Talk:One Million Plan

DYK - postscript

At User_talk:No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy#One_Million_Plan, User:Edwardx wrote "[I] was not happy with what went through at that time", and User:No More Mr Nice Guy wrote: "That hook was completely incorrect as well".

For the record, please explain here what was wrong with the hook. I find NMMNG's claim ridiculous in light of the detailed quotes in the refs to this article, which support the hook almost verbatim:

• 1. Ehrlich, Mark Avrum (2009), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture 1, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 9781851098736, "A Zionist plan. designed in 1943–1944, to bring 1 million Jews from Europe and the Middle East to Palestine as a means and a stage to establish a state. It was the first time the Jews of Islamic countries were explicitly included in a Zionist plan."
• 2. Meir-Glitzenstein 2004, p. 44 #1: "After it was presented to the Jewish Agency Executive, the One Million Plan became the official policy of the Zionist leadership. The immigration of the Jews of Islamic countries was explicit or implicit in all the declarations, testimonies, memoranda and demands issued by the Jewish Agency from World War ll until the establishment of the state."
• 4. Eyal 2006, p. 86: "The principal significance of this plan lies in the fact, noted by Yehuda Shenhav, that this was the first time in Zionist history that Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries were all packaged together in one category as the target of an immigration plan. There were earlier plans to bring specific groups, such as the Yemenites, but the "one million plan" was, as Shenhav says, "the zero point," the moment when the category of mizrahi jews in the current sense of this term, as an ethnic group distinct from European-born jews, was invented."

I also find NMMNG's claim in the same thread that "...[I] got everything from one (activist) source" to be absurd. The article I wrote and submitted (timestamped version here [1]) had verbatim quotes in the refs from maybe 10 different sources.

NMMNG, please don't throw around slander so lightly next time. A lot of work went into making this article as high quality as possible, and your own work in recent weeks has clearly benefitted from the thorough sourcing that I provided throughout.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your hook was incorrect. You said that "the first time Jewish immigration from Arab and Muslim countries became official policy of the Zionist leadership". That's false. The sources say (except for Ehrlich) this is the first time Jews from North Africa and the Middle East were considered one group. The point is that this is when the Zionist leadership started to related to these groups as "Mizrahim" rather than Jews from particular countries.

And yes, I seriously doubt you read all the sources you used here. I suspect you were working off someone's footnotes, probably Shenhav. I'm fairly certain you haven't read the seminal book on the topic, Hacohen 1994. Have you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Except for Ehrlich" is a big caveat! So it was sourced after all, to a high quality WP:RS no less.

So you think I quoted 10 separate sources from Shenhav's footnotes? Frankly that is impossible as those quotes are not in

When using HaCohen I tried to use her English language works, since this is English language wikipedia.

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You created this article. Where did the Hacohen 1994 ref in the first version come from, complete with a quote? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The translation into English was provided by Meir-Glitzenstein. I have added this into the ref.

So, do you still believe that "...[I] got everything from one (activist) source"? You don't strike me as someone who likes admitting mistakes.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for complying with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. And to answer your question, yes I do. Now to Erlich. First of all I commend you on now saying that a general, non-specific, not detailed source is better than specific ones in a complete reversal of what you're arguing on another page. Second, 2 of your own 3 sources so not support the language you used for the hook. Third, we know of Zionist activities in specific Islamic countries prior to this plan, see the first paragraph of page 36 in Meir-Glitzenstein 2004 for some examples. I think Erlich probably is just worded badly and missing an "all" before "the Jews". And lastly, the fact this was the first time the Jews of MENA were considered part of one group on par (on paper at least) with European Jews is considered a very big deal and noted in many sources. I'll get to adding this hopefully sometime in the near future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any sources which contradict Ehrlich directly, so this is not a corollary of our other discussion. Having said which, I stand by the principle that I mentioned in the other discussion, so if you can disprove Ehrlich with other better sources (as opposed to your own suppositions), I will happily admit wrong. I look forward to your proposal in due course.

