Talk:List of estimates of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

message: This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948.  The result was to keep it.  dbenbenn | talk 03:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: Check this link, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad170.htm#1, look at the name. Yes it is the document Mitchell Bard refers to, "Conclusions From Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine." It mentions the number 360,000 Arab refugees. This is Mitchell Bard's "aid" number. However, the report was signed in September 18, 1948 months before the conflict ended! The ethnical cleansing in the Galilee hadn't even taken place at the time! 
Now that you know for sure that Mitchell Bard faked atleast one of his sources, do you still insist that his figure should be in the article? Palestine-info 11:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of the 3 sources Bard cites. What do you mean Bard "faked" it?  By the way, the source says it was signed by Bernadotte on September 16, 1948. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 15:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I have.  What's your point? Your feelings and suspicions about Bard are not a valid reason to delete properly cited sources. Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said above, you've only linked to 1 of the 3 sources he cites.  Where were your links to the other two? Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Bard cites the following: Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No.11 (A\648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5; and "Conclusions From Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine," (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part one, p. 29; part two, p. 23 and part three, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).  You have only cited excerpts from the Conclusions, Bard cites from the report and its supplements. Jayjg  | (Talk) 21:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: We "tackle it" by citing the source, as has already been done. As for the date, as I understand it most Palestinians had left by then. Jayjg  | (Talk) 16:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: What do imagine it refers to?  The source cited is quite clear that it refers to the number of refugees. And I didn't see anything on Palestinian Exodus that contradicted that, what do you think did? Jayjg  | (Talk) 03:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you're talking about, but I request that you avoid personal attacks. Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I have pointed out to you FIVE TIMES that the number 472,000 is NOT AN ESTIMATE because it was written long before the flight was over. (This is the sixth) Palestine-info 20:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that your point?  Of course it's an estimate, it's an estimate as of that date.  We have other estimates from other dates, including 1950, long after the "flight was over" as well. Jayjg  | (Talk) 20:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they estimate how many Palestinians that fled/were expelled. The Mediators report is no such estimate. Palestine-info 21:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know this?  Have you seen the Mediator's report? Jayjg  | (Talk) 21:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume Folke Bernadotte didn't try to predict the future. Palestine-info 22:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mediator's report estimated the number of refugees as of that date.  Yet you say they made no such estimate.  How do you know this? Jayjg  | (Talk) 22:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing Bard tells us is that "A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower figure ‹ 472,000." From that, how do YOU know that the Mediator estimated the number of refugees as of that date? The report was PUBLISHED September 16, 1948, it was written in the weeks prior to that. The other thing about Bard's article is that he doesn't give the reader any information on the very simple fact that the number was published ten months before the end of the conflict. One must then assume that what he is saying, that you also previously wanted the article to say, is that the UN Mediator claimed that the number of Palestinian refugees from the war was 472,000. Now the footnote I created explains all details about the number. So please stop reverting that because there is absolutely no reason to. Palestine-info 23:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bard tells us that, and gives quite explicit citations as to where that estimate will be found; your skepticism is not reason to delete the citation.  If you find a copy of the report, and it says something else, then you would be on firmer ground.  The current version of the article gives the exact date the mediator signed the report, as an accurate assessment of the situation at that time.  We don't go into long discussions about the provenance of the U.N. estimates made in 1950, long after the end of hostilities, or complain about their dubiousness either.  Now please stop inserting POV editorials, and removing sourced information, since this violates Wikipedia's policies. Jayjg  | (Talk) 15:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The copy of the report that I have says "some three hundred thousand Arab refugees." Which is a fact I've already pointed out to you. Palestine-info 16:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you don't have a copy of the report, you have excerpts from another document called "Conclusions etc."  Second of all, as Bard points out, the Conclusions state that of the total 360,000 required aid.  Get it?  The total is 472,000, of whom 360,000 require aid. Jayjg  | (Talk) 23:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  read them both. Or search for "some three hundred" Palestine-info 01:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, you've got sections 1 and 2, and the Conclusions.  Where is section 3, which is listed in the Table of Contents, and from which Bard quotes?  Where is Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5)? Jayjg  | (Talk) 02:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bard's references

