can "sample"; for instance, the statistics on US Jews and Muslims are being fought over, because by some measures the Muslim population of the US just passed the Jewish population. Some Jewish groups have been casting doubt on the numbers, ditto for some Muslim groups (don't remember the names, but easy enough to look up). Even in small towns in the US, not hard to turn up the crank in the city council meetings who is upset that the town is being "taken over" by racial group X, and claiming that the statistics have been falsified. There is/was a political fight over sampling by the US Census, where homeless/minority/immigrant groups have claimed that various schemes will systematically undercount their respective constituencies, thus casting doubts on all of the Census' results.
As with any other kind of scholarly activity, we need to maintain at least a little skeptical wariness, both of numbers purporting to be authoritative, as well as the persons questioning then.
In the case of Israel, there are plenty of reasons to challenge any UN numbers - and plenty of books doing just that, in great detail - so it's not neutral to simply declare that UN numbers must be better than Israeli numbers.
What reasons are those?
UN organizations often include individuals and states with explicit anti-Israel biases. Not surprising, since there are 22-odd Arab states only a few of which have normalized relations with Israel, with the rest declaring "Barbie dolls are Jewish" and so forth. So before placing much credence in a UN statistic, I'll want to know more about the specific organization that published it, whether it's non-partisan, or subject to influence by member states with their own agendas.
Stan
--- Stan Shebs [email protected] wrote:
UN organizations often include individuals and states with explicit anti-Israel biases.
And what is wrong with having an anti-apartheid bias?
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Steve Vertigum wrote:
--- Stan Shebs [email protected] wrote:
UN organizations often include individuals and states with explicit anti-Israel biases.
And what is wrong with having an anti-apartheid bias?
Though I'm generally no fan of Israel's, I'd argue that many "anti-Israel biases" are not "anti-apartheid biases", but rather "anti-Jewish biases." And I think it's pretty obvious what's wrong with the latter. And, in addition, I think it's also pretty clear that the latter is what we're talking about here -- the 22 Arab states in question are known to be blatantly anti-Jewish almost to neo-Nazi extents, publishing things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact and talking about the "conspiracy of international Jewry".
-Mark
--- Delirium [email protected] wrote:
Steve Vertigum wrote:
And what is wrong with having an anti-apartheid
bias?
Though I'm generally no fan of Israel's, I'd argue that many "anti-Israel biases" are not "anti-apartheid biases", but rather "anti-Jewish biases."
I see your point. But is'nt it anti-Israel to even mention "apartheid" in the context of Israel? So its ok to be anti-apartheid, but its anti-semitic to say Israel is an apartheid state? I try to judge the message rather than the messenger. Judging the messenger is a *lot more work--which people tend to give up on anyway, defaulting to the prejudicial status quo. Why is it so hard to just stick to the facts?
And I think it's pretty obvious what's wrong with the latter.
Of course.
And, in addition, I think it's also pretty clear that the latter is what we're talking about here -- the 22 Arab states in question are known to be blatantly anti-Jewish almost to neo-Nazi extents, publishing things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact and talking about the "conspiracy of international Jewry".
Ah yes. But from my point of view, its too hard to tell (and therefore I simply default to judging the message, rather than the messenger) -- genuine persecution from the genuine [[persecution complex]]. Call me ignorant, if you like.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This discussion is kinda ridiculous. I haven't read any of it until just now, when I read (or skimmed...) all of the Israeli bot articles in sequence. One person is arguing that the Israeli government's statistics are too POV to include in the Wikipedia? Why? It would be absolutely wonderful if there was some totally neutral organization out there that collected statistics on everything from how many Mozambiquean-Israeli-Christians there are in Tel Aviv to how many left-handed red-headed Norwegian-American biologists believe in creationism, but no such organization exists. Luckily, we have adopted the NPOV policy, which does not require such an organization. It only requires that potentially sensitive facts be attributed to the proper organization. In this case, that organization appears to be the Israeli census bureau. Hence, these potentially disputable statistics should be attributed to the organization that collected them.
We're not talking about my brother's D+D group; the Israeli government is an organization with a lot of supporters, at home and abroad, who believe their numbers. It would be POV to not include them.