PS - to your "yes I do", I am going to choose to read that as meaning "yes, I now admit my own mistake". Any other reading makes no logical sense. And I accept your apology.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I just provided you a source that shows that Ehrlich is mistaken (or more likely, worded badly). As for the rest - whatever floats your boat. You're the one who seems interested in pursuing every imagined slight (or "slander"), so I suppose you can also imagine an apology. Enjoy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

NMMNG, thanks for your recent edits, a good number of which were reasonable. I have gone through and identified the ones I disagree with - hence my recent edit. Let's focus on any remaining points of difference, and then we can transfer the revised context into the Jewish Exodus article where required. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have changed some stuff I disagree with. Particularly, that the 18 months were "initial". Please provide sources for that. And that the immigration table belongs here. Please provide sources linking the two. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This is good progress. I have created sections for each of our disagreements below. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Plan: the source says nothing about "selling" a "uniform" anything

See Meir-Glitzenstein p.45: "The idea was to standardize the activity of the various pioneering movements in Islamic countries by demarcating the subject matter that they would teach, and especially by eliminating the unique subject matter". It is common sense editing judgement to explain that this "standardizing" is why the plan had the word "uniform" in its names. Since the above quote proves the point, please either add back my edit or add your own version. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose text that uses "standardize the activity" rather than "selling" some "uniform form" of something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

the source does not say this is a breakdown of the "one million". just that this is a list of where jewish communities were

This quote comes from Meir-Glitzenstein, in her sub-chapter entitled "The One Million Plan". She describes B-G's quote as referring to "the share of Jews from Islamic countries in the plan". The context of this paragraph is clear that by "the plan" she means "the One Million Plan". Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that reading is correct. She says he made a list of Jewish communities. Let's get some 3O on this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

hacohen does not relate this table to the one million plan

She and others discuss the number of Jews who immigrated to Israel post 1948 in the context of the One Million Plan. This table provides excellent detail with respect to that. Is there something you don't like about the table? Removing it seems like gratuitous vandalism - readers will definitely find it relevant and it cannot be synth when it's conclusions are clearly covered by our sources in the context of the topic of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless she says these are the results of the plan, it's SYNTH to put it here. And she'd never say that because the plan was never put into action, as plenty of sources quite clearly say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

nobody says they put the plan to effect after independence. in fact, the sources quite clearly says there was a different plan then

That is correct and not what my wording was intended to imply. But your edit implies it could never have been and was never put into effect (under whatever name). How about the simple addition of "...at that time" at the end of the sentence? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The plan was never put into effect. Many sources say this. I object to any wording that implies it was. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a quote. The detail is important here, because as I understand it the plan was put into action in the form of its descendant plans. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How about you provide a source that says the plan was put into effect? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Strange. You wrote "The plan was never put into effect. Many sources say this." And now you refuse to provide a single one of these many sources. On this basis, your statement will be duly ignored. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As can your unsourced statement. If you want to add something to the article, bring a source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Good. Nothing further to add here. Glad we have clarified that your statement was unsupported. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

please provide a source that says this was planned as "initially" over 18 months

Here it is, from your own edit: "The "big" plan - rapid settlement of a million Jews and the creation of a Jewish majority and Jewish rule, and the "small" plan, the settlement of another million Jews within a few years.[11]"

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what they sold Ben-Gurion, not what they really planned to do or what actually happened. I will finish that section when I have some more time. There's a lot more to add. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. But I have not seen this 18 months reference, so please provide a quote. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In Hacohen (1994) p. 104 "When they moved to discuss details of the plan in practice, the committee members found themselves in a trap: it was difficult for them to accept the dictates of Ben-Gurion - submit an operational plan to absorb two million within eighteen months". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. Two million?! Doesn't the name give it away? That was the predecessor plan. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly it is that you want? Be specific. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, I will be removing the text you added re "within a timeframe of 18 months" from this and other articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Kindly post the exact text in the article you think is not sourced properly. I can't understand from this section and can't be expected to remember every nitpick you made months ago.

By the way, I am not obliged to provide you quotes. That is a courtesy. If you remove material that can be sourced and has an inline citation (per WP:V) I will report you. Keep that in mind, ok buddy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is the reference to 18 months in the first sentence of the lead.

Your threats are meaningless. Please be civil. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. Did you just ask me for a reference you already put in the article? Specifically current ref #15, HaCohen 1991 p. 262? I mean, I know you're deliberately wasting my time, but could you at least be a bit less obvious about it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you know what's going to happen if you make such a douche move again. Consider yourself lucky I find dealing with admin boards worse than dealing with asses like you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider your conduct. Your behaviour is consistently offensive. Please stop. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The offensiveness of my behavior is directly correlated to the offensiveness of yours. You know that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never been rude or offensive towards you. I challenge you to find just one example. You can use WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL to help. Your record shows that you have attacked me with 1. (a), (b), (c), (d) and 2. (a), (b), and (e). Oncenawhile (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I'm done wasting my time with you. If and when it will be worthwhile to provide diffs, I will do so. With ease. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

focus of the plan

I just removed the following text:

The main focus of the plan was on Jews from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Yemen.

According to the seminal work on this plan, HaCohen 1994, the above is not precise. According to her (p.216), when they were making the plan and voted on it in 1944, the numbers were - Axis countries 535,000, Allies and neutrals (including refugees) 247,000, and Islamic counties 150,000. Only in March 1945 when the extent of the Holocaust became clearer did Ben-Gurion revise the numbers and give the Mizrahim a larger role. She says nothing that I can see about these becoming official plan numbers or focus.

Thoughts on how to reconcile the two? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, removing impeccably sourced and clearly relevant content is not acceptable behaviour.

Do you have תוכנית המיליון, תוכניתו של דוד בן-גוריון לעלייה המונית בשנים in pdf form? Can you email it to me?

The numbers in the plan evolved over time - you have almost certainly picked the point in time that M-G refers to on page 39 where she talks about the 150,000. As M-G says in the same paragraph, as the Holocaust became clear, the share of Jews from Islamic countries increased.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If the plan, as formulated, envisioned the majority of immigrants coming from Axis countries, then saying its focus was the Jews of MENA is highly misleading. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not arguing with me here, but with a respected scholar whose quote is being used. Your argument is WP:OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A. Kindly revert yourself, per BRD. Your bold edit has been reverted. Do not start an edit war. You also violated 1RR. Do not make me report you.

B. A specialist source on the topic of the article is much stronger sourcing than a book on a general subject that mentions the issue in passing. So your "impeccably sourced" material is not so impeccable. HaCohen says what the numbers were and mentions that in his diary Ben-Gurion talked about different numbers but does not indicate that these were official plan numbers. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No I did not violate 1RR, and I am following WP:ONUS - the wording is impeccable and there is no reason to remove it.

HaCohen does not disagree with Shenhav. You are trying to make an argument from silence. It is pure WP:OR.

Unless you can find a source that questions the veracity of Shenhav's point (or even Shenhav's work in general), we have nothing to talk about.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken. HaCohen says what the numbers are. They don't agree with Shenhav's numbers. Which source do we use? I was indeed speculating where Shenhav got his numbers but that doesn't change the fact they conflict with HaCohen's. I'll look through HaCohen again (and Shenhav, which I now have in the original language), and see what I can come up with.

I just noticed you asked me to send mail you a copyrighted book in pdf form. Please don't do that again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's HaCohen p. 212 (I got the page by following Shenhav's ref) "Although there were occasional discussions about the Jewish problem in the East, focusing attention on the potential immigration from Muslim countries only began in mid-1944, when the extent of the Holocaust in Europe became known."

So stating as fact that the plan focused on the Jews of MENA would be false. You can say that's what Shenhav says, if you want to mislead a reader into thinking there's some kind of disagreement, while the problem here is chronological. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is pure WP:OR. It is also false. You wrote "focusing attention on the potential immigration from Muslim countries only began in mid-1944", but this is patently incorrect, as our article already states:

"In July 1943, Eliyahu Dobkin, the head of the Jewish Agency's immigration department, presented a map of the estimated 750,000 Jews in Islamic countries, and noted that: “…many of the Jews in Europe will perish in the Holocaust and the Jews of Russia are locked in. Therefore, the quantitative value of these three-quarters of a million Jews has risen to the level of a highly valuable political factor within the framework of world Jewry… The primary task we face is to rescue this Jewry, [and] the time has come to mount an assault on this Jewry for a Zionist conquest""

The words "the primary task" are very clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a verbatim quote from HaCohen. How can it be my OR? She's the expert on this. Also, perhaps you should read the previous sentence to what you quoted. Also, there's a difference between what someone (in this case Dvorkin) said (and I'll check later in what context it was made) and actual discussions relating specifically to the plan. That's not rocket science. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I misspoke there, it's not a "verbatim quote" but a "direct translation". Here's the verbatim quote: "אף שהיו פה ושם דיונים על בעיית היהודים בארצות המזרח, מיקוד תשומת הלב לפוטנציאל העלייה מארצות האסלאם החל רק מאמצע שנת 1944 , כאשר נודע על ממדי השואה באירופה

Sorry about the bad formatting. Still no idea how to fix that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I humbly acknowledge and accept this apology. Please don't hesitate to apologise again in future next time it may be required. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, buddy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You keep quoting HaCohen's 1994 work. Shenhav's work was written 12 years later.

The real point that you keep missing is that HaCohen's 150,000 is not at any point claimed to be the number in the "final" plan. In fact, M-G specifically states that the numbers continued to evolve post that 150,000. So you have just cherrypicked a random datapoint to suit your own preconceived ideas. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Shenhav is sourcing to HaCohen. He doesn't bring any new information, only his interpretation of what HaCohen said. Putting aside the exact numbers, let's focus on the focus. Do you agree that per HaCohen we can't say the plan focused on immigration from MENA before mid-1944? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. We're getting somewhere now. "מיקוד תשומת הלב" better translates to my mind as "the focus of attention" or "the targetting of".

I think combining this with Shenhav we can say: "From mid-1944, the main focus of the plan was on Jews from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Yemen."

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Better translates? Do you speak Hebrew? And no, that's SYNTH, we can't do that. HaCohen speaks of a focus on potential immigrants from an area, not the general focus of the plan. Also, let me try to find where Shenhav got those specific countries, that will perhaps shed some light. Might take a little while as I've already spent way more time here today than I should have. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I just reread the full chapter 8 from HaCohen 1994 (aptly titled "Where will the immigrants come from") and it contradicts the quote you brought from Shenhav. I think it would be helpful if we got someone you trust who reads Hebrew (RonaldR?) in here to confirm what I say since you probably won't believe me and I can't post too large quotes because of COPYVIO concerns.

So until that happens, we can discuss how to reconcile the two. My basic position is that HaCohen, being the seminal work on this specific subject, is a much much stronger source, and if we want to include Shenhav it should be attributed and not in the lead as his seems to be a minority view (unless you have another source that says the plan's main focus was on MENA Jews?). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no contradiction here at all. Both M-G and HaCohen say the same thing - the number of Jews from Islamic countries in the plan was increased as time went on. M-G illustrates this on page 39 with a Ben-Gurion quote, which includes Jews from Islamic countries as the first in the list, is the only one where the target is "all" and we know that "all" of those 800,000 make up 80% of 1 million. So Shenhav is wholly justified in his statement.

If you still disagree, just paste a few more sentences in here and we can consider further. To avoid copyright concerns we need to ensure that you paste only the minimum required, and that we are using the material purely for the purposes of critiquing it and the advancement of knowledge. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Where does MG indicate that the numbers Ben-Gurion mentions in his diary became the actual target of the Plan?

HaCohen has a subsection titled "three groups of immigration candidates". Here's the text:

"שלוש קבוצות עיקריות של מועמדים נחשבו כעתודה לעליה: ( 1 ) שרידי השואה בארצות הציר - כ 535,000- נפש; ( 2 ) פליטי מלחמה בארצות נייטרליות ובבעלות-הברית; העריכו כי מתוכם ירצו לעלות ב 30- אחוז - 247,000 נפש; ( 3 ) בארצות האסלאם העריכו את מספר המועמדים כ 20- אחוז מאוכלוסייתם היהודית - 150,000 נפש. סך הכול כמיליון מועמדים לעלייה מיידית. נלקחה בחשבון האפשרות שאם יתברר שהקבוצה הראשונה קטנה יותר, יביאו יותר עולים מהקבוצה השלישית."

She goes on to say that Ben-Gurion was very troubled by the subject as they learned more about the Holocaust, and made several lists in his diary, the last she mentions is the one with the blocks in MG and elsewhere. She does not indicate these are actual numbers that were considered by the planners. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing here contradicts Shenhav. It is exactly as I said above: "the number of Jews from Islamic countries in the plan was increased as time went on". That is not inconsistent with saying that the main focus was Jews from Islamic countries, assuming he is talking about the focus at the time of the plan being finalised. Don't forget - given the quality of this source the onus is on you to any opposing editor to show that it is inconsistent with another higher quality source. We have established from this discussion that it is not inconsistent. There is now no reason to whitewash Shenhav's view. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you are very much mistaken. HaCohen is a professor of modern Jewish History, who wrote a couple of books dedicated to this specific plan. Shenhav is a sociologist who mentions this plan in passing in a book about a much wider subject. HaCohen is a much much stronger source. Add to that that MG also doesn't say that MENA Jews were the focus of the plan, and you have a serious problem in your attempt to state this as fact, not to mention put it in the lead.

And anyway, the ONUS is on you since you're the one who wants to include information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have done my part by providing a strong source. It is a key part of Shenhav's book - per the index of the book, the topic is mentioned throughout on pages 22, 26, 30-33, 46 and 140.

I agree that HaCohen is a better source, albeit a decade older; this is not up for debate. But that is not relevant unless you can prove your claim that the two sources are contradictory. You have failed to prove that, so there is no basis for your whitewashing of the information from the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Took a stab at it. Let me know what you think. I object to Shenhav being put in the lead because he's the only one who makes this claim, and it contradicts the information in HaCohen. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You have repeated your contradiction claim. Please substantiate this, using actual logic. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, please could you add more context around the figures you added to the article, particularly when and where these were originally written.

I have added another source (Eyal) to support the focus point. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Added more information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

References

implementation of the plan

Page 254 of Shenhav (the index) notes that the "million person plan" is discussed on page 140 of his book. Turning to page 140, Shenhav writes:

"In practice, Ben-Gurion's plan to bring in Jews from Arab countries was not implemented until after Israel's establishment"

I propose to use this as a source to add a sentence into the lead of the article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I start wasting time with sources I have to ask you - do you really care nothing for the accuracy of this encyclopedia? Is your political agenda so much more important to you than what actually happened? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I find your question absurd. I have simply pasted a direct quotation from a book published by the Stanford University Press, one of the world's most prestigious academic publishers. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You know exactly why I asked and I know exactly why you won't answer.

Anyway, kindly explain why you think that sentence relates to the One Million Plan voted on by the Jewish Agency in 1944, rather than Ben-Gurion's personal musings in his diaries, written in 1945.

Also, please note that in the Hebrew version of his book, Shenhav calls the plan "fantastical" or "imaginary" ("דמיוני") and I will prefix statements sourced to Shenhav with that, as necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(1) As I said above, because the index states clearly that it is the "million person plan" being discussed on page 140.

(2) Clearly that it WP:OR, because (a) there are many other possible translations for דמיוני, the most likely here being "theoretical"; and (b) that we have an official English version of the book published by the SUP, which must take precedence in the English wikipedia. There is no good reason for us to be including your amateur translation in this article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I'll get some sources that say the plan was never implemented (you are aware of some, since you put them in the article, yes) and then we can discuss the proper weight for Shenhav's strange claim.

2. Are you seriously arguing nuance in a language you don't speak? Get someone who speaks Hebrew in here if you want to make that argument.

Who says the English source "takes precedence"? That's ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I look forward to discussing these non-existent sources. Shenhav's statement is no more than stating that the sky is blue - the Uniform Pioneer Plan, and later the Operations in Iraq and Yemen were wholly consistent, and the Ma'abarot follow the Master Plan in detail.

2. Another example of your poor knowledge of wikipedia policy. See WP:NONENG.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Weren't you the one who put current source #6 (HaCohen 2003 p.46) in the article? Are you claiming they were running the one million plan and the plan mentioned in that source concurrently, and HaCohen just forgot to mention one?

2. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but where exactly does NONENG say you can suppress non-English sources that don't give exactly the same information as English ones? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I think what Shenhav is saying is that they were all variations of the same Master Plan.

2. "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". We have that same book in its official English translation. There is no reason to use the Hebrew version.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1. While what you think Shenhav is saying is quite interesting, it contradicts what we already have in the article, which incidentally, you put there.

2. That obviously means for the same information. Do you honestly think that's a rule you can use to suppress information you don't like? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1. It does not contradict it. No plan is exactly the same in theory vs. in practice. He is saying the actual implementation was basically the same as the Master Plan.

2. The book is the same, just translated. He must have put the same concept in the English version? Please provide the relevant sentences within which this word is used in Hebrew. They we can find the SUP version. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I find it contradictory.

2. First of all, who says the book is exactly the same just translated? That's your assumption. Anyway, here's the text, you can see similar (but not exact) text on the same page you got your much loved focus quote: "התוכנית הדמיונית להגירת מיליון יהודים עסקה בסוגיות פרטניות של תכנון נתיבי מסע, שירותי קליטה, ביגוד, טיפול רפואי, משלוחים והכשרה מקצועית של המהגרים ."
Here's how he words the focus line: "בתוך ההסדד הזה קבעה התוכנית הבאת יהודים גם מאירופה, אולם עיקרה היה באפשרות הגירתם של יהודים מעיראק, מסוריה, מתורכיה, מפרס וגם מתימן." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if we have several versions of a work by the same author, we should prefer the most recent where possible, since the new version provides the author with an opportunity to make corrections and improvements. This would be a dubious statement if the author was deficient in English, but Shenhav has published in that language many times. I see no valid argument here for discounting something written in the new edition on the (alleged) basis that it wasn't the same in the old edition. The only recourse is to argue that the proposed insertion is not supported by the new edition, which is something I won't comment on without more study. Zero^talk 03:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Image of Maabara

The image itself has nothing to do with the topic of the article and certainly cannot be presented in lead as illustration. Even if some sources try to make a connection between maabarot and immigrant camps and the one million plan - this should be discussed in the article as an opinion, not as fact.GreyShark (dibra) 06:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy and Onceinawhile: - your opinion is valued.GreyShark (dibra) 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two high quality sources, Katz and Rossetto, which explicitly make the connection between maabarot and the One Million Plan. They are both situated at the end of the image caption, with detailed quotes. I hope that helps. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Greyshark. This is very obviously UNDUE as an image at the top of the article, particularly since maabarot are mentioned a grand total of once in the whole article, as an opinion. I'll remove it per ONUS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the addition of One_Million_Plan#Following_establishment_of_Israel, following the above discussion, the maabarot are now mentioned numerous times in the article as having derived from this plan. Does anyone object to adding back an image of a camp? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Double checking before I add – any remaining objections? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will add the image in. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

This has a bit on it: Jewish Refugees and Zionist Policy during the Holocaust, Yechiam Weitz, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 351-368. Zero^talk 08:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The following source's indications may be used, and followed up (what was meant by both sides of the Jordan and 5 million (in a Commonwealth). The context is prior to October 1944

Surveying Zionist plans for ‘the speedy upbuilding’ of the country, Ben-Gurion announced that Palestine, at present, could absorb at least 200,000 Jewish families in agricultural pursuits, with an additional population of five million on both sides of the Jordan River. To this end, he began to chair a small committee to plan for the quick settlement of one million Jews after the War as the first stage in the development nof the future Jewish Commonwealth. (Concurrently, the Haganah entertai ned a proposal detailing an aliya bet operation to move up to 200,000 survivors within six months from the War’s end)

Monty Noam Penkower, Decision on Palestine Deferred: America, Britain and Wartime Diplomacy, 1939-1945, Routledge, 2013 9781135289102 p.249 Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Part of a series on Aliyah?

The sidebar at the top of the article, added four years ago by Galatz[2], states that this article is “Part of a series on Aliyah”. However, the article was removed from the template three days ago with the strange edit summary “original research”. This was supported today by two editors at Template talk:Aliyah#One Milliion Plan. Whatever decision is reached should apply here too – we can’t have the sidebar here if the article is not actually considered part of the series. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This whole article is WP:SYNTH, based on some article by an unrelated building design essay by Architecture department expert.GreyShark (dibra) 13:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:One Million Plan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fiamh (talk · contribs) 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to this soon. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	According to MOS:LEDE it should be kept to four paragraphs.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Per MOS:QUOTE, any disputed opinion needs in-text attribution. Not doing so leads to confusion, from the context it seems like "no justification..." and "undue hardship" are quotes from contemporary Israeli leaders, actually it is from the authors of a history book.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Overall, the article would benefit from reducing the number of quotes by paraphrasing.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Incorrect formatting in some of the quotes, for instance Eyal capitalizes "Jews" but in your quote that's not capitalized.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Per WP:External links, external links are almost never allowed in running text. The one to Piera Rossetto does not meet these requirements.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Per MOS:LAYOUT, you should avoid short and choppy paragraphs. Try to merge them into other paragraphs.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Headings should be in sentence case, e.g. "Following the establishment of Israel"  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Minor close paraphrasing from one source: "An important part of the plans and recommendations were implemented following the creation of Israel." and "An important part of the One Million Plan Planning Committee's plans and recommendations were implemented following the creation of Israel." "here".  removed Onceinawhile (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Since being nominated the article has been edited about 26 times. There have been significant content disputes and large blocs of text—entire sections—added. It has now become stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	What makes File:PikiWiki Israel 20841 The Palmach.jpg free in the US? I have removed the picture from the Template, and opened a discussion at the template talk. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi @Fiamh: many thanks for your assessment. I will work through your comments in 1b. With respect to 5, it has now stablized (it has been a month since anyone other than you or me made a non-minor edit); is this sufficient or would you like to wait longer? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, yes, I'd count it as stable now. I'll start looking through the rest of the criteria. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Fiamh: Thanks again for your review. I have addressed all your comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There's been considerable improvement and I believe it now meets the GA criteria. Great work! Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 18:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

{{subst:One Million Plan|concern=Article essentially makes up large portions of this, there is, for example, no policy paper called "the one million plan"}}