This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tritomex (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 5 August 2015 (→Lost property estimates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:40, 5 August 2015 by Tritomex (talk | contribs) (→Lost property estimates)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
one million plan
I removed the following text from the article:
From 1944, the One Million Plan, which became the top priority of Jewish leadership in Mandatory Palestine, encouraged the immigration of the Jews of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa into what became the State of Israel.
First of all, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. This information does not appear in the body of the article and thus is not a summary.
Second none of the sources here actually tie it to the Jews leaving their countries. There was a plan, who said it had an effect on the topic of this article? Someone bring some sources.
Third, the The One Million Plan appears in the article 3 times. Twice in the lead and once in the body (and that not related to the lead). If that's not UNDUE I don't know what is.
So, if someone can bring some sources to connect this to the article, and develop a section in the body, we could possibly restore it with some changes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Great, then put it in the main body of the article.
- Yes of course the sources connect it to this topic. Read Shenhav for example. And HaCohen goes through and explains exactly how the various agencies implemented the Plan. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. WP:LEAD is an editing guideline. You can't put stuff in the lead that's not in the body, although I know some editors like to do that because it's easy and most people just read the lead. But alas, it's not allowed. I don't have the sources to write a section in the body to be summarized in the lead, nor do I have the time. Nor do I want you to think it's my job to do your homework.
- On top of that, you violated WP:V (that's policy) buy restoring unsourced information.
- Also, if you have a source that directly ties the plan into the topic of this article, kindly provide it here. "Read Shenhav" is not a source.
- I'd like to remind you that you often remove large chunks of text and ask other editors not to restore them pending a discussion. Perhaps you should do as you preach. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- No More Mr Nice Guy, you deleted seven sources, many with detailed quotes, and you call that unsourced? The sources that you removed explain in plain quotes that the OMP was the first time the topic of this article was ever even conceptualised by anyone. Your claim that that is not connected closely enough to the topic of this article is patently absurd.
- Thank you for encouraging me to add extra detail on this topic into the article. I will be glad to do so. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- First of all I didn't delete anything, I moved stuff here for discussion. Second, the unsourced stuff was where you added the plan for a second time in the lead. Twice in the lead, once in the article. Way to UNDUE. Third, the source says it was the first time this whole group was treated as one. That's not the topic of this article. I will note that if what you claim was true, it would conflict with your "modern agenda" theory, but that's besides the point.
- By all means, develop a section in the article then we can assess both the relevance and the DUE weight to give it in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have made a start. There are a lot of high quality sources out there on this topic, so please feel free to add as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see some problems already. I can't fix anything because of 1rr, so I'll edit tomorrow. But to begin with, both in the lead and in the body it quotes Ben Gurion's diary for wanting to bring all the Jews from MENA, but that's his thoughts, not what they voted on as far as I can tell. Meir-Glitzenstein 2004 says on page 39 that the Planning Committee was thinking 150,000 and that number increased later, but doesn't say to how much. She also notes (p.38) that when voted on, the plan was not presented as an operative plan, but in a political context. On p.44 she says the plan had no operative significance. Yet our article not only notes none of this, you keep restoring contested and unsourced language into the last paragraph of the lead stating that agents were working towards the plan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Another thing I noticed: The source (Hachohen 1991, currently source #7) says the plan "enabled" Jewish immigration while our article says it "encouraged" such immigration. No bueno.
- I also see that Oncenawhile once again slipped the "minor" before expulsions back into the lead despite it not being in any source and it being contested. Who says it's minor? Stop edit warring and explain why you think it belongs in the article. You may not restore unsourced information without consensus, as I'm sure you're aware. It's called WP:V. It's Misplaced Pages policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- On the "minor", yes I see I did do that. I don't know when it came back out - all I did was go back to this version. I believe the word was originally added following this thread. In summary, there was only one known expulsion, which was in Egypt following Suez and the Jews were one of many groups forced out. Per 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt it is not known exactly how many were actually expelled, and some sources suggest that they "only expelled a small minority". Oncenawhile (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have made a start. There are a lot of high quality sources out there on this topic, so please feel free to add as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This plan was shelved and is therefore of only minor significance: not worth more than one paragraph and should not be mentioned in the lede. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- The plan wasn't shelved per se, parts of the planning were used later in the absorption process of the immigrants that arrived after the state was established, but after making both the main article and the section here actually reflect what the sources say rather than the complete fantasy that was there before, it's pretty obvious that this is way UNDUE. As far as I'm concerned you can cut it down to size. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Correct, it was not shelved, and occupies a seminal role in the history here as the beginning of Jewish Agency's / Israeli government's policy to encourage immigration from the region. NMMNG ignores the most important part of the plan that "was later used" which is that agents were sent to every country to "agitate". NMMNG, I would also note that a number of your edits need fixing - you have misunderstood some of the points that you have clearly only read about in the last couple of days. I suggest you read the sources more fully next time. I will fix this as soon as I have the available time. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. If you had actually read the sources you yourself used (and I strongly suspect you were in violation of SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), you'd see that after the end of WWII the focus on MENA dwindled and was no longer funded even to the small extent it was earlier in the 40s. The plan was mainly an economic plan for absorption, as you clearly completely failed to comprehend.
