Talk:Ma'abarot

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict between [[Ma'abarot] and [[Itzik Zohar]] articles regarding whether they were still around in the 1970's 

message: 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)
replies: text: This picture: , Huldra (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Milk distribution at a ma'abara" in an empty field... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  False edit summary