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

Palestine High‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Bard's references

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)

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) 15:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should read Talk:History of Israel? Palestine-info 16:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

The point is that I have linked to the primary sources that Bard claims he is citing multiple times by now. But the primary sources does not mention the number he is "quoting." How come? Palestine-info 18:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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) 19:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You made it read: "472,000 According to the 'Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine'", but accordingly it isn't according to the Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine. :) And yes, 1 out of 3 is a failing grade. Palestine-info 20:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

I see. Now how do you tackle the problem that the report was written before September 16, 1948, many months before the conflict and the refugee flight ended? In which way can it be considered an estimate? Palestine-info 21:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

You understand wrong, and to be honest, I don't think you should be so adamant in that you are right when you now show that you know so little. See Palestinian Exodus for more information about what happened in Palestine after September 16, 1948. The UN Mediator's "number" (if it really exists) refer to something entierly different than what is the topic of this article. Palestine-info 00:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

MITCHEL BARD, on the Jewish Virtual Library, is quite clear and is also misrepresenting the truth WHICH YOU KNOW. Therefore, you are also knowingly misrepresenting the truth. Palestine-info 11:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How do you know this? Have you seen the Mediator's report? Jayjg | (Talk) 21:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assume Folke Bernadotte didn't try to predict the future. Palestine-info 22:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[1], [2] read them both. Or search for "some three hundred" Palestine-info 01:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

Making this information more useful

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)

Yes, good idea. But before that we need to track from where each estimate comes. I'll bet there are no more than at most ten that can be traced back to credible sources, the rest are taken from thin air (such as the 472,000 one). Palestine-info 22:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

3RR block

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)

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)

Requested comment

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 [3] seems to fit the bill. --Gene s 12:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have you read this talk page in full? I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just curious if I have explained the situation so badly. The message Jayjg wants to retain is: "according to the 'Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine'" but the UN Mediator ofcourse couldn't have estimated the total extent of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948 in Septeber 16, 1948 (a day before he was shot) because it wasn't over by the time! Palestine-info 12:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

*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)

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)

The date of the report certainly has to be included. Even then, it might be a bit of apples and oranges to have one number from mid-conflict when the other numbers are all from afterwards. Gzornenplatz 13:06, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Page title

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)

Interesting point. I think there are other articles which touch on this as well, primarily Palestinian. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Mentioning the caveats is important

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why do you call me an internet crank? Palestine-info 00:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's unwise to attribute estimates to sources unless the primary source has been verified. I have tried to find the estimate that Bard attributes to the UN mediator by examining the copy of the report that Bard cites, on the UN website. It is not there (the mediator was assassinated shortly thereafter and the report may be incomplete for that reason). Another source of the report is the Avalon website and this gives a different number (discussed above in other sections). In view of this I have reattributed the figure to Bard in the text, explaining that his attribution has not been verified.

I note that other citations in the UN section seem to be by third parties. There is no good reason for this. Please verify those citations by tracing to primary source or stop attributing them to UN sources. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What I'm saying, and I want to be absolutely clear about this, is that until we have a primary source for an estimate attributed to the UN, we cannot attribute it to the UN, but we can say that someone else attributes it to the UN.

I have gone directly to the UN documents. I do not find the figure attributed by Bard to the UN report in the UN report. Therefore it cannot be atttributed by us to the UN because we do not know his claim to be factual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

page 47

This link quotes the report:

"As a result of the conflict in Palestine, almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish occupation. Of a population of somewhat more than 400,000 Arabs prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the number presently estimated as remaining in Jewish controlled territory is approximately 50,000." (2)

And (2) is: (Progress Report of the UN Mediator in Palestine) p. 47! Palestine-info 01:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, so the population was just over 400,000? How could there be 720,000 refugees, then? Also, this is just one quote, what does the rest of the page say? And finally, where is Supplement No. 11A (A\689, and A\689\Add.1, p. 5), which Bard also uses as a source? Jayjg | (Talk) 02:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zero says he has obtained the UN mediator's report so perhaps Palestine-Info should wait for that before deleting information that has been properly referenced. SlimVirgin 09:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Report on the UN documents

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)

Zero, thank you for going to the trouble of looking this up. Your information is most helpful, and your time much appreciated. SlimVirgin 10:21, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The numbers 360,000 and 472,000 seem to be numbers of registered refugees requiring relief. Palestine-info 11:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Zero. Bard is a secondary source and here we have the primary source. I broadly agree with your proposed wording, though the relationship between Folke Bernadotte and Bunche should be made explicit. Something like:

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)

Palestine-info, I feel you should leave that paragraph in the UN section, because it's starting to look as though you questioned it to get rid of it, and now it's been confirmed, you're burying it to get rid of it. It's a UN figure, which Zero and Tony have written up, it's been inserted into the right place by Jay, and it's very clear that it's a UN interim figure, so please leave it be. I would like to restore it to the UN section unless you can say why not. SlimVirgin 21:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Abu-Sitta is no nobody. The reason I don't think it should be included is like Gzornenplatz said, "a bit of apples and oranges." The original purpouse of this page was to list known estimates of the *total* refugee flight so that in some other article you can say "between xxx-yyy hundred thousands Palestinians fled (see Estimates of the...)." Now that obviously changed since Jayjg was so insistent in maintaining a number that turned out to be a report on the number of registered refugees in October 1948. But still, you should not mix apples with oranges or someone will mistake an apple for an orange. All the figures collected are meaningless unless they are presented in the proper context. It is not to put them in proper context to present them as if they are figures of the totals of the refugee flight because they are not. And I'm not trying to hide them. If it was not for the huge amount of work I've spent discussing and researching the issue I would gladly delete them just as Zero suggested because they are apples in basket full of oranges. Palestine-info 22:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But the paragraphs are clearly entitled "interim estimate", as opposed to "final estimate" The point is that this is a UN figure and so it should be in the UN section. Did Zero say to delete the figures? I didn't see that. Also, could you expand on who Abu-Sitta is, please? SlimVirgin 22:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, I've lost track of the changes here as I've been distracted elsewhere. Has everyone agreed that the UN progress report should be under "other estimates" with Abu-Sitta? My feeling is it looks silly to lump the United Nations in with someone whose identity is unclear. Palestine-info, it would help a lot if you could provide some information about this person. I've looked him up but the citations are unclear: for example, he's called a scholar but I can't find which university he's associated with; there are 50 papers written by him mentioned, but then no citations, except to a couple of newspaper articles or websites. Any information you have would be appreciated. Also, you talk above about the methodologies used to make the estimates. What methodology does Abu-Sitta use? SlimVirgin 18:24, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Please state why it is important that I write up a biography for Salman Abu-Sitta, or I will continue to refer to the 3750 Google hits the name gives. You might also try to make his red link blue and I might help. The methodology he has used is described in the footnotes. The UN figures mentioned here uses different definitions and that is the primary reason why they differ. See their footnotes for explanations. No, they aren't reliable estimates for the Palestinian refugee flight, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia's mission isn't to establish the "one true POV," it is merely to reflect others POV. UN has one POV, Israel another POV and Palestinian researches a third POV. Then there are some more POV:s. But all POV:s are in a certain way equal (the criterion for this page was "notable"). Therefore, listing all UN estimates in a bunch is trying to push the UN:s pov. However, the figures diverge from each other in one factual and objective way - some tries to estimate the total refugee flight and some only the amount of refugees before the flight was over. As I've mentioned a hundred of times, I don't like the last category because they are the apples in basket full of oranges. Jayjg might think that the title is wrong and should be unwieldedly long for no reason even though "Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948" totally communicates the intention. And that the following has been at the top of the page ever since it was created "No-one knows exactly how many Palestinians became refugees during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." Palestine-info 19:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

PI, please stop reverting this. It makes much more sense to have the UN estimates together, making it clear that the early ones are interim estimates. Also, the onus is on you to show that Abu-Sitta is a credible source, not on me to show that he isn't. I'm not saying he isn't. I'm just saying I don't know, and would appreciate any information you have about him. I'm not asking what a full biography, but, for example, is he based at a university, or if not, is he with any other institution/body? I don't agree that listing the UN figures together is pushing the UN POV. It just happens to be the best-known body and would be regarded by many as very authoritative and perhaps the least likely to have POV (I know that's arguable to say the least, but a common perception is that they are "neutral"). SlimVirgin 20:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

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)

726,000 - an interim or final number?

The article lists the UN estimate of 726,000 as a final number. However, the Committee that estimated it in December, 1949 (The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine) came out with a revised number in October, 1950. Should only this final figure be counted as a "final" estimate, and the other as an "interim"? Jayjg | (Talk) 20:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[4] Therefore, they were not interim. They may have been based on incorrect data, but that is not the same thing as interim. In fact, the reason why Abu-Sitta and other researchers estimates diverge from the UN numbers is because they are based on more complete data than the UN numbers. Palestine-info 18:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What data does Abu-Sitta base his estimates on? SlimVirgin 18:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

See this. Palestine-info 18:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The numbers were obviously interim, because the final numbers differed. All numbers were estimates, and the Commitee issued it's final estimate in October, 1950. And your argument certainly doesn't hold for the number of refugees, as the UNRWA was still in a process of trying to weed out all the falsified and duplicated registrants when it issued its initial numbers. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, the estimates concern the number of registered Palestinian refugees. What that means is that at certain dates, UNRWA counted how many Palestinians that had registered refugee status. Those numbers are different from the 726,000 number which is an estimate of how many refugees fled from Israel. The Committee did not "revise" this number but instead choose to pick a more conservative number for some reason or the other not explained in the source. 726,000 has however, been referenced by many other UN documents as their choosen estimate. Palestine-info 18:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As the document itself makes clear:

The estimate of the statistical expert, which the Committee believes to be as accurate as circumstances permit, indicates that the refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000. The fact that there is a higher number of relief recipients appears to be due among other things to duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute.

That's the Committee's final estimate of the number of total refugees, not "registered" refugees (i.e. "relief recipients"). The fact that other U.N. documents use the interim, and less accurate number, indicates either shoddy work or politicking, but is not relevant to the Committee's final estimate. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was not the estimate my mention of registered Palestinian refugees referred to. Do you understand that the following numbers are not estimates, 957,000, 914,000 or not? Palestine-info 19:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those are interim numbers, not estimates. Well, the 914,000 isn't anything, really, it has no real source at all, but the 957,000 is an interim number; the final number was 876,000, after they weeded out all the fraud they could. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The numbers represent the number of registered Palestinian refugees at certain points in time. Your selection of 876,000 is entierly arbitrary. Palestine-info 11:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The UNRWA agency weeded out all the fraud they could, and issued a report stating that the number was 876,000. That's not arbitrary. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the numbers mean. We know that 1. In 1950 there were 957,000 Palestinians under relief rolls (assumedly, many of them duplicates). 2. In 1951 there were 875,998 Palestinians under relief rolls. One reason that the latter number was lower was duplicate registrations, another that some of them became self-sufficient. Because when they were self-sufficient they weren't entitled to UNRWA relief. Furthermore, there is nothing "interim" with the number decreasing just as there is nothing "interim" with that the number rose later. Palestine-info 20:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between interim and final is somewhat blurred, especially if one wants to take figures dating from 1950 and beyond. The refugees who left in 1948-9 were dying and/or having children like a normal population. Most children (but not all) were included in the counts of registered refugees. Since there were more children than deaths, the numbers kept increasing and are still increasing today. Unless you want to include numbers up to the present, you should cut it off at about the dates of the armistice agreements. Another problem with the article is the use of the word "registered". At the time of the Mediators' reports I don't think it was a particularly formal concept. References to refugees who "registered" probably just meant that they fronted up to the disaster relief officials and identified themselves as refugees. Later on when UNRWA got organized there was a formal definition of refugee and systematic listing of names was done. --Zero 11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you don't take numbers from 1950 or beyond, then all the UNWRA numbers would have to go. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it was up to me, only numbers which has been used to refer to the total number of refugees should be included. Unfortunately, that means that numbers such as 957,000 and 472,000 should be included since they have been used for that purpouse. I don't get the logic behind in including numbers from before the armistice, but excluding numbers from shortly after it. Also remember that Israel expelled quite a few Palestinians after the armistice and their numbers are usually counted as refugees of the original diaspora. Palestine-info 12:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No numbers from after the armistice are excluded; that is why the UNWRA numbers are there, even though they date from a year and more afterwards. And along with the Palestinians who ere "expelled" after the armistice, 30,000-90,000 re-entered. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the number has not been used as a "Estimate of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948" it should not be included. Palestine-info 20:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So you think all UNWRA numbers should go? Or is it the title of the article (which has already been questioned) which is the problem? Jayjg ^(TALK)]] 20:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, except those that has been used as a "Estimate of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948." 957,000 has been used in that way. Palestine-info 20:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see why you want to delete the other estimates. But why do you say that? Jayjg ^(TALK) 20:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean. Palestine-info 20:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand why you want to keep only the 957,000 and get rid of the final and more accurate number, which is significantly lower. But why do you say that the 957,000 number has been used as an estimate of the refugee flight? Jayjg ^(TALK)20:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See [5] - and there's more sites that mention that number than that one. The rationale is, as you should know , that Wikipedia's mission is not to establish what is the truth. Only to present what others say is the truth. Yes, it means including faulty information such as the 472,000 figure, but it is better than trying to argue what the truth is. Palestine-info 21:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So is it your position, then, that as long as a website (any website) misrepresents the UNWRA number of registered refugees as an estimate of the total Arabs who left Palestine, then we should keep the number, but if other UNWRA numbers are not misrepresented this way, then they should not be kept? Jayjg ^(TALK) 21:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The website has to qualify by some criterion of "notability." Otherwise yes. The caveats can be explained by attaching footnotes like it is now done with the 957,000 number or how it was done with the 472,000 number. Numbers that has not used as a "Estimate of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948." should be exluded. Palestine-info 21:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, you're so eager to put in the highest possible number, and suppress the actual final number, which is 100,000 lower, that you will insist on using an anonymous secondary source which misquotes the primary source, rather than the primary source itself? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are misquoting me. I said that we should use those numbers others use. ... to present what others say is the truth. Yes, it means including faulty information such as the 472,000 figure, but it is better than trying to argue what the truth is. Numbers that has been used as an "Estimate of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948." Palestine-info 22:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well, the UNRWA says 876,000 is the truth; that was their final estimate, not mine. And there is no Wikipedia policy that requires editors to include secondary sources that are contradicted by the primary sources they refer to; on the contrary, doing so would be a grave misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. In any event, once the VfD on this is over, we'll clean all the nonsense in here out, and put the valid information (which is basically the U.N. estimates) back in the article in which it belongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, the UNRWA hasn't choosen any "final" number. Look at UNRWA:s own site and you will see 914,000 mentioned. That you choose to interpret that as their final number is your opinion, but not the UNRWA:s. Secondly, the policy I talked about is WP:NPOV, "The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly." The question asked is "How many Palestinians fled Israel in the Palestine war?" The question has two dozen answers, that is those answers and who is answering them that this page is all about. Fourth, I don't think you understand what the UNRWA numbers mean. We know that 1. In 1950 there were 957,000 Palestinians under relief rolls (assumedly, many of them duplicates). 2. In 1951 there were 875,998 Palestinians under relief rolls. One reason that the latter number was lower was duplicate registrations, another that some of them became self-sufficient. Because when they were self-sufficient they weren't entitled to UNRWA relief. Furthermore, there is nothing "interim" with the number decreasing just as there is nothing "interim" with that the number rose later. Fifth, I agree that the crap should go. Palestine-info 23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The UNRWA issued a final, official number to the U.N. in 1951; what the webmaster of that particular site has to say is not particularly relevant to that. The UNRWA's view was that the actual number was 876,000. As for why the interim number was higher, the UNWRA explained that too: "all births are eagerly announced, the deaths wherever possible are passed over in silence, and as the birthrate is high in any case, a net addition of 30,000 names a year". As well, as the Conciliation Commission explained, there was "duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute." And NPOV does not demand that we quote every single view one finds on the web, as the policy itself states that Wikipedia includes "all different significant theories on all different topics." What some editorial writer happens to make up when writing an editorial in al-Ahram weekly is not particularly significant. Nor are the views of a propagandist like Abu-Sitta. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing final with the number 875,998 (which is their number, it is a count not an estimate). It is just the number of registered Palestinian refugees in 1951 detailed in the 1951 issue of Report of the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. What you mean when you write "The UNRWA's view was that the actual number was 876,000" is beyond me. I have never stated that we should quote every single view one finds on the web. What I said was that "The website has to qualify by some criterion of 'notability.'" I don't know how to solve this because obviously you are not listening and probably not even reading what it is that I'm writing. Why do you think that the number in the 1951 issue of the director's report is more final than the numbers mentioned in 1952, 53, 54.. 1998? Palestine-info 00:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I carefully read your edits, and listen carefully to what you say. However, I generally don't agree with your remarks, since your reasoning is almost always tainted by a desire to be an advocate for the Palestinians, rather than a NPOV encyclopedia editor. As for why it is a final number, the report itself made that clear. "A further difficulty is that, whereas all births are eagerly announced, the deaths wherever possible are passed over in silence, and as the birthrate is high in any case, a net addition of 30,000 names a year is made to the relief rolls. In spite of this, a considerable reduction has been achieved and many false and duplicate registrations weeded out. By June 1951, there were 876,000 persons registered on UNWRAPRNE relief rolls compared with 957,000 when the Agency took over." Get it? When the Agency took over, there were 957,000 people on the rolls, and when they weeded out as much of the fraud as they could, they were left with 876,000. That's the number they issued. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand you. But do you understand that the numbers 957,000 and 875,998 refers to two different things? You seem to think that the numbers are measurements done at two different times measuring of the same thing. Not so, they are counts of the registered refugee population. One of the reason that the number varies is, as you say, fraud, other reasons include employment (you don't get aid if you are self-sufficient), unemployment (you get aid if you are unemployed), population growth etc. It seems to me that you think they did one study and their first guess was 957,000 and then they found the more accurate number 876,000. Palestine-info 00:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Once they weeded out the fraud, the number was lower. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good additions Zero

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)

2 final UN numbers

It's not really clear to me what the difference is between the two "final" UN numbers, 711,000 and 876,000. Which one is the final UN count? --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 23:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

They're both final counts, but they're counting different things. The Conciliation Commission attempted to count the number of refugees who actually left Palestine; their final number was 711,000. The UNRWA attempted to estimate the total number of people it had registered as refugees. The final number they came to was 876,000, in June 1951. Why the discrepancy? Many people registered as refugees who did not actually leave Palestine, but happened to be destitute and wanted assistance anyway. As well, at least 30,000 more people were born each year than died, and they were all added to the count. Finally, there was a fair bit of fraud, as people registered false names, or failed to register deaths, so they could get as much aid as possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no final UN count. The working definition used by the UNRWA is: "a person normally resident in Palestine who has lost his home and his livelihood as a result of the hostilities, and who is in need." That includes the offspring of the refugees too. The discrepancy is because the first number 726,000 (which Jayjg thinks is "interim") is "calculated." First by estimating how many Palestinians there were before Israel occupied Palestine and deducting those that remained. That number is heavily dependant on what birthrate one chooses and upon the village survey the British undertook in 44/45, but it is doubtful that that survey was very accurate. And it doesn't take into account internal refugees (people who lost their homes but remained inside Israel's borders), or border-line refugees (people who lost their livelihood but not their home). And then there is the bedouins that wandered around in the desert in Egypt, Palestine and Jordan, they had no home, did they become refugees? Basically, it is nigh impossible to make an accurate estimate and I guess that is why there are so many of them. Palestine-info 02:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Conciliation Commission did calculate a final number, 711,000. You'll find the link to the report on the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing final about that number. The General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950 does not comment on the number estimated by the Final Report of the United Nations Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East. It is just at that time they thought 711,000 was the best estimate or something. Also see the following document named Historical Survey of Efforts of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to Secure the Implementation of Paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194 (III): Open hostilities came to a formal end when armistice agreements were signed in 1949. By that time, the number of Arab refugees amounted to between 800,000 and 900,000. [6] dated October 2, 1961. Do we have a new final estimate Jayjg? Palestine-info 03:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was the final report of the Economic Survey Mission, but not the final estimate of the Conciliation Commission, which was made in the referenced report. And, as we know, the number of people who registered as refugees was far higher than the number who fled. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing final about that number. Palestine-info 17:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There absolutely is; it specifically revises downwards previous estimates. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prove it. Palestine-info 17:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It specifically states the previous numbers were inflated. Oh, and I've fixed the "apples vs. oranges" problems for you. By the way, please stop deleting well cited information. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are supposed to prove that 711,000 is a "final" estimate and 726,000 is an "interim" estimate. "It" (the document in which the number 711,000 appears) do not state that the previous numbers were inflated. I have not deleted well cited information. Palestine-info 17:35, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"The estimate of the statistical expert, which the Committee believes to be as accurate as circumstances permit, indicates that the refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000. The fact that there is a higher number of relief recipients appears to be due among other things to duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute." [7] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly what the document says. But as I have pointed out, nowhere does it say that their estimate (711,000) is "final" or that the Economic Survey Missions number (726,000) is "interim." Palestine-info 18:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If a Commission takes a number and revises it downward, then obviously the previous number is "interim". And 711,000 was the last estimate the Commission submitted to the U.N., so clearly it was its final estimate. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A. The page states "According to the Final Report of the United Nations Economic Survey Mission .." You are mistaken about who is actually doing the number reporting. B. A later estimate used by the same Commission is 800,000 - 900,000, by your logic then, the commission must have revised their number upwards. C. You have not proven any finality about any of the estimates. D. It is clearly understood that interim refers to figures that refers to estimates that does not take the total number of refugees in account. Those numbers you claim to be interim, clearly, are not interim. E. Your reply to [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Palestine-info_vs._User:Jayjg this] is needed. Palestine-info 16:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A. That is the Final Report of the Survey Mission, but it is not the Final Estimate submitted by Commission. B. The Commission's final estimate was submitted by their statistical expert, and described as as good as possible; the later guesses were not done with any sort of methodology, nor were they submitted as official estimates. In any event, they were estimates of the number of refugees, not an estimate of the number who fled Israel. As the article makes clear, these are very different numbers. C. The documents themselves indicate their finality. D. Your point is unclear. E. I didn't realize one was required, but I will certainly do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I have now said everything that could be said about this issue. I will refrain from discussing it until someone who listens to arguments comes around. Regarding my "blind reverts", it is not my fault that you first reverts and then inserts lots of inconsequential minor edits just to make it harder to revert your POV. If you want to avoid double-work, I suggest that you stop doing that until this dispute is solved. Palestine-info 17:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have recently blind reverted a number of articles without even looking at the contents; this is one more example. The changes I have made are neither inconsequential nor minor. I strongly recommend you engage in article improvement, rather than simple edit warring and POV promotion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not my job to pick up the pieces. I don't know if it is a tactic you are using or what. But if you want to retain your changes that aren't related to the dispute, the way to do it (so that I wont have to work double) is to first commit the unrelated changes and then revert. You have done the exact opposite, first revert then lots of minor changes, which makes it very troublesome for me to do a clean revert. Palestine-info 10:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is your duty to edit in good faith, and not blindly revert. You clearly have not done so. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have expended a great wealth of good faith upon you, but my resources are getting dry. Palestine-info 18:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Palestine-info, would you consider taking a break from this article for a few days? I understand mediation has been requested, so it would make sense to wait for that. You're deleting large amounts of valuable information and analysis. There is clearly a difference between the figures for those who fled, and those who registered as refugees, and it's valuable to explain that to people, regardless of POV. Perhaps if you feel the explanation is not right or complete, you could find other authoritative sources to add another dimension to the analysis, rather than deleting what Jay has written. But I think a couple of days off would do a lot of good too. SlimVirgin 18:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg's "analysis" is incorrect. There is clearly a difference between: how many refugees statisticans using the village statistics calculated that there should have been, how many refugees there were and how many refugees were on relief rolls. Currently, the article is pure rubbish, and it angers me because I've spent a considerable time and effort researching and debating it only to have it ruined. Palestine-info 19:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've articulated the differences between the actual numbers who fled, and the number who were on the refugee rolls, as explained by the U.N. itself. What is your original research compared to that? Most of what you've managed to add to the article consists of random claims regarding refugee numbers from whatever website you managed to scrounge up on the Internet. Recently you've been making claims you refuse to back up regarding the "researcher" you like best; also the one who (surprise surprise) has the absolute highest estimate of the flight. I, on the other hand, have focussed on the U.N. numbers, which happen to be in the middle to high end of the range of estimates. And I'm not angry, but rather disappointed, because I have yet to see an edit of yours (on this or any other article) that wasn't for the purpose of promoting your agenda, which (primarily) is the Palestinian cause. This should be about building an accurate and factual encyclopedia, not partisan advocacy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eytan vs Ghoury

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. Zero^talk 23:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Zero^talk 00:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This shows a double standard and will be reinserted. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit violating copyvio and WP:RS

@Point by point: 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)[reply]

I have reverted a POV pushing deletion by Palestine-info, but I did not know that the text was a plagiarism. [8].

--Point by point (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List Status

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)[reply]

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]