message: Wouldn't this information be more useful if it were placed in context and assimilated into Palestinian exodus?  Also it strikes me that many of the estimates, especially those derived from web sources, are impossible to verify at all to an ordinary reader.  Perhaps this can all be pared down to maybe a half a dozen estimates at most, from the most important sources like the UN, a couple of human rights groups, and the major players, in the context of a paragraph or two in Palestinian exodus discussing varying approaches and methodologies and the considerable range of estimates.--Pharos 22:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the 472,000 estimate is one of the best cited ones there, it actually lists 3 sources. Jayjg  | (Talk) 16:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this information more useful 

message: I blocked Palestine-Info for 3RR and have unblocked him after listing the reverts and near-reverts with him on IRC. Please, all desist from reverts - it's better to take it slowly and keep heated discussion to the talk page, not the article history - David Gerard 20:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Five hours after you unblocked Palestine-info, and made your impassioned plea, he reverted again without comment. Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR block

message: User:Palestine-info listed this page at WP:RFC. So, here is my two cents.
If I understand correctly, the current disagreement is over the attention paid to the first line in the list of estimates by one of the editors. Such attention appears to me as an attempt to skew the article to a particular POV. The first estimate, however wrong it might be, is well attributed and clearly shows its possible bias (produced by one side of the conflict with clear references to the origin). The rest of the estimates (all higher) are attributed substantially less accurately. For example, the highest estimate is not well attributed at all. It is not clear from the description that it's cited through the other side of the conflict, and the number actually disagrees with the UN report also listed on that page. 
Wiki is not a political forum, not a place to promote a particulat view point. Wiki should just report facts and stay neutral. The first entry in the list in the edition  seems to fit the bill.
--Gene s 12:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the disputed source presents the truth or not, but the report looks well attributed. The guy really cites the UN report on his web site at the link provided. What you are proposing to do is an evaluation of validity of one of the sources. That looks like original research to me. If you believe the report is not attributed correctly, what do you propose for a proper attribution? --Gene s 13:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  *IF* it has to be included (despite the fact that it obviously cannot be true), it should be referenced to Mitchell Bard and not to the UN Mediator's report that didn't claim to have an estimate. As in: "472,000 According to Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library.". That is very different from what Jayjg wants to be written. Palestine-info 18:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have nothing to go on but your own suspicions and prejudices.  You have presented no evidence whatsoever that the citation is false in any way. Jayjg  | (Talk) 19:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The date is in there.  Some of the estimates given date from significantly after the conflict as well. Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested comment 

message: I question the page title (Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948). They weren't refugees until after they'd fled. And "Refugee" shouldn't be capitalised anyway. Suggest Estimates of Palestinian refugees, which allows the page to also broach the issue of how many Palestinian refugees there were from 1967, and how many today including descendants. Or perhaps Estimates of Palestinian and Jewish displaced persons or similar, to take the widest possible view of number of people affected. Rd232 15:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point.  I think there are other articles which touch on this as well, primarily Palestinian. Jayjg  | (Talk) 16:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: This issue could (and, IMO, should) be addressed by merging this article into Palestinian refugee. -- uriber 21:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: About Bard, I have e-mailed him. He has to refused to quote the sentences from which his number 472,000 come from. I have also spent the better part of yesterday trying to find a source that mentions 472,000 Palestinian refugees but failed. But still, lets assume the quote is correct. It still needs the caveats so that the reader is not mislead:
:1 Mitchell Bard alleges that the UN official record "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" estimates that the number of refugees was 472,000. The progress report was published on September 16, 1948, ten months before the hostilities and the refugee flight ended. Large parts of the report is availible here. It is estaminated that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left in the months after September, 1948. The number 472,000 should therefore not be seen as an estimate of the total number of refugees, rather as an estimate on how many Palestinian refugees there were in September 1948.
This footnote, for the above mentioned reasons, I find to be much better than Jayjg's version which reads like this:
:472,000 by September 16, 1948 according to the "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine", cited by Mitchell Bard on the Jewish Virtual Library.
Palestine-info 16:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi PI, I saw the discussion about this on the mailing list, where you said you'd post your correspondence with Bard Mitchell as soon as your 24-block was over. Would you mind doing that, please? You have accused him of dishonesty, or at best of very shoddy research, and as he is a respected researcher (or so I believed), that has implications regarding whether he ought to be used as a Wikipedia source in the future.  I would very much like to see how your correspondence with him went.  Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:56, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Mitchell Bard is NOT a respected researcher. But that debate can be left to another page. This is my e-mail conversation in chronological order:
----
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:30:38 +0100
Subject: Myths & Facts Online
Hi. I'm an amateur historical research interested in Middle-Eastern
history. I saw your page Myths & Facts Online in which the following
is written: "A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an
even lower figure ‹ 472,000, and calculated that only about 360,000
Arab refugees required aid." but I cannot find the number 472,000 in
the references you mention. Would it be possible for you to provide
the exact quotations from those sources in context?
----
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:39:14 EST
Subject: Re: Myths & Facts Online
There are references in the notes where the data should be found.
 
