Talk:Qula

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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.  T i a m u t talk 09:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Your analysis is not admissible here. Please read WP:OR.  Zerotalk 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)