Bjourne, If the number is sourced with all the caveats explained, I don't understand the problem including it. Also, "I wrote him and he didn't answer" is not a proof that the citation is false.
MPerel said:
Bjourne, If the number is sourced with all the caveats explained, I don't understand the problem including it. Also, "I wrote him and he didn't answer" is not a proof that the citation is false.
The fact that is most relevant is that attempts to verify this secondary source against the primary source (from the copy on the UN site) have not proven successful because the UN site is missing the relevant section. Avalon has a purported quote from Part three of the UN mediator's report, but really we should be talking to the UN, not third parties. And soon. Before the people who remember that period die.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:06:19 -0800, MPerel mperel@gmail.com wrote:
Bjourne, If the number is sourced with all the caveats explained, I don't understand the problem including it.
Me neither! That is why I tried to explain all the caveats with a footnote as I described in my earlier posting to this mailing-list:
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 (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa?OpenDocu...). 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.
But this footnote which explains all the caveats wasn't acceptable to Jayjg and Viriditas who reverted it.
Also, "I wrote him and he didn't answer" is not a proof that the citation is false.
He answered, but he did not answer my question. Doesn't that smell fishy? :)
From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com
Also, "I wrote him and he didn't answer" is not a proof that the citation is false.
He answered, but he did not answer my question. Doesn't that smell fishy? :)
He directed you to his citation. You then sent him a number of e-mails which, in a not so veiled way, called his veracity into question. It "smells" to me like he doesn't care what anonymous internet e-mailers (who effectively call him a liar) think.
Jay.