- The article about the plan and the section here were so off base, if this was a paid job and they were something you needed to prepare for management or a client, you'd probably be fired. Tendentious doesn't being to describe it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Great. Please excuse me for ignoring your attempted insults. I will focus my energy on amending your numerous mistakes in the edits you have made. Such as this "dwindling" point, which shows a lack of understanding of the importance of this plan as the predecessor of subsequent operational plans such as Magic Carpet, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Yachin. That you are surprised that the focus shifted almost exclusively to Europe for the short period after the end of Holocaust makes we worry that you have a limited understanding of or empathy with the scale of that tragedy.
- However, one point I would appreciate you clarifying in your comment above is the word "mainly". On what scale are you defining that it was "mainly" about absorption logistics?
- Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's not my job to define what scale or whatever, I'm just relating what the leading Zionists figures said at the time, and Hacohen says repeatedly in her 1994 book, which is considered the seminal work on this plan. You've read this book, yes? You quoted from it a few times.
- I will add the relevant information to the One Million Plan article as time permits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've just had a look in Hacohen 1994 and the first paragraph of chapter 9 says explicitly that the goal of the plan was to prepare for the rapid absorption of millions of immigrants. Could you perhaps show a source that says otherwise? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Correct, it was not shelved, and occupies a seminal role in the history here as the beginning of Jewish Agency's / Israeli government's policy to encourage immigration from the region. NMMNG ignores the most important part of the plan that "was later used" which is that agents were sent to every country to "agitate". NMMNG, I would also note that a number of your edits need fixing - you have misunderstood some of the points that you have clearly only read about in the last couple of days. I suggest you read the sources more fully next time. I will fix this as soon as I have the available time. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the entire section on the Million Plan and its relation to the exodus is a complete synthesis of Oncenawhile. Maybe he believes this, but the link between this plan (which neither in time nor in place is corrlating with the exodus) to the exodus is not sourced. Unless there is a some WP:RS claim that one million plan was directly relevant to the beginning of the Jewish exodus, i'm removing it.GreyShark (dibra) 10:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The article does not say it is "directly relevant to the beginning". The article says it is the first time immigration of Arab Jews became policy in what became Israel. That is well sourced (see examples below) and is deemed relevant to works on the subject of the exodus by scholars such as Meir-Glitzenstein, Shenhav and Eyal.
- Meir-Glitzenstein, p47, "As we have seen the inclusion of the Jews of Islamic countries in the One Million Plan was the start of a reversal in immigration policy and in the overall attitude of the Zionist leadership toward these Jews. The reversal was manifested both in the conceptual switch from an ideal of selective immigration lo the reality of bringing masses of people to Palestine.... the One Million Plan augured a demographic reversal with ramifications for all areas of life. including a change in the Ashkenazic Mizrahi demographic balance in the country"
- Shenhav, p22, "The Abadan case was the first systematic encounter between Zionist emissaries and Arab Jews following the formulation of the so-called million-person plan (which should be read as the "million Jews plan") providing for the massive immigration of these Jews to Palestine. Even if the plan was not implemented immediately, and even if some of its provisions were unfeasible, it marked the start of a discourse and the initial spotlighting of the Arab Jews as potential candidates for immigration to Palestine."