Sincerely,
Mitchell G. Bard, Ph.D.
Executive Director
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)
2810 Blaine Dr.
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Tel. 301-565-3918
Fax. 301-587-9056
Web: Jewish Virtual Library
(http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org) 
----
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:31:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Myths & Facts Online
Thank you for your very quick response! However, in the sources you
mention "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine"
p.47 ,"Conclusions From Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator
on Palestine" p.29, p.23, p.11 and Supplement No.11A p.5, I could not
find a mention of the number 472,000. So I wonder if you can provide
me with the exact quote from which 472,000 is taken? That would make
it so much easier for me to look up. Thanks.
----
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:29:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Myths & Facts Online
Hello again. Maybe you missed my previous mail. I have looked in every
source imaginable to find the number 472,000 but with no avail. So if
it not to much to ask, can you please cite the sentences in which the
UN Mediator mentions the number in context? That would make it so much
easier for me to verify.
Another thing, in your article you state that "A report by the UN
Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower figure ‹ 472,000, and
calculated that only about 360,000 Arab refugees required aid." But
you fail to mention that the report was written prior to September 16,
1948? Your article gives me the impression that you claim that the UN
Mediator said that there were "only" 472,000 refugees. But in
September 1948 the refugee flight was far from over. How come?
----
Note: My personal details have been omitted. On Wikipedia I'm known as "palestine-info" and nothing else. Note2: It's only been five days, but since he answered my first mail quickly he is definitely reading his mailbox. Palestine-info 01:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: What's your point?  He hasn't answered your e-mail, for whatever reason.  He may feel you are a crank, or think that you are calling him a liar (which, effectively, you are).  He's cited the numbers and the specific documents in question, and shown you were he has cited them.  It's up to you to find the documents and prove him wrong. Jayjg  | (Talk) 01:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for posting the e-mails. I tend to agree that his failure to respond doesn't necessarily mean he's being evasive. Perhaps someone else should write to him to emphasize that this is a serious and respectful enquiry. Also, you were not entirely honest with him by omitting that the research was for the Wikipedia. SlimVirgin 02:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't claim that it is conclusive evidence of anything. It's just that you and David Gerard thought it was very important that I posted my correspondance so that's what I did. Palestine-info 15:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, then, there's no good reason for doubting the estimate, until someone actually finds the document in question and looks through it.  The fact that Bard does not respond to internet cranks is not good enough reason to doubt anything.  And please stop entering known falsehoods into the article; as has been pointed out several times, Bard's estimate is "no more than 650,000", not 472,000. Jayjg  | (Talk) 19:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you call me an internet crank? Palestine-info 00:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've fixed the changes you made Tony; until we have a standard format for U.N. sources, we should stick to one standard.  Also, the Avalon site appears to cite the Conclusions, rather than the document itself.  As such, you are comparing apples to oranges.  Your suggestion of going directly to the U.N. documents is wise; I suggest anyone who doubts these figures do so. Jayjg  | (Talk) 22:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. "Conclusions From Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine" is the conclusions chapters from "Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine". Both the avalon link and the UNISPAL link shows the same document but with different parts of that document. Palestine-info 00:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they're different documents, and neither has the 3rd section of the report, including the cited page 47, though it is clearly in Table of Contents. Jayjg  | (Talk) 00:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You've gone directly to the U.N. documents he used?  Please provide a direct link to the specific documents he used for his statement. Jayjg  | (Talk) 23:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, these are the specific documents he cites: Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No.11 (A\648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5; and "Conclusions From Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine," (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part one, p. 29; part two, p. 23 and part three, p. 11), (September 18, 1948). Jayjg  | (Talk) 23:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You've provided a link to a document that doesn't include part 3, page 47, which he cites.  The Table of Contents clearly indicates that it should be there, yet your link doesn't seem to show it.  How is your link relevant? I've reverted my revert pending some reasonable response. Jayjg  | (Talk) 23:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning the caveats is important 