Just to let my own biases be known, I think all the Israelis and Palestinians should be sent to some useless corner of Mars where they can kill each other in peace (ironic, huh?), and all their territory converted to recycling plants or solar power cells or desalinization plants or, hell, a giant museum dedicated to people who think it's ever holy to kill other people (might have to use Syria too, cuz it'd be big).
TUF-KAT
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Tucci wrote:
Luckily, we have adopted the NPOV policy, which does not require such an organization. It only requires that potentially sensitive facts be attributed to the proper organization. In this case, that organization appears to be the Israeli census bureau. Hence, these potentially disputable statistics should be attributed to the organization that collected them.
yup.
Just to let my own biases be known, I think all the Israelis and Palestinians should be sent to some useless corner of Mars where they can kill each other in peace (ironic, huh?), and all their territory converted to recycling plants or solar power cells or desalinization plants or, hell, a giant museum dedicated to people who think it's ever holy to kill other people (might have to use Syria too, cuz it'd be big).
Great plan!
Come on guys, can we take this off-list please? Start a [[Wikipedia:*]] page for it.
--- tarquin [email protected] wrote:
Great plan!
Come on guys, can we take this off-list please? Start a [[Wikipedia:*]] page for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Wikipedia namespace was only for current, relatively static policy things, and we use the meta for things like that.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Tucci [email protected] wrote:
This discussion is kinda ridiculous. I haven't read any of it until just now, when I read (or skimmed...) all of the Israeli bot articles in sequence. One person is arguing that the Israeli government's statistics are too POV to include in the Wikipedia? Why? It would be absolutely wonderful if there was some totally neutral organization out there that collected statistics on everything from how many Mozambiquean-Israeli-Christians there are in Tel Aviv to how many left-handed red-headed Norwegian-American biologists believe in creationism, but no such organization exists. Luckily, we have adopted the NPOV policy, which does not require such an organization. It only requires that potentially sensitive facts be attributed to the proper organization. In this case, that organization appears to be the Israeli census bureau. Hence, these potentially disputable statistics should be attributed to the organization that collected them.
We're not talking about my brother's D+D group; the Israeli government is an organization with a lot of supporters, at home and abroad, who believe their numbers. It would be POV to not include them.
Just to let my own biases be known, I think all the Israelis and Palestinians should be sent to some useless corner of Mars where they can kill each other in peace (ironic, huh?), and all their territory converted to recycling plants or solar power cells or desalinization plants or, hell, a giant museum dedicated to people who think it's ever holy to kill other people (might have to use Syria too, cuz it'd be big).
TUF-KAT
I think it's ridiculous too. It seems like Stevertigo is the only person who opposes the statistics. I am attempting to move the discussion to [[m:Israeli statistics]]. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:57:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve Vertigum [email protected] wrote:
--- Delirium [email protected] wrote:
Steve Vertigum wrote:
And what is wrong with having an anti-apartheid
bias?
Though I'm generally no fan of Israel's, I'd argue that many "anti-Israel biases" are not "anti-apartheid biases", but rather "anti-Jewish biases."
I see your point. But is'nt it anti-Israel to even mention "apartheid" in the context of Israel? So its ok to be anti-apartheid, but its anti-semitic to say Israel is an apartheid state?
Whether or not it is, is irrelevant. It is POV to say "Israel is an apartheid state". It is NPOV (and demonstrably true) to say "Some consider Israel to be an apartheid state".
We're writing an NPOV encyclopedia, remember.
Is it necessary to have this discussion on the mailing list?
RickK
Steve Vertigum [email protected] wrote:
--- Stan Shebs wrote:
UN organizations often include individuals and states with explicit anti-Israel biases.
And what is wrong with having an anti-apartheid bias?
~S~
__________________________________
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Rick wrote:
Is it necessary to have this discussion on the mailing list?
Let the record show that I, for the first time, am in agreement with Rick.
Adam Raizen has at least acknowledged my concerns about his work, which provide at least an attempt towards NPOV. Steve is is confusing this with his own POV -- which should be taken to the appropriate Talk: page.
Geoff
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Stan Shebs wrote:
Steve Vertigum wrote:
I think the point of the argument against is that statistics from an apartheid state (regardless of how much the US happens to sanction it currently) must be treated as suspect. UN statistics should be better--ie, more NPOV--even if they are not as "complete."
