Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 4

message: Like I said, do whatever the **** you want (sorry, but it's too much already). Atiyah is a proclaimed propogandist of the arabs. It is for that reason that his claim that the arabs asked the palestinians to leave is so monumental. Same thing goes for all the newspapaer quotes - these are editorials of ARAB newspapers at the time, and therefore have the most relevance.
If you want to quote only books, no problem - i'll quote the same quotes from Katz's book.
If you want to leave the biased quotes (I don't believe ian or zero for a second here) which are also used only on propaganda and out of context (and Atiyah's quote is NOT out of context), go ahead too. This article is ridicilous already as it is. Amoruso 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would anyone read through this biased, one sided "analysis" of yours ? 

message: these leftists biased one sided editors who try to control wikipedia (ian pitchford, zero etc) actually claim that any person who disagrees with them - journalist, writer and historian is discredited borders on complete insanity. All the quotes from Joseph B. Shectman are 100% accurate and verifiable and trust worthy. This is true on all accounts of other historians who happent to belong to a right wing side of a map. These users who attack these sources, simply for their political ends, and spread rubbish on them should all be banned. Amoruso 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  finally, this attack on joan peters, shmuel katz, joseph shectman....

message: Hello. It is strange given Ghoury ruled the Jihad al-Muqadas just after Abd-al Kader's death. On the other hand, I just point out than Gelbert refers on Schetchman work. So I deduce Schetchman whatever partisan he is, should not be censored from wp:en.
The NPoV in that case means editors should write : "According to Schetchman, bla bla bla".
Good job. Alithien 06:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghoury is quoted but not Schetchman ? 

message: * I push you and you fall over a chair.  You say, "If that chair was not there I might not have fallen".  I say "Hah!, you admit it wasn't my fault."  This is the logic that readers are insultingly expected to take from this "Ghouri quotation".
* Amoruso attacks my house with a gun.  I call the cops and they say "no problem we'll come and take care of it".  I wait with my neighbors.  Amoruso takes my house and declares "Zero abandoned his house on the orders of his leaders.  Therefore his house is mine, mine, all mine."  This is the logic that readers are insultingly expected to take from the "Hakim quotation" and the "Atiyah quotation".
The bottom line is that we should be writing for people with brains, not treating our readers like morons.  --Zerotalk 06:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Zero0000's position is much more logical, and would immediately be adopted if Wikipedia were a genuine, scholarly encyclopaedia, rather than an internet honeypot for people with more opinions than information. Palmiro | Talk 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disingenuous logic and respect for our readers 

message: How does the timing of this law compare with the seizure of property of Iraqi Jews? I can't find the exact dates but was wondering whether either was considered to be in retaliation for the other? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.146.65.19 (talk • contribs).
: The absentee property law came almost exactly one year ahead of the Iraqi action. --McKay 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absentee law started to be discuss during the second phase of the war, ie april-may 1948. Alithien 11:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  absentee property law