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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Ali Hassan Salameh
It says here that he lived from 1943 to 1979. In the main article however, it says that he was born in 1940. Which is true? --
Ynhockey(
Talk) 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Citation removed because of contradictions in it
That citation about the seven people killed is full of contradictions. For example it says that "Villagers discovered their dead when they returned to Qula in search of their belongings, accompanied by a Jordanian officer, the day after the Israeli army's final take-over". It can not be true that they came back from Jordan to Israel with or without a Jordanian officer since Israel controlled that land and there's no way Israel let them or a Jordanian officer enter its land. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Someone35 (
talk •
contribs) 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Your unsourced assertions on what can or cannot be true do not trump a reliable source, which directly contradicts your claim. I am reinserting the source. If you question its reliability you can raise the issue at the
reliable sources noticeboard. nableezy - 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
"assertions"? that text says that a day after Israel captured that village a Jordanian officer came there with the people who fled from there... Please explain how can it be that after the final Israeli takeover on Qula a Jordanian officer and the people who fled from there came back when the village was under Israeli control?--Someone35(talk) 06:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
How do you know that this didn't happen? Do you have an RS that says otherwise? Besides which, what does this information have to do with the information the source is being cited for regarding those killed? Precisely nothing I think. I have restored the information.
Tiamuttalk 09:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
An article by a UCLA professor in a book published by Columbia University Press? You need a better argument to exclude that. Your personal analysis is not relevant here, but anyway your logic is broken. It says that Israel captured the village, not that Israel captured the village and remained there. There were too many villages to leave a garrison in every place that was taken. In any case, all we report is what the villagers claim; we don't say they are correct. This is a notable claim reported by a reliable source, so we mention it.
Zerotalk 09:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Tiamut, how exactly did someone from Jordan (which was at war against Israel)+the people who fled from Qula (I thought the Palestinian refugees weren't allowed to come back?) came back after Israel completely took over that village? In the 1948 war Israel kept fighting in all fronts (as a proof see the difference between Qula and the 1949 borders, Israel captured more land to the east which means it kept fighting in that area after the village was captured). Also, if they managed to get there why didn't they stay there? And Zero, it's not my personal analysis or my "broken logic", there ARE contradictions in that book and it is extremely biased against Israel.--Someone35(talk) 13:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Your analysis is not admissible here. Please read
WP:OR.
Zerotalk 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
On one hand a reliable source specifically says what the article says. On the other a random person on the internet says "NO, the source is wrong". One of those things matters here. It isnt the person on the internet. nableezy - 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It is not my analysis. Read what is said. It is not reliable. It contradicts itself. It is biased. How could the villagers know that if they fled before it happened? They could NOT come back to Israel the day after the village was captured (especially with a Jordanian officer) since the IDF kept fighting in that area (the village is about 5-10 km from the final 1949 borders and the IDF couldn't capture that much land in one day). If they did manage to come back why didn't they stay there (if they cared that much about their land) or stayed in nearby towns? I guess you can't explain this, can you? A source that contradicts itself is not a reliable source, no matter who wrote it--Someone35(talk) 19:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The source does not contradict itself, you are making up contradictions based on what you think must be true. Bring a source that disputes this, you cant just say this one is wrong. nableezy - 19:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There are many known examples of people returning, usually temporarily, to their villages after the villages were captured by Jewish forces. For example in Morris, Birth..Revisited there are examples on pages 77, 95, 120, 129, 168 (that's as far as I looked).
Zerotalk 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Someone35's assertion of a contradiction is plausible, but it's nevertheless nothing more than his own speculation; it doesn't even rise to the level of WP:OR. If he can find a WP:RS that also makes that same speculation of a contradiction, that source could then be used here. In the absence of such a source, I'm reverting his deletion of the sourced content. – OhioStandard (
talk) 05:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)reply
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Ali Hassan Salameh
It says here that he lived from 1943 to 1979. In the main article however, it says that he was born in 1940. Which is true? --
Ynhockey(
Talk) 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Citation removed because of contradictions in it
That citation about the seven people killed is full of contradictions. For example it says that "Villagers discovered their dead when they returned to Qula in search of their belongings, accompanied by a Jordanian officer, the day after the Israeli army's final take-over". It can not be true that they came back from Jordan to Israel with or without a Jordanian officer since Israel controlled that land and there's no way Israel let them or a Jordanian officer enter its land. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Someone35 (
talk •
contribs) 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Your unsourced assertions on what can or cannot be true do not trump a reliable source, which directly contradicts your claim. I am reinserting the source. If you question its reliability you can raise the issue at the
reliable sources noticeboard. nableezy - 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
"assertions"? that text says that a day after Israel captured that village a Jordanian officer came there with the people who fled from there... Please explain how can it be that after the final Israeli takeover on Qula a Jordanian officer and the people who fled from there came back when the village was under Israeli control?--Someone35(talk) 06:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
How do you know that this didn't happen? Do you have an RS that says otherwise? Besides which, what does this information have to do with the information the source is being cited for regarding those killed? Precisely nothing I think. I have restored the information.
Tiamuttalk 09:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
An article by a UCLA professor in a book published by Columbia University Press? You need a better argument to exclude that. Your personal analysis is not relevant here, but anyway your logic is broken. It says that Israel captured the village, not that Israel captured the village and remained there. There were too many villages to leave a garrison in every place that was taken. In any case, all we report is what the villagers claim; we don't say they are correct. This is a notable claim reported by a reliable source, so we mention it.
Zerotalk 09:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Tiamut, how exactly did someone from Jordan (which was at war against Israel)+the people who fled from Qula (I thought the Palestinian refugees weren't allowed to come back?) came back after Israel completely took over that village? In the 1948 war Israel kept fighting in all fronts (as a proof see the difference between Qula and the 1949 borders, Israel captured more land to the east which means it kept fighting in that area after the village was captured). Also, if they managed to get there why didn't they stay there? And Zero, it's not my personal analysis or my "broken logic", there ARE contradictions in that book and it is extremely biased against Israel.--Someone35(talk) 13:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Your analysis is not admissible here. Please read
WP:OR.
Zerotalk 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
On one hand a reliable source specifically says what the article says. On the other a random person on the internet says "NO, the source is wrong". One of those things matters here. It isnt the person on the internet. nableezy - 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It is not my analysis. Read what is said. It is not reliable. It contradicts itself. It is biased. How could the villagers know that if they fled before it happened? They could NOT come back to Israel the day after the village was captured (especially with a Jordanian officer) since the IDF kept fighting in that area (the village is about 5-10 km from the final 1949 borders and the IDF couldn't capture that much land in one day). If they did manage to come back why didn't they stay there (if they cared that much about their land) or stayed in nearby towns? I guess you can't explain this, can you? A source that contradicts itself is not a reliable source, no matter who wrote it--Someone35(talk) 19:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The source does not contradict itself, you are making up contradictions based on what you think must be true. Bring a source that disputes this, you cant just say this one is wrong. nableezy - 19:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There are many known examples of people returning, usually temporarily, to their villages after the villages were captured by Jewish forces. For example in Morris, Birth..Revisited there are examples on pages 77, 95, 120, 129, 168 (that's as far as I looked).
Zerotalk 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Someone35's assertion of a contradiction is plausible, but it's nevertheless nothing more than his own speculation; it doesn't even rise to the level of WP:OR. If he can find a WP:RS that also makes that same speculation of a contradiction, that source could then be used here. In the absence of such a source, I'm reverting his deletion of the sourced content. – OhioStandard (
talk) 05:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)reply