That may be the point you want to make, Steve, but it was not the reason I asked the original poster to include the definitions that the Israeli equivalent of a Census Bureau uses to define "Jew", "Arab", "Christian", & other catagories.
Ethnicity (if I may use the term to apply to the process of subdividing populations) is a messy business. And I'm not making a snide reference to Neo-Nazis who hide the fact that they have ancestors who were Jews or African-Americans; any time one attempts to make a formal catagorization of subgroups in a population, one will find exceptions. For example, there is a group in Oklahoma known as "Black Cherokees", who are the decendants of slaves owned by Cherokee Indians before the American Civil War: they consider themselves Cherokees; Cherokees whose ancestors were in America before 1492 consider them African-Americans.
I'll use myself as another example. My great-grandmother is said to have been part American Indian. That part of my family were New England whalers, & every time I look at her photograph, I have to wonder if she had lied to her husband & children & she was actually Polynesian. However my full name makes it appear that I am as much of a WASP as anyone in the Bush family. (Even though I prefer the term "Anglo-American", since my father's ancestors were dirt farmers from the East Midlands.)
What I want in the article is an explanation how the Israeli government determines these groups, & how people fall into them. Do they self-report? Are they labelled at the time of birth or nationalization? And what groups exist that an Israeli citizen could be catagorized under?
Frankly, I'm coming from a US point of view that finds grouping people by their belief offensive. I don't see the sense of declaring someone a "Jew" a "Moslem" or a "Christian" if it's based on a moment's response, when the responder could believably engage immediately afterwards cruel sacrifices of kittens & puppies to Cthulhu or similar inappropriate activites. However, knowing something about the history of the state of Israel, I can understand the reason behind these catagories, but I still wonder at the legal definitions. (e.g., is one considered a Jew in Israel on one's say-so, or do they have to present evidence that one or more of their ancestors also prefessed this faith? Is one allowed to state she/he is a Christian even if the rest of her/his family is Jewish?)
The reasons for these catagories, how one is determined to fall into them, etc. all belong to a NPOV article that discusses ethnic groups in Israel. Just provide the facts, & the intelligent reader will draw her/his own conclusions.
The same could in many ways be said for the US as well-- the US until very recently was more or less an apartheid state, and still has lingering aspects of this left over, in terms of its sociological/financial barriers. Etc. If this was the case today in the US--as it was 1950--there would be every justification for Wikipedians to look upon statistics coming out of such a country's official machinery as smelly.
Oh geez... If you have some proof, let's see it. Otherwise you're just spreading FUD. Almost every official statistic in Wikipedia has a political opponent or conspiracy theorist ready to challenge its validity; that's why we say "according to the Census Bureau" or whatever, so if somebody has some differing numbers, they can add those, citing the alternate source, rather than having an edit war. In the case of Israel, there are plenty of reasons to challenge any UN numbers - and plenty of books doing just that, in great detail - so it's not neutral to simply declare that UN numbers must be better than Israeli numbers.
There are just as many politicians in the UN as there are in Israel or the US; that is suitable grounds to treat any information any of them critically. However, it has been shown time & again that there are individuals in all 3 organizations who try to present data in a fair & objective manner; that is suitable grounds not to impeach their materials out of hand.
One point that is decisive for me in this matter is that one person is doing the work to provide the material; he ought to be allowed to choose the source of his material, as long as it is properly attributed & explained. My request is about the ''explanation''. If after all of that work, the contributors to Wikipedia find that the source is unsatisfactory, then we have a basis to judge a better source from.
I'm not interested in passing judgement until I see the evidence -- nor am I interested in seeing a judgement passed until the evidence is presented completely.
Geoff
--- Geoff Burling [email protected] wrote:
That may be the point you want to make, Steve, but it was not the reason I asked the original poster to include the definitions that the Israeli equivalent of a Census Bureau uses to define "Jew", "Arab", "Christian", & other catagories.
Ethnicity (if I may use the term to apply to the process of subdividing populations) is a messy business.
This is valid. And I was simply localizing the complexities of this ethnic debate to the area. Albeit summat simplistically, Ill admit.
I'm not making a snide reference to Neo-Nazis who hide the fact that they have ancestors who were Jews or African-Americans; any time one attempts to make a formal catagorization of subgroups in a population, one will find exceptions. For example, there is a group in Oklahoma known as "Black Cherokees", who are the decendants of slaves owned by Cherokee Indians before the American Civil War: they consider themselves Cherokees; Cherokees whose ancestors were in America before 1492 consider them African-Americans.
The point of all this specificity is that its nitpicking -- it overruns secular (meaning 'disregarding religion') humanism (meaning 'of human causes') and other fads like "democracy" to reinterpret conflicts from an strictly ethnic POV, and not a human one.
I'll use myself as another example. My great-grandmother is said to have been part American Indian. That part of my family were New England whalers, & every time I look at her photograph, I have to wonder if she had lied to her husband & children & she was actually Polynesian.
Do you? What a burden. Indeed you should go with the fact that we all come from roughly 5-10K people (in Africa) back to a population bottleneck 75K years ago. The rest is details.
However my full name makes it appear that I am as much of a WASP as anyone in the Bush family. (Even though I prefer the term "Anglo-American", since my father's ancestors were dirt farmers from the East Midlands.)
What I want in the article is an explanation how the Israeli government determines these groups, & how people fall into them.
This is valid. If statistics are used for this purpose --fine. This thread is concerned with the use of a bot to mass-import (possibly) POV statistics en masse to the WP.
Do they self-report? Are they labelled at the time of birth or nationalization? And what groups exist that an Israeli citizen could be catagorized under?
This is all valid again. Agian nothing to do with the bot, and the source for its stats.
I read the rest, wont comment for length.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Stan Shebs wrote:
Oh geez... If you have some proof, let's see it. Otherwise you're just spreading FUD. Almost every official statistic in Wikipedia has a political opponent or conspiracy theorist ready to challenge its validity; that's why we say "according to the Census Bureau" or whatever, so if somebody has some differing numbers, they can add those, citing the alternate source, rather than having an edit war. In the case of Israel, there are plenty of reasons to challenge any UN numbers - and plenty of books doing just that, in great detail - so it's not neutral to simply declare that UN numbers must be better than Israeli numbers.
I agree with Stan completely.
This would be much more of a sensible argument if Stevertigo could give us an *example* of how the Israeli statistics differ (if they do) from other sources. Does Hamas publish detailed statistics of Israeli suburbs? (Of course not.) Does the UN? (I doubt it, but...)
If there are competing statistical numbers, then *of course* we should include them all somehow, *and* link to a discussion of the controversy over the numbers.
But.. if there is no actual controversy other than a general dislike of Israel... what's all the fussing about?
--Jimbo
--- Steve Vertigum [email protected] wrote:
I think the point of the argument against is that statistics from an apartheid state (regardless of how much the US happens to sanction it currently) must be treated as suspect. UN statistics should be better--ie, more NPOV--even if they are not as "complete."
The same could in many ways be said for the US as well-- the US until very recently was more or less an apartheid state, and still has lingering aspects of this left over, in terms of its sociological/financial barriers. Etc. If this was the case today in the US--as it was 1950--there would be every justification for Wikipedians to look upon statistics coming out of such a country's official machinery as smelly. We should trust more open neutral statistics than those of any state agency. The CIA factbook for example is only usable is because its extremely short descriptions belie any attempt at pov.
To deal with the basic concept--what people forget is that "racism" and the apartheid that was synonymous with it, (which came first?) in the US was, (as it is everywhere) simply a way to keep people separated--firstly for imperialist/corporate control reasons. The US began as an English corporate venture into tobacco, youll remember. Whatever the reason, ''[[the hand that rocks the cradle]] is the hand that rules the world'', and we would be remiss to not challenge such statistics, that ask us to overlook some glaring inconsistencies.
Apply these fundamental metaphors for understanding humanity as you like. ~S~ Between any two disparate points of view is a buffer zone, which makes for a nice way for tricksters to get around. --戴眩
The Israel is an apartheid state? Hardly. And even if it were true, it shouldn't be on this list. Israel's statistics are perfectly valid, as are pre-1950 US statistics. Even at the beginning of the US's history, African American slaves were counted in the US Census for purposes of the size of the electoral college, albeit only as 2/3 of a person. If you have actual proof that Israel is messing up its statistics, please post it here.
Where do you think the UN gets its statistics from? They don't conduct their own census. In New York State, there was a small controversey over Census and old people going to florida while they recieved the Census in the mail in their official New York residence and missed the deadline. But there were no UN statistics to back this up. The UN could care less about this obscure data. <rant> The only data I could find from the UN on Israel (aside from useless rural vs. urban data) was that there were about 6 million inhabitants in 2000. But Israel, evil apartheid Israel, said that there were 6.5 million in 2002! Oh no! We can't use their data because the obviously fabricated an other half a million Jews for their evil plan. </rant> LDan
Note: If you want to respond to my out-of-place political statements, do it offlist.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote:
...Even at the beginning of the US's history, African American slaves were counted in the US Census for purposes of the size of the electoral college, albeit only as 2/3 of a person. ...
Slaves (of any race) were counted as 3/5 of a free preson, not 2/3, for the number of seats in the House of Representatives. The seats of the Electoral College are the total seats in Congress - that is, 2 (senators) + the number of representatives. So, yes, the 3/5 did effect electoral college representation, but not directly.
Sorry for being picky, but our Civics test on that was last week. (Hmm...WikiBooks module on the Constitution?)
Geoffrey
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Slaves (of any race) were counted as 3/5 of a free preson, not 2/3, for the number of seats in the House of Representatives. The seats of the Electoral College are the total seats in Congress - that is, 2 (senators) + the number of representatives. So, yes, the 3/5 did effect electoral college representation, but not directly.
And of course it was the North that insisted that slaves were less than a person. The slaveholders would have been very happy to have them counted as full persons for purposes of representation, as long they remained property. It was the Northern states that insisted on reducing the South's number of Congressmen.
--- Sean Barrett [email protected] wrote:
Slaves (of any race) were counted as 3/5 of a free
preson,
not 2/3, for the number of seats in the House of
Representatives.
The seats of the Electoral College are the total
seats in
Congress - that is, 2 (senators) + the number of
representatives.
So, yes, the 3/5 did effect electoral college
representation,
but not directly.
And of course it was the North that insisted that slaves were less than a person. The slaveholders would have been very happy to have them counted as full persons for purposes of representation, as long they remained property. It was the Northern states that insisted on reducing the South's number of Congressmen.
I'm sorry about these inaccuracies, but how is this relevant? LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Relevant to what?
Wikipedia and the israel issue. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg [email protected] wrote:
The Israel is an apartheid state? Hardly. And even if it were true, it shouldn't be on this list.
You can read http://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki.cgi?Middle_East_Policy_(Chomsky) on "Sourceberg" and see if you agree or not. Its short, I transcribed it myself, and Noam gave it an ok to publish as a "rough." Afterward you can email him, and if you dont insult his intelligence, he'll write you back. Hurry--the old man's gettin' on...
Israel's statistics are perfectly valid, as are pre-1950 US statistics.
Well, in a general sense they are what they are-- we cant be too picky, I agree. But I don't object to the .il statistics -- I object to them being installed en masse by a bot. To allow such is to validate those statistics in a way which they do not deserve.
Even at the beginning of the US's history, African American slaves were counted in the US Census for purposes of the size of the electoral college, albeit only as 2/3 of a person. If you have actual proof that Israel is messing up its statistics, please post it here.
Well, someone else corrected you here. As for "proof" I will use the proof of "no proof" -- there is no proof that they are valid, and there is every reason to believe they are suspect. <rant> To suggest that an apartheid state can on the one hand--deny access to healthcare to its non-citizens, starve them out, bulldoze homes, stifle a population of millions like it was drowning a puppy in a plastic grocery bag, not to mention cut electricity and block access to Wikipedia.org, and the Arabic language version of the Power Rangers-- and yet 'can still keep accurate "statistics" on population data,' is calling on the community to be at best naive.. (look it up). </rant>
The statistics as they were originally described added up to 100.5 percent as I recall from the thread.
Where do you think the UN gets its statistics from? They don't conduct their own census.
In New York
State, there was a small controversey over Census and old people going to florida while they recieved the Census in the mail in their official New York residence and missed the deadline.
But there were no UN statistics to back this up. The UN could care less about this obscure data.
You're right-The UN could care less, and neither should the WP. (But not "care less" in terms of simply including it with a bot. ;)
<rant> The only data I could find from the UN on Israel (aside from useless rural vs. urban data) was that there were about 6 million inhabitants in 2000. But Israel, evil apartheid Israel, said that there were 6.5 million in 2002! Oh no! We can't use their data because the obviously fabricated an other half a million Jews for their evil plan. </rant> LDan
I didnt say such a plan was evil-- I simply said that humans have a history of fabricating stuff. You may be too young to believe that, but its true! And thanks for the <rant> tags -- nice touch.
~S~ "Making it up since 1913."
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Adam Raizen wrote:
I would like to use a bot to upload articles on cities in Israel based on information from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il), a la Rambot. You can see an example article at [[User:AdamRaizen/Ramla]]. Any objections or comments?
I've looked at the site and found this in the copyright notice:
User must respect the "moral rights" of the CBS and the State of Israel in the copyrighted material. Therefore, when quoting from the copyrighted material, User must attribute the source to the Central Bureau of Statistics of the State of Israel. In addition, User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the copyrighted material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the copyrighted material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the State of Israel or on the CBS.
It seems to me that using this material could at least in part be a violation of copyrights.. Has anyone looked into this.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've looked at the site and found this in the copyright notice:
User must respect the "moral rights" of the CBS and the State of Israel in the copyrighted material. Therefore, when quoting from the copyrighted material, User must attribute the source to the Central Bureau of Statistics of the State of Israel. In addition, User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the copyrighted material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the copyrighted material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the State of Israel or on the CBS.
It seems to me that using this material could at least in part be a violation of copyrights.. Has anyone looked into this.
If we're just using the statistics, and not the original wording, it should be fine, at least in the US, where courts have ruled that mere factual information is not protected by copyright (even if the original publisher went to a lot of trouble to collect it).
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've looked at the site and found this in the copyright notice:
User must respect the "moral rights" of the CBS and the State of Israel in the copyrighted material. Therefore, when quoting from the copyrighted material, User must attribute the source to the Central Bureau of Statistics of the State of Israel. In addition, User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the copyrighted material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the copyrighted material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the State of Israel or on the CBS.
It seems to me that using this material could at least in part be a violation of copyrights.. Has anyone looked into this.
If we're just using the statistics, and not the original wording, it should be fine, at least in the US, where courts have ruled that mere factual information is not protected by copyright (even if the original publisher went to a lot of trouble to collect it).
-Mark
This is what I figured also, though IANAL.
--Adam Raizen
If we're just using the statistics, and not the
original wording, it
should be fine, at least in the US, where courts
have ruled that mere
factual information is not protected by copyright
(even if the original
publisher went to a lot of trouble to collect it).
-Mark
This is what I figured also, though IANAL.
--Adam Raizen
But we should still respect the moral rights and name our sources, still. They're giving us all of this useful information, so the least we could do is respect their request to be named as the source. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I've looked at the site and found this in the copyright notice:
User must respect the "moral rights" of the CBS and the State of Israel in the copyrighted material. Therefore, when quoting from the copyrighted material, User must attribute the source to the Central Bureau of Statistics of the State of Israel. In addition, User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the copyrighted material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the copyrighted material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the State of Israel or on the CBS.It seems to me that using this material could at least in part be a violation of copyrights.. Has anyone looked into this.
The statistics that we would be using fall under "fair use", and so we don't need permission at all. Their conditions on the data are something that "fair users" can choose to respect or not -- they can't be legally binding on such use. (Alternatively, this may not be 'fair use' but 'just facts' which can't be copyrighted anyway.)
As it turns out, of course, we *will* attribute the statistics to them, and endeavor to report them accurately. And of course, as a matter of policy, Wikipedia should not cast aspersions on anyone.
So I think we *will* meet the conditions, but I also think we should regard this as a happy circumstance, not something that we are legally or morally required to do *by their license*.
--Jimbo