message: I have located the two UN documents listed by Mitchell Bard, in a microfiche collection of UN official records:
* A/648. Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Folke Bernadotte, Sep 16, 1948 (GA 3rd Session Suppl 11), in three parts plus appendices.  Parts 1-2 appear here.  Part 3, "Assistance to Refugees", appears to not be on the web, though its conclusions subsection is section (3) of this.
* A/689. Progress Report of the Acting United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Ralph Bunche, Oct 18, 1948 (GA 3rd Session Suppl 11A), 11 pages.
Here is what these reports say about the number of Arab refugees.
* A/648, p47.  "As of 10 September 1948, confirmed estimates (which may be subject to later modification owing to migratory movements, the addition of those who have exhausted their personal resources, and certain others who have been hiding in isolated areas) give a total of 330,000 Arab refugees, distributed approximately as follows: [then a table by location summing to 330,000] The remainder are scattered along access roads or distributed in tiny isolated communities or hiding places over a wide area."
* A/689, page 1.  "... as a result of careful investigation of the numbers involved, the immense scope of the problem has now become more apparent.  Part three of the Mediator's progress report tentatively placed the total number of Arab refugees at 360,000 ... The figure for Arab refugees must now be revised upwards to 472,000 (see appendix A).  This very substantial increase is partly due to more complete registration and to the fact that many who were temporarily able to support themselves have exhausted their resources and are applying for relief. But it is also due to an increase in the actual number of refugees as those previously in hiding in Israeli-held territory filter through the lines.  The present distribution is approximately as follows: [then a table by location summing to 472,000] This figure will inevitably be increased still further and is likely shortly to reach a maximum of slightly over 500,000."  In Appendix A, the figure of 472,000 is stated to be "on the basis of estimates made by officers of the Disaster Relief Project".
There is a discrepancy between "330,000" stated in A/648 and "360,000" quoted in A/689.  The microfiche also says "330,000" in the conclusions, but Avalon's version and other UN documents quote that as "360,000".  This indicates that the first "330,000" quoted above and the "330,000" in the microfiche conclusions are typos that were corrected later.  This allows 30,000 for the "remainder" who "are scattered...", which didn't make sense before.
Bunche's argument for a maximum of 500,000 assumes no further changes in territory, and so was later invalidated by Israeli conquest of the Negev and upper Galilee.
Bard's three references "part one, p. 29; part two, p. 23 and part three, p. 11" make no sense in A/648 since the parts are not paginated separately and no obvious interprettation gets one to the right pages.  The probable solution is that Bard just copied these page numbers from Avalon, where they refer to the reprinted documents in "A Decade of American Foreign Policy" and only one of the three refers to refugee numbers.
Comments: Bard got the relationship between the 360,000 and the 472,000 quite wrong.  They are not different categories of refugees but estimates of the same thing made on different dates.  He also tried to deceive the reader by failing to note that these estimates referred to interim estimates when the refugee flow was far from over.  None of this should be surprising in an article by such a blatant propagandist.  His "Myths and Facts" is the most recent incarnation of a scrurrilous booklet of the same name which has been around since the 1960s and is a fine example of the very worst of pseudo-history.
Our article:  I propose to forget Bard and add something like "360,000 estimated by the UN Mediator in Sep 1948, and 472,000 by the acting UN Mediator in Oct 1948, both being incomplete since the refugee flow was far from over (UNGA 3rd session Supplements 11 and 11A, 1948)".
--Zero 10:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 360,000 estimated by UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in September, 1948, and after his assassination, revised upwards to 472,000 by his former aide and successor, Acting Mediator Ralph Bunche in October, 1948.  Both were provisional and acknowledged as incomplete since the refugee flow was still in progress at that time, and the figures both referred to those who had officially registered as refugees (UNGA 3rd session Supplements 11 and 11A, 1948).
