Template:Did you know nominations/One Million Plan


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

One Million Plan

 * ... that the 1944 One Million Plan was the first time Jewish immigration from Arab and Muslim countries became official policy of the Zionist leadership?
 * Reviewed: Glarentza

Created by Oncenawhile (talk). Self nominated at 12:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ref, date, size, hook, all fine. GTG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm reluctant to get involved in anything Israel/Palestine related, but the way that this hook is written, readers might well infer that the "Zionist leadership" is intended to refer to the Government of Israel, which the Jewish Agency for Israel is not. We may know that the State of Israel did not exist until 1948, but most readers will not. This hook is pejorative, not NPOV, and needs to be reconsidered. Edwardx (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Edwardx, hmm, well you've got me thinking. In simple terms, the Jewish Agency became the government of Israel on independence - Ben Gurion was executive chairman of the former (and the WZO) and on independence became the unelected prime minister of Israel. The term "Zionist leadership" is not pejorative or POV- it follows scholarly usage, is a literal description given that the Jewish Agency was an arm of the WZO, and it also follows David Ben-Gurion's own wiki article.
 * So whilst I agree we should cater for the vast majority of readers who may not be familiar with all this, I am not sure what to replace it with that would not be either inaccurate or overly long and clunky. How about simply the Jewish Agency for Palestine (as it was then called)?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. The reference cited in the first paragraph of the article to support the hook makes no mention of it being "official policy", merely a "Zionist plan". Please see . Edwardx (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Edwardx, that is sourced in reference 8. I will move the references around to make it more clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are still using Ehrlich to support the first sentence of para 1, when that source makes no such claim to it being an "official policy". Edwardx (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See reference 2, Meir-Glitzenstein, who uses the exact phrase "official policy". Is that ok? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if Meir-Glitzenstein is claiming it was "official policy", she provides no citation for her claim. Furthermore, if it really was "official policy", then it would be reasonable to suppose that this would be much more widely reported and discussed in the literature, and for someone to have cited some sort of Jewish Agency For Israel document. And you have still not addressed my concerns about Ehrlich. Edwardx (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more clear because we seem to be talking past each other. I don't understand what gives you the right to question such well respected scholarly sources? Your "reasonable to suppose" is wrong - this was not "published policy", but a non-public policy which came to light in recent years through scholarly archival research. It has since been published broadly in scholarly literature, as the sourcing in the article shows. I don't understand your issue regarding Ehrlich? For the avoidance of doubt, that is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, which M-G as a secondary source is superior to. Your skepticism appears to be pure WP:OR. Please could you rephrase your questions in terms of specific policy issues? Ie if you think M-G is not RS, then please say so. If you think we need more than one RS to support each statement, please show me policy which requires this. And please AGF - I honestly don't understand your issues. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is your point simply a semantic one regarding what it means for something to be an "official policy"? Frankly i'm not sure i know how one defines an official policy vs an executive plan. I am just following sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The only source in the article that appears to support the viewpoint that the One Million Plan became an "official policy" is Meir-Glitzenstein, and not Ehrlich (which I agree is a tertiary source in any event). I can find several mentions of the One Million Plan being a proposal put forward by Ben-Gurion in 1944, but I can find no one apart from Meir-Glitzenstein who claims that it ever became Jewish Agency policy.


 * You state that this was "a non-public policy which came to light in recent years through scholarly archival research. It has since been published broadly in scholarly literature, as the sourcing in the article shows." If so, then you ought to be able to direct me to the relevant primary source, and the rest of the scholarly literature. Looking at your history, your content contributions appear to be almost exclusively on Israel or Palestine-realted topics, so you are far better placed than I to do this.


 * If Meir-Glitzenstein is the only source, then per WP:UNDUE, the viewpoint that the One Million Plan became Jewish Agency policy as opposed to being a plan promulgated solely by Ben-Gurion would appear to be a minority view, and even having a separate article about it (rather than say a section in Ben-Gurion's article) would be giving it unmerited prominence. Edwardx (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to write your last response - this is clear. I have added some more detail to the article, which may be helpful. But I see your key question is whether this was just Ben-Gurion's plan, or whether it was an agreed policy of the wider executive. In light of all the sources on the topic (including the new ones I just added), I see no reason to doubt M-G's interpretation. However, to each of your points:
 * 1) All the other sources discuss the plan in the same light as M-G. None refute or disagree with her work, and I am not aware of any sources that do. And other sources are clear that the plan was implemented and also presented on behalf of the executive at an international commission. The other scholars may not have spelt it out in exactly the same way, but it is implied across all these works. To possibly conclude that M-G was incorrect in her description, I think we would need to see some suggestions of inconsistency from other scholars vs her work on this, which I have not seen.
 * 2+3) To be clear, it was non-public because at the time such massive immigration was illegal under British restrictions. I have added additional scholarly sources to the article as requested. The primary sources are of course all in Hebrew, and held in archives, although I can probably get you the Anglo-American commission proposal. HaCohen, Shenhav and Eyal all provide sources - HaCohen has the most primary sources.
 * I hope this is helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After some more reading, I have found a source which uses almost exactly the form of words you are requesting. I have added it to the lead: Dalia Ofer, writing on illegal immigration during world war II, writes that immigration of one million Jews was "declared policy of the zionist agency executive".
 * Thank you for your help in pushing me to make the article more robust.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You state “All the other sources discuss the plan in the same light as M-G. “, yet the only other source that you have cited that calls it a policy, “declared policy”, is Dalia Ofer from 1991.
 * A few days ago, you described the One Million Plan as “a non-public policy which came to light in recent years through scholarly archival research “. How can Wikipedia reasonably describe it as “official policy” when any idea of it being “policy” was never disclosed outside the inner circle? I have found no source that mentions anything like “scholarly archival research”, and you are still failing to provide any information as to when this research happened, what archives were involved or what primary source(s). As far as I can see neither Meir-Glitzenstein (2004) nor Dalia Ofer (1991) provide such a citation.
 * On the other hand, Maurice M. Roumani in his 2009 book The Jews of Libya: Coexistence, Persecution, Resettlement discusses the One Million Plan at some length. Being more recent, and with a foreword by Sir Martin Gilbert, it seems reasonable to infer that this is a more reliable source than any that you have offered:
 * “In June 1944, Ben-Gurion unveiled the “One Million Plan” … At the time it was not clear why Ben-Gurion wanted to include Middle Eastern Jews in this plan.” (p108)
 * Maurice M. Roumani: The Jews of Libya: Coexistence, Persecution, Resettlement
 * The discussion continues until the end of page 111, and is worth reading.
 * Nowhere does Roumani state that it became policy. Indeed, if that had been the case, why was it never known as the One Million Policy? Would it not be more accurate to describe it as Ben-Gurion's proposal? Of course, the coming into existence of the State of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent “right of return” is a different matter.
 * Even in the additional sources that you are now providing, the One Million Plan is always “Ben-Gurion's plan”, never the “Jewish Agency's plan” or the “Zionist leadership's plan”.
 * Also, a 2001 article at Chareidi.org states, “Historian Dvora Hacohen's book, The One Million Plan, which deals with the far-reaching plans of former prime minister David Ben-Gurion to bring one million Jews to Israel after the war, exposes some of the circumstances surrounding this eagerness. Apparently, already in 1944, Ben-Gurion had planned to finance this grandiose plan with...” Chareidi.org
 * Again, only a plan, and only Ben-Gurion's plan - a proposal, and not a policy. Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you have a hard time assuming good faith. I can explain more fully but Roumani was the ex-head of WOJAC, a political advocacy organisation, and Gilbert once wrote a questionable book on behalf of WOJAC. I am not saying they are not RS, but to suggest Roumani is more reliable than the numerous well respected scholars sourced in the article is absurd. (see for example: FT review of Gilbert, another here in footnote 26, and in p160-161 of this book (not viewable online), refers to half of one of Roumani's works as "polemical")
 * Secondly, do you accept that given the importance of Ben Gurion's position leading the Zionist Executive and Jewish Agency executive, some authors will use "Ben-Gurion" as shorthand for "Ben-Gurion's administration" (ie the Jewish / Zionist government)? Just like people talk about Obamacare as being Obama's plan for example, when in fact it is / was the policy of his administration.
 * Thirdly, do you accept that a "policy" simply means "a plan agreed by an organisation", and does not need to be a "public policy" to qualify as a policy? Cameron's cabinet has certain (particularly foreign) policies that are never made public, and don't forget that Ben Gurion's executive was not a democratically elected organisation until 1949 (i.e. it had no requirement to publicise its views, particularly those that were illegal under British restrictions...)
 * I recognise you are doing this because you, like me, are keen to ensure that we maintain the highest possible standards in fact checking etc, but I think you are getting mixed up by trying to be too literal. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite my questions around Roumani above, I have taken your advice and read the pages you suggested. Here is a quote: "'The 'One Million Plan' brought about a fundamental and groundbreaking conceptual change - Jews from Middle East and North African countries were finally perceived as candidates for aliyah. This represented a departure from the Zionist social conception formulated in the 1920s and 1930s defining the archetype of the oleh (immigrant) as a young and dedicated pioneer.... In short, the change in policy stemmed from changes in the reality on the ground...The Commission of Inquiry did not support the immigration of Middle Eastern Jews and the Zionist leadership was aware that their demand to bring Middle Eastern Jewry to Palestine was weak. There were even some Zionist leaders who doubted that there would be a major immigration movement from the Middle East and North African countries. Yet despite all these drawbacks, the call to bring these Jews to Palestine remained an important building block in Jewish Agency policy.'"

So we now have two sources in the article which state directly that it became policy, and a third here which strongly infers the same thing. I don't see any remaining rationale for doubting the sources on this. In all your reading on this, have you found a single source which suggests the plan did NOT become policy? In the absence of such a contraditory view, or a scholarly review questioning the veracity of the RS provided, surely we must assume good faith with respect to Meir-Glitzenstein and Ofer.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Now added at Third opinion, where I have tried to express the disagreement succinctly and neutrally. See User talk:Edwardx for a small amount of discussion leading to this. Edwardx (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to give a Third opinion on the outstanding issues, as the original request at the official page was removed after it hadn't been selected within six days, and no attempt was made to resubmit it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my first time at Third Opinion, and I was unaware that it was possible to resubmit. Nonetheless, I see no reason to believe a second attempt would have met with success. Any new reviewer might also want to consider the discussion at my talkpage, as that could/should have taken place here, User_talk:Edwardx Edwardx (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Let me know what else I can do! Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer still needed; please see above. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The article is well written, it was submitted within 7 days of its nomination, and it is long enough. There are not indications of copyright issues.  I have read through the issues raised in the previous review and they look to be resolved.  The article is inline sourced throughout and the references support the content.  The hook is interesting and not too long.  It is sourced in the article and the sources back it up. It is good to go. I am One of Many (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)