The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles 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.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
Gilabrand. What are you doing passing off as a ce or elimination of repetitive matter what is a careful elision of important material? Since, as one can document, a consistent measure of repressing memory of the Ma'abarot realities was practiced in Israel for decades, editing out stuff that represses details like those below look like attempts to elide uncomfortable matter, on the pretext of simply doing editorial drudgery.
here you remove
When immigration from Poland became feasible in 1949, Polish Jews were given precedence, and plans were made to allocate rooms for them in hotels or in apartments that had been designated for Oriental Jews. By January 1953, most European Jewish families had been housed outside of the transit camps, 90% of whose population then consisted of Jews from Oriental communities.[1]
That is a very concrete instance of the discrimination in favour of Ashkenazis over Sephardis which lies at the heart of a considerable amount of scholarship on the period, connected to this topic, much of which editors have so far ignored.
And again, in copyediting
Conditions in the camps were, according to the contemporary witness of Eliyahu Dobkin in 1949, a “holy horror.” David Ben-Gurion opposed for economic reasons pressures to improve the ma'abarot, stating that this would be tantamount to pampering tent-dwellers affirming that 'People can live for years in tents. Anyone who doesn’t want to live in them needn’t bother coming here.
You pare it down to
When Eliyahu Dobkin protested these conditions, David Ben-Gurion replied that 'People can live for years in tents. Anyone who doesn’t want to live in them needn’t bother coming here
This is flawed on several accounts. Grammatically the source does not state, as your version implies, that Ben-Gurion was reacting to Eliyahu Dobkin's remark. It omits that B-G's objection was to wasting public monies on improving conditions for people in tents, and his belief that tent-dwellers were being 'spoiled'(source) as it was, and improvements would only 'pamper' them. If you can't retain the substance of RS in your 'copy-editing' you shouldn't call it a ce. The more appropriate terms for what you did are censorship, toning down, elision of material out of distaste for the facts, etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sourced information that you think belongs, then put it where it belongs and state the facts in proper English with proper sourcing (not op-eds). There is no excuse for large chunks of POV content stuck here and there and everywhere in this pitiful text trying to prove some point which has nothing to do with purpose of the article, which is to explain what a ma'abara is. You and the other editors apparently have no clue. That is obvious from your mishmash of facts and images.Geewhiz (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the Dobkin quote comes from nowhere, so you can delete it altogether.
Nonsense. In your haste to play down the content, you ignored that I had sourced information coming from a research fellow at the Hebrew University’s Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace, who knows more on the subject than you or I since she did groundwork on the topic. It belonged to the article, and I placed it where it was appropriate. The Dobkin quote is in that source, not from 'nowhere'. All research can be 'spun' as trying to 'prove a point'. Do a PhD. That is one of the first questions made by any reviewing professoriate -all research if it is to be noteworthy must show originality by proving a point. Your notion of facts is obscure, since everything you elided is part of the factual record.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with Gilabrand. You took an opinion piece by someone who is not a historian and sprinkled it across the article in the encyclopedia's neutral voice in order to prove a point that has nothing to do with this article, thus violating both NPOV and DUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Katz and Rossetto
The two sources and footnote quotes below were removed from the article earlier today without explanation.
Katz, Irit (2016). "Camp evolution and Israel's creation: between 'state of emergency' and 'emergence of state'". Political Geography. 55: 146-147. These camps did not merely appear due to a state of emergency of the increasing stream of immigrants; instead, they were a product of an existing detailed plan, the One Million Plan, consolidated between 1942 and 1945 in order to absorb one million Jewish immigrants a few years before Israel's establishment… Camps were an integral part of the One Million Plan… However, three years after its completion, the One Million Plan approached realisation following the Israeli declaration of independence in May 1948 and the decision to open the state's gates to Jewish immigration. As planned and anticipated, the camp had gradually become a central instrument in the absorption process. Several small immigrant camps operated before statehood in the centre of the country, and in accordance with the One Million Plan, about 30 additional camps opened in former British military facilities.
Rossetto, Piera (November 2012). "Space of Transit, Place of Memory: Ma'abarah and Literary Landscapes of Arab Jews; in Memory and Forgetting among Jews from the Arab-Muslim Countries. Contested Narratives of a Shared Past". Quest. Issues in Contemporary Jewish History. Journal of Fondazione CDEC. 4: Note 6. It could be argued that the State of Israel, before and immediately after its declaration, was going through such hardships that there were no many other options to "absorb" so many thousands of immigrants arriving to the Country than by placing them in these precarious hosting facilities. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that the most controversial issue in this respect is not the outcome (e.g. the ma'abarot) of the choice, rather the choice in itself to bring to Israel so many thousands of immigrants, following the idea of the "One Million Plan" unveiled by Ben Gurion in 1944.{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Does anyone object to them being reintroduced to the article?
The two sources were elided because you used them to back a perfectly legitimate point in the lead, which however,-NMMGG is correct on this- has a summary function. The sentence the two quotes support should be returned to the lead, and the quotes then reintroduced in the main text, something complaining editors should have done.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed an obvious POV push from the lead which honestly I doubt you thought would stand. I also removed the sources that went with it.
As to the sources, Rosetto is talking about "the idea of the 'One Million Plan'" ie bringing in a very large number of immigrants in a short period, not about the plan itself. So it doesn't really support what you used it for.
I think you may not have noticed Katz's specialty is architecture. Previously, you quite strongly objected to using non-historians as sourcing for history. Would you like some quotes? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, I am fine to use the phrase “following the idea of the One Million Plan” per Rossetto.
To your second point, Political Geography (journal) is one of the most well respected and high profile journals in this space. The second sentence of the abstract notes that the paper is intended to deconstruct “official Israeli history, which presents the immigrant camps as an inevitable improvised response to the unexpected problem of mass immigration”. We are quoting the central thrust of her work in a very high profile journal focused exclusively on political geography. I can’t think of any higher quality source. If you still take a different view, please raise at WP:RSN.
Finally, you cast aspersions about POV. Please explain what you mean.
So just to be clear, if an academic (of whatever discipline) is published by a high quality press/journal that's considered high quality RS? Because you strongly disagreed when I said that in the past with sources you didn't like.
You may have also noticed Katz is making claims here that historians specializing in the OMP don't make. You objected to the use of sources in similar situations in the past as well. I wouldn't want to think you change your criteria for inclusion of sources based on whether or not they support your POV, so if you could clear this up that would be great. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to a work on architecture not being appropriate for history, by coincidence, since my father was an architect, I grew up reading Banister Fletcher's classic History of Architecture, which taught generations to read the historicity of a built landscape. You might not need an historian of architecture to tell you how batei olim and ma'abarot, differ, but if such a source deals with these historical distinctions, it is more than acceptable. The objection is spurious, esp. since Gilabrand introduced an excellent source by the TAU lecturer on architecture, Roy Kozlovsky, and no one thought up this kind of objection there.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Cite error: The named reference Gavriely-Nuri was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