- Eyal, p86, See section: "The "One Million Plan" and the Development of a Discourse about the Absorption of the Jews from Arab Countries"
- Oncenawhile (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- user:Oncenawhile This is clear case of minority position on your behalf, trying to push your WP:SYNTH position without community consensus. The One Million Plan is a somewhat sidelined issue, related to the absorption policy of the Yishuv. It has never been executed and certainly cannot compose a full topic of this article, but rather some mention in the background section. It is especially evident that you are trying to put this here as a somewhat major issues instead of anti-Jewish violence topics and relations between some of the Arab leadership and the Axis countries, which you unilaterally erased. I'm asking for an administrative closure for this discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 08:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since the British rulers severely limited the Jewish immigration, the one million plan was hardly relevant until 1948. At the beginning of the huge immigration wave after the establishment of Israel, the one million plan was replaced with another Israeli plan. It seems that it is better to mention the new Israeli plan rather then the hardly relevant one million plan. Ykantor (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think we are in broad agreement actually. The Israeli policies, plans and actions relating to immigration from Arab countries are relevant across this article. The One Million Plan was just one part of it. Its particular relevance is that it was the first, marking a seminal moment, as described in the quotes above. BUT, we need to get the balance right, and I have no problem with trimming the section down, particularly if we can build further description of the various plans and policies that descended from it. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since the British rulers severely limited the Jewish immigration, the one million plan was hardly relevant until 1948. At the beginning of the huge immigration wave after the establishment of Israel, the one million plan was replaced with another Israeli plan. It seems that it is better to mention the new Israeli plan rather then the hardly relevant one million plan. Ykantor (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- user:Oncenawhile This is clear case of minority position on your behalf, trying to push your WP:SYNTH position without community consensus. The One Million Plan is a somewhat sidelined issue, related to the absorption policy of the Yishuv. It has never been executed and certainly cannot compose a full topic of this article, but rather some mention in the background section. It is especially evident that you are trying to put this here as a somewhat major issues instead of anti-Jewish violence topics and relations between some of the Arab leadership and the Axis countries, which you unilaterally erased. I'm asking for an administrative closure for this discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 08:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The article does not say it is "directly relevant to the beginning". The article says it is the first time immigration of Arab Jews became policy in what became Israel. That is well sourced (see examples below) and is deemed relevant to works on the subject of the exodus by scholars such as Meir-Glitzenstein, Shenhav and Eyal.
notes
References
- 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." sfn error: no target: CITEREFEyal2006 (help)
- Hacohen 1991, p. 262 #2:"In meetings with foreign officials at the end of 1944 and during 1945, Ben-Gurion cited the plan to enable one million refugees to enter Palestine immediately as the primary goal and top priority of the Zionist movement. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHacohen1991 (help)
- Ehrlich, Mark Avrum (2009), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, vol. 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.
- 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." sfn error: no target: CITEREFMeir-Glitzenstein2004 (help)
- Ofer 1991, p. 239:"This tactical approach, the demand for "control of aliyah" and the immediate immigration of two million (later, one million) Jews, was the declared policy of the Jewish Agency Executive until the end of the war." sfn error: no target: CITEREFOfer1991 (help)
- Ben-Gurion's diary, 30 July 1945, Ben-Gurion Archives. Midreshet Sede Boker, Quote: "We have to bring over all of Bloc 5 , most of Bloc 4 , everything possible from Bloc 3 , and pioneers from Bloc 2 as soon as possible."
- Meir-Glitzenstein 2004, p. 39. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMeir-Glitzenstein2004 (help)
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Gat2013p2" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AdelmanBarkan2013p237" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Bashkin2012p185" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Bashkin2012p187" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Bashkin2012p277" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Gat1998p47" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Gat2013p124" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Morris2008p413" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Meir-Glitzenstein2004p206" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Meir-Glitzenstein2004p216" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Tripp2002p122" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AdelmanBarkan2011p179" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Another revert from NMMNG
This revert is just another example of NMMNG's laziness or tendentiousness, or both. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- You mad, bro? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Minor
NMMNG, please respond to this comment . Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- My response is: Please provide a source that supports your edit, per WP:V. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have done so - sources have been discussed in great detail on these talk pages, which show that the ONLY expulsion was in Egypt, and that is was very small in scale. More details are at 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt.
- Since you will likely ask for the exact wording to be sourced, let's do this the other way. I am going to remove the word "expulsions" altogether, as it is inaccurate and unsourced. There was only one expulsion, and so using the plural and including it in a paragraph of generalisations about the overall exodus is incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rereading it, I went instead for "an episode of expulsion". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Greyshark, you have been adding "expulsions" in the plural. Please explain this in detail here per WP:BRD. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rereading it, I went instead for "an episode of expulsion". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Opposition to large scale unrestricted immigration
HaCohen writes "Opponents in the Jewish Agency and the government of mass immigration argued". That is NOT the same as writing "the Jewish Agency opposed..." And in fact HaCohen explains the opposite is true, seeing as the leader of the Jewish Agency successfully supported the proposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean there. Maybe it should say "there were those within the Jewish Agency and government who opposed...". You could have fixed the problem with 4 words. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good solution. Well done. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK.GreyShark (dibra) 10:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Split section on Iran
Until one year ago there was an article on the Exodus of Iran's Jews, which was merged here by Oncenawhile in June 2014. The Iranian Jewish exodus is clearly notable as a topic (for example From Babylonia To Beverly Hills: The Exodus of Iran's Jews, Iranian Jews in U.S. recall their own difficult exodus as they cling to heritage, building new community) and should exist as a standalone article. Most of all because the circumstances and timing of the Iranian Jewish exodus were different from the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. The exodus first took place during the early instability in the 1950s, but during the late 1970s and early 1980s, 90% of Iranian Jews left/fled the country, due to the Islamic Revolution, with roughly 100,000 relocating to US, Europe and Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed; had I been aware of that merge at the time, I would have objected. They were two separate and distinct events. DoctorJoeE /talk to me! 14:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Greyshark, can you show that the Iranian exodus is any more different that the Egyptian exodus is from the Iraqi exodus or from the Maghrebi exodus or from the Turkish exodus. They are all barely related in practice. And 30,000 Iranian Jews emigrated to Israel during the first years of statehood per this table. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- You removed the split tag from the article. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.GreyShark (dibra) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- No this is not a policy question at all. Answer my question above (from 23:50, 9 July 2015). Otherwise your statement that "the circumstances and timing of the Iranian Jewish exodus were different from the Jewish exodus from Arab countries" will continue to be ignored as WP:OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- You removed the split tag from the article. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.GreyShark (dibra) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Greyshark, can you show that the Iranian exodus is any more different that the Egyptian exodus is from the Iraqi exodus or from the Maghrebi exodus or from the Turkish exodus. They are all barely related in practice. And 30,000 Iranian Jews emigrated to Israel during the first years of statehood per this table. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Farhud
Greyshark added into the lead "A change came in the 1940s, with the rise of antisemitism and the events of the Second World War. In April 1941, a pro-Nazi regime was formed in Iraq and following a widespread propaganda campaign, an anti-Jewish Farhud pogrom erupted in the final days of the regime in Baghdad, leading to deaths of 180 Jews. The Farhud pogrom was a shocking event to Iraqi Jewish community, as many displaced Iraqi Jews began fleeing for Israel reaching a rate of 1,000 per year."
Later in the article a more balanced paragraph states "In some accounts the Farhud marked the turning point for Iraq's Jews. Other historians, however, see the pivotal moment for the Iraqi Jewish community much later, between 1948–51, since Jewish communities prospered along with the rest of the country throughout most of the 1940s, and many Jews who left Iraq following the Farhud returned to the country shortly thereafter and permanent emigration did not accelerate significantly until 1950–51."
Can we please keep this article with a balanced point of view, not just one side. Thank you.
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
JCPA
Greyshark added in this source. This is not WP:RS.
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you explain, why someone {{who}} regards this Shmuel Trigano's article as "not wp:RS" ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which is an advocacy organisation. He is a professor of sociology, which explains why he can't get an article on history published anywhere credible. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Look at the concluding paragraphs of his article:
- "The Palestinians’ fate is mainly the result of the policy of their leadership, who have always rejected the further division of Mandatory Palestine (as proposed in 1937 and 1947). The creation of Transjordan in 1922 apparently was not sufficient. Arabs from Palestine were the allies of the five Arab states that attacked the newly created state of Israel: Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon, as well as the Arab League. Even today, both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas reject the division of the land, denying Israel its natural right to a national existence while defining Palestine as exclusively Arab and Islamic. The Jewish people are a people with a long history – contrary to the Palestinians – and have the right of sovereignty in a land that has been the seat of three Jewish states since earliest antiquity. Zionism is the culmination of a process of self-determination, from a dominated nation in the Arab-Muslim world to an emancipated one within this world – that is, in the Middle East. There has been a population exchange. Israel’s “original sin” is a fiction. These are the historical and political facts on which Jewish discourse must be founded. It is time to take back the initiative and restore the Jewish narrative."