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: In addition, he's now trying to bury it in a list of entirely unsupported guesses by one guy on a website, as if they are of comparable validity. Jayjg  | (Talk) 21:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Good questions, Slim.  Interested in the responses, particularly about Abu Sitta's unsupported guesses. Jayjg  | (Talk) 22:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, a logical arrangement of the estimates would be "UN estimates", and under that "Interim" and "Final", then "Other estimates", and under that "Interim" and "Final".  I note as well, now that a consensus seems to be building to include for including the estimate in the UN section, Palestine-Info is again proposing to delete it.  "Bury it by whatever means possible" seems to be the notion here. Jayjg  | (Talk) 22:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "Interim" and "Final" numbers under "UN estimates" is more clear, as well as Zero's wording, instead of a separate "Incomplete Estimates" section.  The latter is more confusing, in my view.  Also "Interim" more accurately describes the count.  It's not that the count was "incomplete" on prior dates, since those were the actual interim counts as of those dates.  The refugee count increased later, as more land was taken and more refugees created, so associating specific counts with specific dates is more accurate.  "Incomplete" makes it sound like the refugees as of those dates weren't all counted, which is incorrect. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:24, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Jay, your suggestion for UN estimates (interim/final) and Other estimates (interim/final) sounds even better, because that would makes things very clear. PI, do you have anything you'd like to add before this is changed, and any information about Abu-Sitta? I looked him up and found some material but nothing conclusive, so anything you know about him would be appreciated. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you have to educate yourselves about who Salman Abu-Sitta is. Please continue of accusing me of POV-pushing without presenting any facts whatsoever. I've already explained why dividing the page like you have proposed is mixing apples with oranges. The UN figures are interim yes, because they were made before the flight was over. The other estimates that estimate the number of refugees are not iterim because they were made after the war was over. But they are both incomplete. So really, we have three categories:
*apples = Estimates of the total refugee flight.
*oranges = Interim estimates of the refugee flight.
*pears = Estimates of the refugee flight at a certain date.
Of these estimates, the apples and pears doesn't really belong on this page. Futhermore the division of some estimates as "UN Estimates" and others as "Other Estimates" is purely fictional - the UN used the same methods as other researchers when they tried to estimate the total refugee flight. Palestine-info 10:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, you made the claim Abu-Sitta is "no nobody", please back it up.  As for the page, the title is not "Estimates of the Total Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948", it is merely "Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948".  As such, the only "oranges" on the page are the UNRWA numbers, since they are not estimates of the flight at all, but rather estimates of the total number of people who ended up receiving aid, which the UN and other sources have pointed out are inflated for various reasons.  As for the UN, since the UN itself has defined what a Palestinian refugee is, and was intimately involved in setting up the UNWRA to deal with them, it is the UN estimates which are most relevant.  Other estimates are typically secondary at best, and usually just wild guesses. Jayjg  | (Talk) 15:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: No, only Palestine-info feels the UN progress report should be buried; everyone else thinks it belongs with U.N. reports.  The current proposal is to have "Interim" and "Final" sections under "UN estimates" and "Other estimates". Jayjg  | (Talk) 19:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It is disappointing, but not surprising, that on this article Palestine-Info claims the U.N. estimates are no better than any others, while on others insists that whatever the U.N. says is both the truth, and the will of the "International Community".  As explained, the U.N. was there, counted the refugees, gave out the cards, registered them, etc.  Its estimates are vastly more significant than those of random editorial writers on Al-Ahram Weekly.  As for the estimates, the apples are the estimates of the flight, which the article is about, the oranges are the esimates of the registered refugees.  The latter should be removed, or at least put in its own section. Jayjg  | (Talk) 19:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't you know why Abu-Sitta is "credible", and "no nobody"? Didn't you notice that his estimate was the highest of any of the estimates on the page?  That, of course, is what makes him "credible", and why it is "necessary" to quote 5 different estimates of his on the page as well.  Hope that clears things up. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Report on the UN documents

message: Thanks for the added estimates, Zero.  To be honest, many of these estimates are dubious at best, but I'm not sure how one differentiates between the dubious and non-dubious ones in any NPOV way that everyone could agree to.  Also, I suspect this information would be better presented in a table, if only I knew how to do that. Jayjg  | (Talk) 15:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good additions Zero 

message: Morris Birth Revisted, p602: "The director general of the Israel Foreign Ministry, Walter Eytan, in a private letter in late 1950 referred to the UNRWA registration in 1949 of 726,000 as ‘meticulous’ but thought that ‘the real number was close to 800,000’."   There is absolutely no reason this estimate can't be included.  It is a documented estimate by someone in a position to have a fair idea of the facts.  Compare with "200,000 by the mid-June 1948 accoding to Emil Ghoury" which the source says was made without a "clear idea of the dispersal’s full magnitude" and states to be "less than two-thirds the actual figure".  Someone had better stop playing games with this (rather useless) article. Zerotalk 23:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is some reasons.  A private letter is not a serious estimate, the quote (from the appendix) is distorted, so it is indeed an academic fraud, his subjective opinon is not a serious evidence in any kind. 
Kind regards
--Point by point (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

text: So you don't have an actual case, you are just making assertions.  Of course it was an estimate.  We don't know on what basis the estimate was made, but that is true of the majority of the estimates on this page. Zerotalk 00:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

text: This shows a double standard and will be reinserted. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A double standard? This "estimate" is takken out of context. 
Yes "we don't know", but that's the exact reason why, I added the symbol ±, when it was not an official estimate and was only an aproximate mentioned somewhere in a book. 
--... Point by point ... (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eytan vs Ghoury 

message: Your edit here is directly copy-pasted from here. This violated multiple policies. Firstly, it violates WP:COPYVIO. Secondly, the book is a self-published book by a vanity publisher AuthorHouse, and fails WP:RS. Thirdly, you failed to actually cite the book, in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted a POV pushing deletion by Palestine-info, but I did not know that the text was a plagiarism. .
--Point by point (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For some unknown and not quite obvious reason this was transferred from a personal talk page to this articles talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit violating copyvio and [[WP:RS]] 

message: Functionally I don't think it really changes anything, but looking at the project Palestine rating as a "stub" is clearly in appropriate - so I'm going to make a couple of changes to make this article a list, which it pretty much follows the style guide for already. TrickyH (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Status 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407095842/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/181c4bf00c44e5fd85256cef0073c426/8d26108af518ce7e052565a6006e8948 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/181c4bf00c44e5fd85256cef0073c426/8d26108af518ce7e052565a6006e8948
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060154/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/805c731452035912852569d1005c1201?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/805c731452035912852569d1005c1201?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060330/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3c5de9979eb7072f85256e9900639833?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3c5de9979eb7072f85256e9900639833?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407094900/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3e61557f8de6781a052565910073e819?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3e61557f8de6781a052565910073e819?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716190435/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/438/op2.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/438/op2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150922083004/http://www.plands.org/books/book%2001-03.html to http://www.plands.org/books/book%2001-03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified