Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:17, 18 December 2011

Template:Archive box collapsible

Maher Udda

Hi Nableezy, I removed the prod from Maher Udda. Al Jazeera reported that he was one of the founders of Hamas and I'd say that shows a longer relevance than just one event.--TM 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera didnt report that, they reported that the Israeli military described Udda as one of Hamas's founders. nableezy - 21:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

May be of interest

Hi Nableezy. I noticed you took strong exception to aspects of WGFinley's conduct at AE recently, as did Gatoclass. I posted a comment to Gatoclass' talk (permalink) that might help you better understand WGFinley's motivation. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think that, given the diffs ( and ), WGFinley's statement, "I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that," is ridiculous. I also thought that it was a bit rich that WGFinley criticised Nableezy's tone, given his own, which comes across as condescending, self-regarding and self-opinionated to me. If WGFinley's intention is to reduce disruption in the I-P part of the project, I think that his methods will be self-defeating.     ←   ZScarpia   17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That is what pissed me off. That he either had not even looked at the diffs or was purposely distorting their content. He has refused, repeatedly, to justify that comment, a comment that is plainly false, so much so that I think anybody who stands by that comment is incompetent and has no business coming near an encyclopedia, much less purporting to administer it. nableezy - 17:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Benny Morris IDF sources

It appears as if Benny Morris is using IDF sources here. Would I be correct? -asad (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Nab has the book, I do. Morris, like the best historians, writes much of his histories from archival primary sources, and in these cases uses IDF archives. If there is some doubt as to the reliability of the IDF intelligence reports, one just adds 'according to an IDF report' etc., as I think is done lower down on that page. Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you can see where I am getting at, that it seems like an obvious thing for the IDF to say. My 86-year-old grandmother is from Qannir, she said she remembers seeing Jewish armies approaching the town at which point they were ordering them to leave. My grandmother is an old woman, but she doesn't embellish nor does she forget things. The other day I was pulling up pictures of Qannir from Palestine Remembered and she could see a 70-something-year-old picture and not only identify the person in the photo, but who they there were married to, who their children married, if they were living in Tulkarm or in Jordan, or even in "Ch"far rumman. Interestingly enough, none of the residents of Qannir fled to Lebanon. -asad (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just on a point of syntax: 'they were ordering' could be interpreted,I think wrongly, as referring to some mukhtars (Morris's Arabs higher up), and not to 'the Jewish armies'(armed forces). Morris is scrupulous, and honest with his material, and his POV is something any historian is entitled to, but you don't need to be a genius to see where the overwhelming reliance on IDF and Israeli archives leads (him and the reader). I hope you have recorded and are recording in usable form all of your relatives' memories. The failure to comprehensively get all oral records into print, and studied by scholars, is one reason why the truth of the matter is buried under a heap of eminently good histories which, alas, tell basically one version of a multiple history. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. I remember the Imperial War Museum had a project to do this in the UK for WWII. The father of someone I used work with apparently spent much of his war carpet bombing Germany and somehow managed to not get shot down/crash. He never said a word about it to his family. The IWM sent a young researcher to record an interview with him and it was the first (at last) time he spoke about it. He spoke for hours. It struck me as quite an important and worthwhile project. I'm curious whether anyone has done it for 1948 in Palestine. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be very interesting to have. Oh gosh how I could improve so many of the Palestinian town articles with the countless war stories I have heard from relatives and family friends. I think there is a better documentary record of the Palestinian who fled in 1967. I learned from my father a while back, that the residents of Anabta either fled to Jordan or, on my fathers situation, camped out under the olive trees in the hill-tops close to Deir Sharaf, probably the land which has now become Shavei Shomron. But of course, that doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:RS. -asad (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Asad, just get it down, filmed, digitalized, and tell everyone of your background to do the same. Aref al-Aref did a comprehensive, oral-narrative based book, on the nakba in the midlate 5Os. One of the ironies of this work in Arabic was that it radically lowered the figures given in Israeli and Western sources for the massacre at Deir Yassin, from 250 odd to 110-120, by making a tally of names mentioned in the accounts given to him by survivors, and Sharif Kan'ana in turn got it down to 107 by using the same technique. So people's memories, however dismissed by Morris, can prove superior to defective, if comprehensive sources (as I know. I have a mass murderer in our family's history, whose historical repute is untarnished by the facts we were told as children, as an admonition against violence, about his doings in the 1840s. Descendants of the survivors still feel uneasy in our company, even though we are willing to confirm their story, which historians have no documentary evidence of). Better still, in the pursuit of Palestinian truths, it redimensioned an act of infamy attributed to its enemy. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The challenge is that the vast majority of English sources rely, almost exclusively, on Israeli archives. We can use Arabic sources, but finding them is much more difficult. But it is a fact that the sources we use are generally Israeli writers using Israeli records for the history of a people dispossessed of their land, possessions, and livelihood by Israelis. Which is one of the reasons I giggle every time one of these "editors" claims that Misplaced Pages is biased against Israel. nableezy - 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I must say, however, that Israeli historians have often done a better job than their Palestinian colleagues to contrast the Tacitean idea that history is written by the victors. It's just that their research hardly inflects the national myths of Zionism, which is the strong discourse Western impressions feed off. Therefore, the failure by the Arabic/Palestinian intelligentzia to make a concerted effort to get these archival, oral, historical details out in comprehensive book form is also responsible, though understandable given the chaos of diasporas, disruption of life, relative smaller numbers, lack of influential diaspora support groups to fund research programmes etc, they had/have to cope with. The Gypsies are treated like shit all over Europe also because they don't have a written culture, which could have recorded via family records what happened to them during their Gypsy Shoah. That nakba is so little known, that the historical measure of the genocide they suffered can vary from 200,000 to 1,500,000. The margins for error of a people that prize writing, like the Jewish people, is miniscule (5,200,000-6,000,000) by comparison. And nothing will be known because the survivors are dying out. Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In English they have certainly done a more comprehensive job, though I dont know if better is the word. Walid Khalidi is mentioned pretty much only on the articles of depopulated villages, and every once a while you'll see a cite to Nur Masalha or Sami Hadawi. But we dont use any Arabic sources. Part of that is due to the paucity of native speakers of Arabic and those who are familiar with the Arabic literature, and part of it is due to the fact that it is so much harder to locate a usable source on the web in Arabic as opposed to English or even Hebrew. The Arabs do have a written culture, and there are Arabic sources that can and should be used here. Compare the number of times an Israeli historian is cited on the 73 war article to how often an Arab historian is cited. And when a user even tries to use an Arabic source he gets put through the ringer, sometimes by the same users using Hebrew sources extensively. nableezy - 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, this book mentions the existence of at least 120 Palestinian village history books, written in Arabic of course. So at least something is being done. P.S. re Aref's book below, there are, as always, many possible transliterations, but it should end in al-Mafqud. Given the rudimentary level of my Arabic, I won't attempt to "correct" it on Aref's article. --NSH001 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're correct about "Al-Mafqud" as the right transliteration and proper grammar in Arabic. This source seems to have a more correct title of the book, which has Jerusalem instead of Palestine in the title. I haven't found a scan of the cover that would help clarify. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ps. A favour. I just checked, before switching off, the Aref al-Aref page and think the reference to his major nakba book is poorly transliterated and should be Nakbat Filastin wa al-Firdaws Mafqud. If that's correct, could someone fix it. I made an inadvertent IR violation and am self-banned from article edits until early next month. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC) (ec):::Thanks NSHmath. What I wrote can be read as a putdown. It isn't that, as much as a bystander's frustration. A huge amount of history is lost because the right questions, in the right idiom, are not placed with the elderly, who might talk if only prompted the right way. I always think of Ogotemelli, 16 years of ethnography, tribe studied, and then pure chance, the right question and the anthropologists realized they knew nothing until then, and a massive amount of lore hitherto hidden from them came to light just out of one man being asked the right questions. As to Aref's books, yes, I copy-pasted without checking and 'al' is obviously missing, my bad. Nakbat Filastin wal-firdaws al-mafqud. In any case, that's something for an Arabic speaker. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As Michael's note shows, there are several ways it is referred to Al Nakba/Nakhbat/Nakbat etc. Our text is in error, whatever the case. Trivia? Perhaps. But we should at least record what we see as problems.Nishidani (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think that changing it to the new source is the best option so far because it seems like the most exact appearance of both Arabic and English transliteration. I'll do that and add the ref, if no one objects. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A few more sources supporting this title and transliteration: , , , .

AE

The recent AE thread you opened against Cptnono has been closed. This is not an enforcement action, but the consensus was that you should be reminded to moderate your tone—I would parse that as meaning that it is better to let off your steam before you type comments than to let it off in heated comments and that you should be mindful that AE admins and the editors you disagree with are real people just as you are. Again, this is not an enforcement action, but you should consider this post to be the delivery of that reminder. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth

Please be aware that your recent edits at Nazareth do not reflect well on your sensitivity to the rules for the I/P area. There was recently an exchange of reverts at Irgun where a bunch of people (who often appear at AE) managed to edit once each so as not to break 1RR. While you often edit sensibly, it seems to me you may have lost your sense of balance, and you'll continue until admins finally have to do something. Recent discussions at noticeboards must have put you on notice that many people are questioning your edits. I have put full protection on the article for three days, hoping to forestall yet another time-consuming debate at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Im sorry that I reverted an additional time, but what has been happening at that article is bullshit. Hearfourmewesique, after making an obscene and absurd attack against me here in which he maliciously and falsely claims I supported using a source by someone advocating the destruction of all Jews, hounded me to two articles he had never edited to make mindless reverts, in one claiming that a statement cited to two reliable sources had no reliable source supporting it. A collection of editors has been attempting to force out of an article long standing reliably sourced text without anything resembling a consensus to do so. The sentence I restored has been literally unchanged for over a year. Yet users feel entitled to demand that their change remain while the issue is being discussed. Perhaps I should just ignore it, but I struggle to stand by as people twist the policies into supporting their goal of expunging any mention of the word Palestinian. nableezy - 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Nazareth article was quiet for a long time, and then a fuss was kicked up by someone's edit on December 10. While you might be considering that as a provocation, the editor concerned does not seem to be wild and crazy, nor is he a well-known partisan. Patience could be a virtue, even if it takes longer to get to a conclusion. You edited while an RfC was running so as to revert the very term being discussed in the RfC. I'm requesting that you take a voluntary one-month break from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I dont think this is justified. Yes, the dust up began as you said, but I dont see how that means that while the RFC is ongoing the change being discussed should remain in the article. I restored long-standing text, and added additional reliable sources supporting it. I dont think the initial change by Kaufner was a provocation, just a bold edit that was reverted. It became a problem when it was re-reverted by an account whose first and only edit was to make a revert without any comment (how unsurprising that we see such an event), and then when that was reverted when another editor hounded my contributions from one article to the next to again mindlessly revert. I have made a total of 2 reverts, one against an obvious sockpuppet (I will give odds that it is Ledenierhomme) who made no comment about the issue and the other against a user editing purely out of spite and dishonestly claiming that the line required sources when there were already sources. I complied without the disingenuous request by adding two additional sources. And now I should be restricted from adding the word Palestinian because I reverted two disruptive edits? I did not simply revert, I restored the text that had been in the article for months (random diff from ~6 months ago with exactly this sentence in the lead). I dont see why the other users who reverted should be treated as though they were entitled to force their favored phrasing in to the article and I should be restricted for restoring the article to what had been its stable state. Why are the people who made this, this or this revert while the RFC entitled to do so? I am perfectly willing to accept the results of the RFC, but there is a game being played here by several users in which they attempt to establish a status quo and turn the burden for achieving consensus from them to the people who support the long-standing text. How is that acceptable? nableezy - 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed your chance to put yourself on safe ground, and now you may be considered to be a revert-warrior like all the others. There is no 'right to revert to a long-standing version', especially during an RfC on that exact matter. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Im not claiming such a right, I am asking why the users who likewise were reverting during the RFC are entitled to do so. If you insist I will abide by your proposed restriction, though I feel it completely unjustified. nableezy - 20:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You and an IP editor are the only people who restored or removed 'Palestinian' from the lead during the RfC, except for AgadaUrbanit who undid the IP's change on grounds of the RfC. I am not planning to warn the IP but I would be willing to semiprotect the article if he tries to do it again before the RfC is concluded. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt accurate, Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) likewise removed the term during the RFC in this edit. The obvious sockpuppet Odiwkatc (talk · contribs) likewise removed the term while the RFC was ongoing in this edit. nableezy - 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A valid point. I guess it is hard to sanction them because they were restoring the version that existed at the point that the RfC was opened. If they keep on reverting after the RfC reaches a verdict, blocks will become possible. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But that wasnt the version that had been in the article at the time of the RFC. A discussion was opened at Talk:Nazareth over this issue at 07:19, 11 December 2011‎ after the initial edit at 11:27, 10 December 2011. That initial edit was reverted a few hours later. Kaufner re-reverted at 18:00, 11 December 2011‎ and that was reverted by Tiamut at 18:41. The discussion continued at the talk page, with nobody modifying the text. On 09:25, 12 December 2011 Kaufner converted the initial discussion into an RFC (here). The article still had the term Palestinian. Nobody edited that material until the revert by Odiwkatc (talk · contribs). I reverted that, and was in turn reverted by Hearfourmewesique. The version that had been in the article when the RFC started, before it started, and for a day after it started was the version that I reverted to. Not the other way around. nableezy - 21:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I always agree with your reading on these details, but I think Ed was also to be read for another message, which was tonal. Sorry for butting Nab, and risking your ire, since you can handle this on your own, and an old geezer's bluster is something I never put up with at your age. If I can translate Ed's tone as I hear it, it's just a nudge to remind yourself that, (a) rotten edits like the one you reverted shouldn't draw you into a trigger reaction however high the esteem for your sheriffing is held by some of us. Crap will be weeded out. I used to suffer from impatience, and stopped when I noticed that, hanging back an hour or even overnight, had me switching on the dudetube that is this computer, to see someone had in the meantime fixed the problem, or remonstrated efficiently on the talk page. (b) Some of us are inclined to police ourselves even at the borderline, so that if a slip, or hasty step is taken, one steps back (reculer pour mieux sauter) for a week. The others mightn't do this, but to survive here one just has to think of setting higher standards of self-restraint than one expects of others. But do your own weird pal. It was a shocker, for anyone inside the state of the art research on this issue, but Rome wasn't built in a day, or even in the 7 daze the world was created in. No need to reply to this, though, raghead. Just print out a copy and wipe your arse on it if it is a nuisance.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, your point is noted. It looks like 09:25 on 12 December is when the RfC was opened. I do not have any clear intuition of what to do, since at least some of those reverting may not have been aware of the RfC. You clearly were aware of the RfC and the fact that a revert war was in progress. Expectations for your behavior are higher since you are also a previously banned editor. (Some of the people you warred with may be on their way to their own bans). My temptation would be to leave things as they are until the RfC finishes, and then watch the article like a hawk for any further misbehavior. I am thinking of handing out ARBPIA warnings to everyone who joined in the war after 09:25 on the 12th who is not already warned. Do you have any other suggestions? EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All right Ed, I suppose that is fair enough. I will ensure I mind my p's and q's so to speak. But you have to understand the frustration when dealing with things like this. An obvious sock makes a revert without so much as saying boo. Another user tendentiously hounds my edits to two separate articles, making mindless reverts at both, and here falsely claiming that there were no reliable sources for the material. As you said, there are a decent number of people questioning my edits, and many of them do it for sport. I acknowledge that my past leads to a heightened requirements for behavior, and I will attempt to ensure that I abide by those requirements. Suggestions? I got plenty, starting with asking a CU to compare this with this. nableezy - 22:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to second the request for CU. I'm sorry you have to put up with all this crap Nableezy. Tiamut 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, on a more general note, part of the problem is how content is decided here, and that is an unsolvable problem. If the RFC ends with a consensus, one way or the other, then this issue is moot. The problem is what happens if it, like so many discussions in this topic area, ends in no consensus. That results in the status quo being maintained, and that is what I was referencing in my above comment there is a game being played here by several users in which they attempt to establish a status quo and turn the burden for achieving consensus from them to the people who support the long-standing text. A collection of users is attempting to forcefully change the status quo through edit-warring, not through discussion. I am fine with having the discussion play out and whatever it decides goes, end of story. What I am not fine with is users attempting to tilt the balance in their favor by force of numbers and through such dishonest tactics as socking. That is why I reverted. Had Arab-Israeli been the original text then the users could rightfully claim that absent a consensus to change it should remain, but it wasnt. The problem with no consensus=status quo will continue to mean that users try to edit-war to change the status quo. That is the root problem with every revert after Kaufner's initial bold edit was reverted. nableezy - 22:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as an added thought. Look, this is an encyclopedia, and most of us are happy to work by the same severe criteria that govern academic judgement in writing for the Britannica,etc. That, translated into practical terms, would mean, as some of us already apply, placing an austere reading of RS for flamed areas like the I/P zone. If we raise the bar, this constant recourse to poor web sources would be snipped in the bud. This really should be pressed for, as a solution. The amount of quality press coverage of I/P history, politics etc., is so huge it's hard to keep up with it, and editors who wish to edit here should have the bar raised, and accept that they will not be taken seriously unless they bring to this place quality sources. I even think that a restriction like placing a ban on anyone editing here who hasn't done 500 edits to other articles before entering the fray would help enormously. These are practical measures, and harm no one except the sock-I/P kibitzers who silently follow pages until the opportunity presents itself to back his or her team with an edit the others refrain from doing. All admins admit the place is close to unworkable at time, and specific measures requiring all to cleave to stricter standards of sourcing would cut most of the crap we have to handle.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nishidani: This is a proposal worth considering. The administration of your idea might not be so easy. The general WP:1RR on all I/P articles is simple to enforce by comparison. One thought is to not allow anyone who is not approved for WP:AWB to edit the most inflamed articles in the I/P area. (AWB requires 500 edits to article space). But that idea would probably set off various alarms. The community is not likely to accept a reform unless (a) the situation is verified to be terrible, (b) the imposed solution seems fair. I'm still thinking about how to compile a list of the most controversial I/P articles in a manner that people would consider fair. EdJohnston (talk)

18:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed Ed. The I/P area, to gather from disparate comments I've seen over the years, is considered to be one of those black holes or no man's land where only fools or angels venture. Admins have frequently thrown up their hands in despair. If my impression is correct, then some brain-storming is perhaps worth trying to encourage. I have numerous ideas, but I think, given your consideration, the best way to handle this would be to convene interested editors on a page to get them to discuss, vet and underwrite a set of restrictions they would like to see imposed on these pages, and by implication on themselves and everyone, so that the clutter of endless arbitration is thinned (a good result for time-stressed admins) and the numerous niggling tricks that encourage edit-warring, tagteaming, and cunctorial attitudes stymied.

Raising the quality of sources is I think important, but probably has few takers. One of the most annoying things is the way I/P blowins jump in to tilt the edit process in favour of one of the two sides in dispute. It is very commonplace, and no one should tolerate it, from either 'side'. Any number of creative ways of truncating these interruptions, coordinated offline or not, exist. IRR is as much an open invitation for IP accounts to be created or phoned up, I guess, to make such and such a revert and then disappear, as it is a cautionary restriction on registered, practiced users. I just want to get these IP onetimers, or occasional hands, or socks, out of the way. If a casual IP in a difficult area wants to edit, (s)he should suggest it on the talk page. I don't see why asking, for a trial period of a month or so, that I/P articles be placed on a restricted editor basis, would be hard to apply or police. It does go against the recruitment policy of wikipedia, which anyone, we happily boast, can edit. But there are over 3 million articles one can edit to chalk up a record that gives people a chance to measure commitment. 99% of the work is being done by registered wiki hands, but at a rough guess 30 or 40% of the disruption seem to include an I/P at work. Any formal limit 100, 500 would be set. Newbies and I/Ps with no consistent contributions to articles would be asked to make proposals on article talk pages until they have estblished a reputation for commitment. All newby or I/P edits on controversial issues should be obligatorily reverted, without it counting as a revert, by all experienced editors, irrespective of its merits, or which POV it might support, with the editor asked to repropose it on the talk page.

Rather than extemporize, and talk here too much, perhaps we should cast around broadly and ask people who end up in A/I and A/E disputes with some frequently to share their thoughts, not on each other, but on some creative measures or restrictions or rules they would all like to see put into place for a trial experiment of limited duration. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you come up with the names of a dozen I/P articles that you believe are specially troublesome, that could benefit from an extra level of restriction, beyond the 1RR? I could imagine people supporting a trial for a limited time (say two months) on a small set of articles, if a new restriction could be proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

One small way to raise the bar on source quality, which would be fairly algorithmic and make a significant difference, would be to restrict the use of newspaper articles for historical events. As a first attempt, I'd like to ban newspapers as sources for events more than 10 years before publication unless the author is a recognized expert or is citing a recognizing expert. This corresponds roughly with the actual reliability and would remove a lot of rubbish. It would also reduce the growing serious problem that many journalists actually get their information from Misplaced Pages without saying so. Zero 02:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth AE

I'm going to close the AE complaint per this. Let me know if you want to make any further statement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, but I think you should explicitly exempt vandalism. nableezy - 15:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism can be in the eye of the beholder in the I/P area. I'm reluctant to create an exemption. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Im talking about things like things where a user does a find and replace like s/Palestinian/Fakestinian. But it is up to you. nableezy - 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would like you to clarify something. The issue here was with the identification of a group of people as being part of a Palestinian people. What of edits such as this that remove things about the Palestinian territories? Is that also off-limits? nableezy - 16:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice that MastCell thinks that Ledenierhomme may have been socking at Palestinian Christians. I've semiprotected the article for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

your welcome

Bobherry talk -- Hi!! 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: CBS data

I don't think all their archive data is available on the Internet, but the important part (census data) is. What are you looking for in particular? —Ynhockey 00:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You can find the statistical yearbooks here (you will want to look at table 2.14 and later 2.15): 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. —Ynhockey 00:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Nab, A belated thank you for your support and all your contributions here. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)