- This kind of political vitriol has no place in wikipedia
- Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which is an advocacy organisation. He is a professor of sociology, which explains why he can't get an article on history published anywhere credible. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- "It was published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs"
- - "an Israeli research institute and public policy think tank devoted to research and analysis of critical issues facing the Middle East..." - so ?
- "He is a professor of sociology..."
- According to "his" article - " a sociologist, philosopher, professor of religious and political sociology...",
- and author of the following books, cited more than enough in scholar.google (English only).
- Regarding to your claims: we may like or no what such author writes & proves, but our role isn't a censorship, but only a mirror one. :::: --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I love the way people start crying "censorship" when somebody explains why their favored site isn't a reliable source. It's not censorship, so get over it. It's also probably not a reliable source for facts. See WP:BIASED. — MShabazz /Stalk 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is an NGO article by an Academic. This might be POV, but this is certainly reliable. We have the same issue with the Institute for Palestine Studies as with JCPA.GreyShark (dibra) 10:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- He is not a historian, and he was published by an advocacy website. If you genuinely believe this is reliable, open a thread at WP:RSN. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"Rise of antisemitism in the Middle East and North Africa"
Greyshark added a section break with the POV title "Rise of antisemitism in the Middle East and North Africa"
Please provide WP:RS supporting this title in relation to this article. This is a complex and sensitive topic. You may believe that anti-semitism drove the exodus, but that is only one point of view, and is a propagandistic oversimplification not held by serious scholars of the exodus in the various regions.
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to the multiple sources previously removed from this article by POV editors, i would like to add for instance a review The Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: An Examination of Legal Rights - A Case Study of the Human Rights Violations of Iraqi Jews by Prof. Carol Basri, who writes "This lengthy discussion is necessary due to the lack of general knowledge of who the Jewish refugees were, why they left Arab countries, and how their rights were violated. Further, the long exposition on the dhimmitude is critical to showing the history of religious tension and discriminatory treatment that laid the groundwork for later Nazi propaganda and religion-based discriminatory legislation." She clearly refers to the Dhimmi status and the Nazi propaganda as a background to the exodus of Jewish refugees.GreyShark (dibra) 10:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Carole Basri is certainly a little bit too much involved to be reliable. More, her use of the concept of dhimmitude, which is highly controversial, gives her even less credit.
- I'd rather agree with Onceawhile here : " is a complex and sensitive topic a propagandistic oversimplification."
- We should avoid this topic and if not, deal this with the highest care and with the best wp:rs sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD
Averysoda, perhaps you don't understand how WP:BRD works.
Since you have added back today's large and undiscussed edits, the WP:ONUS is now on you to support what you have added. Please answer all the issues and concerns on the edit raised above. If you are unwilling or unable, your blind support for these additions will be reverted.
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You reverted good content about the Iraqi farhud and the fact that "of the 900,000 Jews who left Arab and other Muslim countries, 600,000 settled in the new state of Israel, and 300,000 in France and the United States." Try not to destroy everything when you revert, specially when it is supported by reliable sources.--Averysoda (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, the Farhud comment was one-sided - read the thread opened just above this. If you don't know what you are reverting, join the discussion. We are not in a rush here.
- What is worse that reverting an 80% bad and 20% good edit? Re-reverting an 80% bad and 20% good edit.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then stop reverting and start gaining consensus. Greyshark09 is an experienced, neutral and honest editor who doesn't have a political position about this subject like you and me (or many other users). I'm sure most of his content is very well sourced and precise. Lower your speed.--Averysoda (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think you have read WP:ONUS have you. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Or WP:BRD for that matter. It is not called WP:BRRD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note also that your comment "I'm sure most of his content is very well sourced and precise" is proof of the "blind" nature of your revert. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You made a blind revert. I'm satisfied if the uncontroversial points stay in the article. The rest is up to Greyshark09 and you. I'm sure he can explain his edits better than me.--Averysoda (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. I made a detailed analysis and concluded that the vast majority of the edits made by Greyshark need discussion. Proof of this is in the threads above. You are apparently unable to contribute to a single one. If you are not willing to enter into discussion to support your edits, then don't edit the article at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, make sure you don't remove any uncontroversial information. Try to make constructive edits and fix problems instead of destroying everything.--Averysoda (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. I made a detailed analysis and concluded that the vast majority of the edits made by Greyshark need discussion. Proof of this is in the threads above. You are apparently unable to contribute to a single one. If you are not willing to enter into discussion to support your edits, then don't edit the article at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You made a blind revert. I'm satisfied if the uncontroversial points stay in the article. The rest is up to Greyshark09 and you. I'm sure he can explain his edits better than me.--Averysoda (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note also that your comment "I'm sure most of his content is very well sourced and precise" is proof of the "blind" nature of your revert. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Or WP:BRD for that matter. It is not called WP:BRRD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think you have read WP:ONUS have you. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then stop reverting and start gaining consensus. Greyshark09 is an experienced, neutral and honest editor who doesn't have a political position about this subject like you and me (or many other users). I'm sure most of his content is very well sourced and precise. Lower your speed.--Averysoda (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Another blind revert, this time from Plot Spoiler.
Plot Spoiler, since you have added back these large and undiscussed edits, the WP:ONUS is now on you to support what you have added. Please answer all the issues and concerns on the edit raised above. If you are unwilling or unable, your blind support for these additions will be reverted.
Oncenawhile (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC) user:Oncenawhile - when you are editing against the community consensus (multiple examples above) - this is the true violation of WP:BRD. I remind you that you are warned for ARBPIA sanctions, so edit-warring (even if slow) might get you into trouble, no matter how much wikilawyering you are trying to utilize to insert your edits or removing entire sections for POV reasons.GreyShark (dibra) 10:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain your edits, two weeks after you made them. Unfortunately, a number of your positions remain factually incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict
Another user and I appear to have clicked simultaneously. The article fails to cover widely-publicized disappearances/killings of Jews attempting to emigrate from Iran. as here: E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In an article about the better part of a million people, there has to be a damn good reason to devote a large paragraph to a handful of people whose fate is unclear. And unclear it is. All that happened is that an Israeli agency not known for dedication to the truth claimed to have information from an unnamed source, and even the claim is vague : "The statement did not detail when or where the eight were killed or by whom." As the NYT article makes clear, it is very dangerous to illegally cross those borders "The frontier with Pakistan, in particular, is treacherous territory for a stranger, with tourists and others -- including many Bahais from Iran -- disappearing in kidnappings." And "If they were behind bars, the men would be in the company of thousands of Muslims and other Iranians who have also been apprehended while fleeing the country." Actually the groups who smuggle people across the border for money are the same groups that supply Iran's enormous drug problem. Of course it is very dangerous and there is no indication that the fate of these people was related to the fact that they were Jews or that they wanted to go to Israel. As well as that, statements about Iran made by the Israeli government without external collaboration are highly suspect. The significance of this incident to this article is negligible. Zero 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the issue is not so much these 10-11 people, in particular (and agree that the specific individuals need not be named in the article), but about current Iranian polices towards Jewish emmigration, and these people are just one an illustrative example. The general policies of Iran are certainly notable and relevant to this article, and have been covered by mainstream reliable sources. Accordingly, I am inserting a revised version of the material, sourced to the New York Times. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because it was almost entirely copied and pasted from the New York Times article in violation of WP:COPYVIO. And the little bit of original content was unsupported and vague ("currently"). — MShabazz /Stalk 04:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Lost property estimates
In the article published by Ynet, Dr. Adam Reuter cites an estimate according to which "the lost property of Palestinians who became refugees following the War of 1948 amounts to about 60 percent of the property lost by Jews expelled from Arab states." If there is no policy based arguemnts I want to add this claim to the property estimates section of this article.Tritomex (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do not know much about this, but who is Adam Reuter and why is this comparison to Palestinian refugees being made? One can simply talk about the property claims of Jews who left. A scholarly source is preferred, since this is almost 70 years old, someone must have discussed property claims. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Adam Reuter is some businessman who wrote an article, not a recognised expert. He writes "according to one estimate" without saying who made the estimate, at which time, whether it refers to original value or value today, etc etc. In other words it is essentially useless and doesn't belong here. Michael Fischbach's detailed published studies would be a far far better source. Zero 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed the Adam Reuter source for now. There are other estimates in the "Property Claims" section which are suspect as well, but I don't have time to touch them for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Adam Reuter is some businessman who wrote an article, not a recognised expert. He writes "according to one estimate" without saying who made the estimate, at which time, whether it refers to original value or value today, etc etc. In other words it is essentially useless and doesn't belong here. Michael Fischbach's detailed published studies would be a far far better source. Zero 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Adam Retuter was the the chief dealer of the Bank of Israel at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE); chairman of the investment committee of the study funds of the employees of the Bank of Israel; chairman of the investment committee of the Edmund de Rothschild Bank in Israel ; deputy chairman of the investment committee of Menorah Insurance; external director for various banks' provident funds and mutual funds. Founder of the first Israeli hedge fund, "Livlov Hasigalon". Holds an MBA and a PhD in business administration with a concentration on financing, and an undergraduate degree in economics. Licensed by the Israel Securities Authority to manage investment portfolios. Author of "The Bonds Book" and "Financial Risks Management" - both used as textbooks in their respective fields. Ynetnews is per WP:RS reliable secondary source. His claim regarding the value of property was properly sourced to him and he clearly has expertise from property value estimation. His articles regarding different economic estimates are widely cited by Globes, Ynetnews, Jpost etc. Tritomex (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not a historian or expert on Arab economies then. Glad you cleared that up. Besides, it doesn't matter: he writes "according to one estimate" without saying who made the estimate, at which time, whether it refers to original value or value today, etc etc. There is nothing at all in the article about Reuter having estimated anything, it is just commentary about things that aren't identified. Zero 05:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Tritomex: What is the point of asking on the talk page, if you are going to ignore it and add it anyway? As discussed above, the author is not an expert in the area (which would be history). Being a dealer on the Israeli stock exchange is not a qualification for making historical estimates, and he does not make estimates, just states some estimates (he doesn't say from where). With a historical event 70 years old, surely one can find better sources than a newspaper article written by a stock exchange dealer. Kindly remove this and get consensus. I can't remove this right now because of WP:1RR. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: The subject I asked on talk page was not the sentence you removed. This are not historical estimates as this property value has been estimated in modern currency at current time and I am not sure that an academic historian would be better source, than a widely cited economist on this matter. Beside this, his claim was attributed to him, not presented as a kind of conclusion. I can agree with Zeero regarding the second part, namely that the comparison made between Palestinian property loss and Jewish property loss needs identification of source before/if it can be added. This was my question and not whether Reuter has qualifications to make estimates regarding property value or whether Ynet is reliable source, as the answer on both question is obvious. Tritomex (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Tritomex: Perhaps you only asked about part of the material you added (which still remains by the way), but I and Zero0000 are objecting to the whole material. Reuter is not published for his estimates of the Jewish property losses, he wrote a book on something else entirely. He is not even referring to his own research on this matter, but quoting some estimates (not mentioned exactly which). You may have your own opinion about whether he is qualified or not, but as seen above, you do not have consensus to add this. Kindly get consensus first, per WP:ONUS, perhaps by using an WP:RFC or some other method. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian:No it has not remained. I did not revert that part. What is your policy based argument to withhold an opinion of widely cited Israeli economic expert who holds an MBA and a PhD from economic sciences? He is maybe biased or Pro-Israeli, yet his views/estimates are just his views, not less reliable than the estimates made by others in that section and are properly attributed to him. He is one of the most prominent Israeli economist who regularly wrrites regarding economic aspects of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in numerous journals. Also, his estimates are published by reliable secondary source.--Tritomex (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Tritomex: Sorry about my mistake about the claim about the part remaining. Regarding the rest, the policy based reason for not including this is given above: WP:ONUS. It is incumbent on the person adding material to find consensus for adding material. Just because someone states something in a reliable source does not mean it should be included in a WP article. I have given my reasons as to why I don't think it should be included and won't repeat them. I suggest you get wider consensus, if you wish to add this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is not based on the numbers of those pro/contra nor on being just against adding WP:RS on the subject stated here. This is WP:JDLI. There are no plicy based argeuments against adding Reuter views on the subject which this articles cover.--Tritomex (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes there are policy based arguments. You need to show that Reuter (not Ynet) is a reliable source for information about the exodus. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Oncenawhile:Ynetnews is widely used as WP:RS in hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles. So is Haaretz, New York Times and many other similar secondary sources. Reuter views are not presented as "universal truth" or "facts" but are representing his estimates and in this way WP:RSOPINION applies. Also he does not make historic evaluation of exodus. However as you have policy based argument I can eventfully ask uninvolved editors about the reliability of sources used.--Tritomex (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- High-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- Mid-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- B-Class Egypt articles
- Mid-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- B-Class Iraq articles
- Mid-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- B-Class Iran articles
- Mid-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles