Talk:Ma'abarot

Rename?
Should this be renamed into Maabarah as per WP:NC? &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 03:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be a good idea as that would seperate it from the Kibbutz. Will it impact on the links? Telaviv1 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between Ma'abarot] and [[Itzik Zohar articles regarding whether they were still around in the 1970's
The article on ma'abarot says the last one closed in 1963.

The article on Itzik Zohar says he was born in 1970 and grew up in a ma'abara.

Obviously, one of these most be wrong and should be corrected. I don't know which. But they cannot both be right.

71.109.149.195 (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Milk distribution at a ma'abara" in an empty field...
This image in very unlikely and does not show historical reality. Transit camps were crowded as we can see in the first image ; the economic situation in Israel was very serious in this period (see the chapter "Austerity", in Dvora Hacohen,Immigrants in Turmoil: Mass Immigration to Israel and Its Repercussions in the 1950s and After, Syracuse University Press, 2003, p.103, https://books.google.fr/books?redir_esc=y&hl=fr&id=hCw6v0TFhdMC&q=revolt#v=onepage&q=food&f=false), and there were rebellions in the camps, etc. I remove the image of ""Milk distribution" --2A01:CB00:980:7A00:6851:B58D:ABB4:28D9 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This picture: PikiWiki Israel 9259 divided milk.jpg, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

False edit summary
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."

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Nope again. It is not an opinion piece. And please drop the personal attack implicit in the assertion that editors you disagree with for adding material are POV pushers, while whenever you or an editor you concur with excises information, it is encyclopedic and neutral. The topic is noted as very sensitive in Israel, one glossed over for decades, and the insinuation you are making can just as easily be turned on its head.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You know why that's funny? Because you call other editors POV pushers practically daily. Maybe you didn't notice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Katz and Rossetto
The two sources and footnote quotes below were removed from the article earlier today without explanation.



Does anyone object to them being reintroduced to the article?

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Katz's PhD was on Architectural History in Architectural History and Theory, University of Cambridge, 2016, ergo an historian. Stating 'historians specializing in the OMP don't make' a certain claim implies you have a total mastery of everything written on the OMP by historians specializing in that topic (if such exist). Where is your authority for this claim?Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote more carefully and if you still have any questions do let me know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You haven't taken care to read what I wrote, by the same token. This is, as is often the case, going down silly lane.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that's settled. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

I agree with nnmg analysis .The WP:ONUS is on those who want to add the material please gain a consensus for those sources --Shrike (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the nth time Shrike. Consensus is based not on a number's game but on the cogency of argument. This is not a vote.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think Katz can be used, but should be attributed for several reasons - her expertise is architecture, what she's saying is not a common interpretation of the events (possibly FRINGE?), she actually declares the purpose of the article is political (deconstructing a political body's claims). She should also be given due WEIGHT (ie not the second sentence of the lead). I just found it amusing that in similar circumstances but opposite POV Onceinawhile rejects sources completely.
 * I'm not sure what Rossetto's credentials are, but she just mentions the One Million Plan once in passing so again this is pretty weak sourcing and was obviously UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like I missed Rosetto's credentials at the bottom of her article. She's a PhD candidate. That's a no from me, dawg. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to fix the tense - the article in question was the outcome of her PhD research, and she obtained her doctorate shortly afterwards, and is now a post-doctoral teaching fellow at Graz University's Centre for Jewish Studies, specializing in Jewish diasporas, and is productively publishing in specialist journals in three languages. WP:SCHOLARSHIP will tell you that there, depending on various parameters of assessment, no intrinsic reason for ruling out an article of that quality. Of course, distaste will always cast a no vote.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Other scholars
It’s great that we have consensus on the Katz source. Rossetto’s paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, so if anyone is unsure please feel free to discuss at WP:RSN. Of course, the connection between the Ma’abarot and the One Million Plan is discussed by other scholars, so perhaps we don’t need to argue about every single name. For example, here are two more:

Any further comments before this is added into the article? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think it's great we have consensus that Katz can be used attributed and given not too much weight. Rossetto mentions this in passing once in a footnote. How much weight do you think that should get? Kozlovsky (another architect?), says it "appears" there's some connection, so this is his opinion and should be stated as such.
 * Ohana is really the only source you provided who not only has the expertise and isn't trying to "deconstruct" anything, but addresses these things in depth. I think we should add more from him to the OMP article. But for here, did you read the few sentences before the one your quote starts in the middle of? He explicitly says the plan wasn't implemented but that some of their ideas and research were used.
 * So taking all that into account, what exactly do you want to add to the article and where? If you're going to try to make the second sentence of the lead say maabarot were the result of the OMP I can tell you right now I don't agree and will remove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. We can add detail into the article. As to how exactly the lead should reflect the OMP’s part in the history of the Maabarot, I don’t mind so long as it is a fair reflection. How about something anodyne like: “the concept was first developed in the partially-implemented 1944 One Million Plan”?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Not "partially-implemented". Ohana explicitly says the OMP was not implemented, footnoted to the seminal work on the subject by Hacohen. I also don't think they were the ones to develop the concept of refugee camps.
 * Anyhow, we should first write something in the body, then summarize in the lead not the other way around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohana says “An important part of the [One Million Plan] Planning Committee's plans and recommendations were implemented”. Crystal clear.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a plan. It was shelved and wasn't implemented for practical reasons. A few years later parts of what the planners suggested was implemented not as part of the plan. That's not a partially-implemented plan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An important part of the Committee's plans and its recommendations was implemented (Ohana). That is what the source says, and what we can write on the basis of that authority.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Once, your work is pointless; you cannot change reality by changing Wikipedia. You salary for that is a waste and you shall find yourself increasingly uneasy with your strange devotion to it.GreyShark (dibra) 10:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the academic position of Katz? She doesn't seems neither a Dr. nor Professor. It may fail the notability threshold.GreyShark (dibra) 10:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course she is a Dr. (PhD from Cambridge). She also has a long list of academic publications on the subject of migrant camps. Clearly one of the most qualified authors here. Zerotalk 12:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)