Zero has found the document and has posted a very helpful analysis at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_flig…
In summary, the 472,000 figure was indeed in the document, but Zero
feels Bard may not have interpreted it accurately.
I agree that citing the original document is better than citing a
secondary source, though others might argue that makes it hard for the
reader and other editors to check that Wikipedia is quoting
accurately.
Slim
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:47:34 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
Absolutely. But we should not ignore clear instances
where an attempt to
verify a citation to primary material fails. Scholars do make errors,
indulge in interpretation, and so on, and we should allow for this. The
safest way to cite secondary sources is cite the secondary source (Bard,
in this case) as *our* source for a quote (the scholar himself) and note
*his* claimed source. If the primary material becomes available it may
still be a good idea to list the secondary source, but it is no longer of
great importance.