Talk:Joseph Tabenkin

Unreliable sentence

"He is also accredited with having assisted in the immigration to Israel of 4,500 Ma'apilim (refugees who fled from Nazi Germany) during Mandatory Palestine and who were temporarily stationed in camps on the isle of Cyprus."

Cathedra is available without a paywall here. Tabenkin's remarks are part of Lorsh's article. Now please excuse my amateurish Hebrew, but I believe this is a claim Tabenkin is making about himself. That by itself makes it unusable. Moreover, doesn't he say "4,500 fighters in uniform"? It doesn't say they fled Nazi Germany either, which would be unlikely given that the Cyprus camps were only set up in 1946. He comes across as someone angry that his personal contribution is not recognised, which makes my suspicion about the reliability of his memoir even stronger. Zero^talk 10:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is a claim made by and acknowledged by Uri Davidson, who doesn't dispute the fact, but adds that the reason his efforts on behalf of the ma'apilim have not received much notoriety is because, in those days, no one knew what became of those soldiers. The act of working to bring refugees to Palestine was not seen as an extraordinary event in those days, seeing that many were actually coming illegally into the country. Had there been something extraordinary about the men brought into the country, Tabenkin's efforts would have gained notoriety. So, that makes several accounts that all concur. If you'd like, I'll add the other sources instead of Tabenkin's personal account. My understanding, though, is that primary sources can be used with caution, and as the contributing editors (jurors) have suggested on the Wikipedia Notice Board dealing with "Reliable Sources," if we cite a statement in his name, it makes the matter less controversial, as it is portrayed as his own personal view, rather than an all-out sweeping fact. As for Uri Davidson, you can see his words here, p. 92 in: Oren, Elhanan (1976). "Notes for Discussion (Hebrew)". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv. 1: 91–94. Retrieved 26 July 2018 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help). Looking forward to hearing from you. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

David, you know that you aren't supposed to reinsert reverted material for 24 hours! I'm not going to take action on that, but I am going to complain about your terrible editing. Please pay attention:

My mistake. It was done unintentionally, not remembering the restriction. Would you like me to delete it and replace it after our Shabbat?Davidbena (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Neither those two "sources" say that the people on Cyprus were fleeing from Nazi Germany. The Cyprus camps were only established in August 1946 and the first illegal immigrants were sent there on August 14, 1946. Many of them were Holocaust survivors but they were post-WWII refugees from Europe.

Here, you're right. I was only assuming that if they were ma'apilim, they were refugees of war-torn Europe. I think that the article of Ma'apilim treats on that by itself. In fact, the Hebrew article which speaks about the Displacement Camps in Cyprus (in which Tabenkin was involved in their rescue) says explicitly that these people were mostly from war-torn Europe. See here. Davidbena (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Davidson's extremely brief mention of "4,500 fighters from Cyprus" doesn't mention Tabenkin. So how is it confirmation? Davidson is just repeating something said in the round-table discussion he is part of and there is no reason to believe he even heard of it before.

The whole article, from beginning to end, speaks about Joseph Tabenkin. They (editors) each takes turn and interjects his own view as to what Tabenkin had complained about in the War of Israel's Independence.Davidbena (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

1. The next part you added "Soldiers from the Palmach..." has no source. Where is from?

Tabenkin himself says that they were fitted fully in uniforms, which is to imply, that they were made ready for combat.Davidbena (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

1. You also give no source for "an act that has not received much notoriety" and I doubt if you can. Even if the 1976 sources confirm that (dubious), it was 42 years ago.

Davidson explicitly says this, and gives the reason why it had not gained much notoriety.Davidbena (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This is quite unsatisfactory. Zero^talk 13:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if you have ever studied Yiddishkeit, there is a teaching in the Talmud and, I think also, in Avot deRebbe Nathan, where Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus says of himself that he is surprised that no one, except Rabbi Akiva, has ever approached him enquiring about the oral laws and halacha that he received, and that this, in his mind, was a sign of that generation's deficiency. When you reflect upon this statement, Rabbi Eliezer was right. Any tradition that is not diligently sought after by inquiry so that it might be preserved unto posterity is, indeed, a sad thing, and one that does not bode well for that generation. Similar to, yet distinct from, is the statement made by Joseph Tabenkin of himself, that he was surprised that no one had ever approached him and enquired about events that transpired in the early days of the founding of the State. You see, Tabenkin had a true love and respect for history. Shabbat shalom.Davidbena (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I know enough about Yiddishkeit to be sure that I don't know much. Which I guess more than nothing. A problem with your argument is your assumption that Tabenkin's complaint was correct. Is it really true that historians never sought his experiences despite his senior role? It would be contrary to normal practice so I have my doubts. Enjoy Shabbat. Zero^talk 13:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

David, After reviewing the above discussion, I don't believe you have a case for inclusion of the material at all. Tabenkin's brief mention is obviously self-serving. As I said, Davidson is only repeating something he just heard from Tabenkin, which is not independent confirmation. (Should he have called Tabenkin a liar? Obviously not.) The part about soldiers bringing them in boats is only your original research since the source does not say that (the fighters in uniform refers to the 4,500 people after they were inducted into the Hagana; it would be stupid to put them into uniform while still in Cyprus). Finally, a claim 46 years ago that something had "not received much notoriety" says nothing at all about its notoriety now. A correct report "had not received much notoriety by 1972" would just look silly. The simplest explanation for Davidson's statement made during that discussion is that it was news to him at the time; which is original research but so is your interpretation. If it is not possible to find a good recent source, that only emphasises the unreliability of the claim as well as the lack of weight. All of this means that the material fails our standards on multiple grounds. Zero^talk 04:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that what you're forgetting is that these reports have been taken from a larger work, published by Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv (1976, volume 1). Perhaps it's just better to cite the original source, rather than excerpts - as it shows a higher editorial body involved in their publication. It brings down a discussion by many soldiers who took part in that war. The important thing here to remember is that Tabenkin's claim is not refuted, but is acknowledged as being true. Why he thought it should have been a subject of interest, seeing that these very men were fitted in uniform, as attested by Davidson and Tabenkin, and that they would have no doubt helped in altering events in warfare, you can understand why Tabenkin thought that this was not an ordinary feat (to bring them to Palestine) and to be ignored. Davidson, however, calms Tabenkin's worries, saying that it was not an unusual feat to bring illegals into Palestine, and that no one really knows what expolits, if any, were done by these men. In the final analysis, it does not matter what these men accomplished. It is worthy, however, of mentioning that Tabenkin was, in fact, involved in bringing ma'apilim to the country. It shows his concern for Jews who were being rejected by the British, as far as immigration is concerned. BTW: Translating these passages from Hebrew into English for better understanding of events has nothing to do with WP:OR, since their words speak for themselves. The emphasis here is on the fact that Tabenkin, under his capacity of Palmach leader, helped in the immigration of the ma'apilim. Who is it that denies this as being a matter of historical importance?Davidbena (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can start a RfC over whether or not this curious anecdote should be included in the article, or, perhaps, reworded.Davidbena (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it would be a waste of everyone's time to start an RfC, because this is an open and shut case. You are making a whole story out of a sentence or two and you know that it isn't allowed. He made a claim and nobody refuted it---are you serious? "In the final analysis, it does not matter what these men accomplished."---so you don't care if the story is true or not? "It shows his concern for Jews"---completely irrelevant and hagiography is not a valid motive for insertion of text. "these reports have been taken from a larger work"---again, completely irrelevant. "shows his concern for Jews who were being rejected by the British"---but he doesn't say that they were brought to Palestine before British left, it is you assuming that. It comes in the middle of a paragraph about events after independence.

In case someone else stumbles across this, I'll give here the complete text you are relying on. First the statement of Tabenkin about himself: "I was responsible for organizing the camps in Cyprus. I brought 4,500 uniformed fighters from there." (He doesn't when or how.) Then there is the mention by Davidson, who identifies himself as a sociologist. Note that his comments occur later in the same group discussion. "There was mention of the disregard of the 4,500 fighters from Cyprus and other events that took place elsewhere and were not taken into account." (So Davidson does not confirm that it happened, but only chooses something that had been mentioned as an example to make his point.) That's the entire relevant content of this source as far as I am aware. Zero^talk 12:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I will provide a better translation for you and for all to see. The matter is, indeed, noteworthy, for a man of his caliber.Davidbena (talk)

Request for Comment,

Is there a place in this article to mention briefly Tabenkin's efforts on behalf of 4,500 stranded people in Cyprus whom he brought illegally to Palestine, from a mere humanitarian perspective? Davidbena (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Tabenkin, in an excerpt published by the Israeli publication, Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv (1976), candidly reflects back on events leading up to Israel's War of Independence, and mentions the fact that while he was still in the Palmach he clandestinely helped in the immigration to Mandate Palestine of 4,500 people who had been stationed on the isle of Cyprus. The state of these displaced Jewish persons ("ma'apilim") being in limbo and rejected by British immigration authorities at the time, and where they sat in camps in Cyprus until they were clandestinely brought to Palestine, came to be known as "Aliyah Bet", while they were given the name "ma'apilim" (that is, refugees who fled mostly from war-torn Europe during Mandatory Palestine) [See: https://vdocuments.site/britains-naval-and-political-reaction-to-the-illegal-immigration-of-jews-to.html Britain’s Naval and Political Reaction to the Illegal Immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945–1948]. The act is first described by Tabenkin on p. 90 of: Tabenkin, Joseph (1976). "Taking testimonies is preferable to documents (גביית עדויות עדיפה על מיסמכים)". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv (in Hebrew). 1: 89–90. JSTOR 23396383., and later by fellow soldier, Uri Davidson, on p. 92 of: Oren, Elhanan (1976). "Notes for Discussion". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv (in Hebrew). 1: 91–94. JSTOR 23396384..

Tabenkin's testimony is as follows (the original Hebrew followed by an English translation), and it would seem that its use is permitted under the rules outlined in WP:WPNOTRS.

לחמתי כמעט בכל מוקדי הקרבות של הארץ; קרבות ירושלים, בנגב ומדרום לפיתחת רפיח. ואני תמיד העליתי את הדברים מנקודת ראות שלי. אני רוצה לציין שעד היום לא גבו ממני עדות על קרב כלשהו במלחמת השחרור. שום עדות! אינני חושב שזה מקרה. הייתי האחראי לאירגון המחנות בקפריסין. הבאתי משם 4,500 לוחמים לבושי מדים. עד היום איש לא שאל אותי איך זה קרה. אני גם הייתי זה שהכין את הטייסים הראשונים, ומי שבמיבצע נחשון פיקד על כל השטח מבאב אל וואד ומי שפיקד על ירושלים בתוך הקטע של העיר העתיקה. ולא גבו עדויות מפי. הבעיה איננה אישית. זהו פרט הבא ללמד על הכלל,

"...I fought in nearly all concentrated places of battles in the country (Palestine/Israel); the battles of Jerusalem, in the Negev and from the south of the entrance to Rafiaḥ. And I have always brought up matters according to my own perspective. I wish to point out that, until this day, no one has ever taken from me testimony about any battle in the War of Independence. No testimony! I do not think that this is an accident. I was responsible for the organisation of the camps in Cyprus. I brought from there 4,500 fighters dressed in military fatigues. Unto this day, no one has asked me how that happened. I was also the person who prepared the first pilots and he that, in Operation Nachshon, commanded the entire area from Bab al-Wad, and he that had the command of Jerusalem in that section of the Old City. No one, however, has taken testimonies from me. It has nothing to do with a personal problem. It is a small detail that comes to teach us about the whole [aspect of this war]."

As for Uri Davidson's remarks on page 92, in which he refers to the exploits of Tabenkin, he says:

"Another problem is one's overall visual perception of a historical event. It was asked why do they not put an emphasis on historical events? There was mentioned the disregard for the 4,500 fighters from Cyprus and other events that happened in other places and that were not taken into the overall account. Why haven't they stressed that an event like this has an impact one way or the other? It seems to me that, in doing so, we would digress from a certain historical method [already in place], which says that, at first, we must gather all the facts without taking into account the question of whether these facts have contributed in shape or form to historical knowledge or have not contributed."

My question to our fellow-editors is whether or not there is a place in this article to mention briefly Tabenkin's efforts on behalf of these 4,500 people whom he brought illegally to Palestine, from a mere humanitarian perspective? Is the following edit worthy, or should it be slightly reworded?

In an act that has not received much notoriety, Tabenkin is also accredited with having assisted in the immigration to Israel of 4,500 Ma'apilim (refugees who fled mostly from war-torn Europe) during Mandatory Palestine and who were temporarily stationed in camps on the isle of Cyprus. Soldiers from the Palmach escorted them on boats and took care to have them safely brought to shore without being detected. The same new immigrants were later given full military gear.

References

Davidbena (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

What is your brief and neutral statement? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something along these lines: "Tabenkin's unit is also accredited with having assisted in the immigration to Israel of 4,500 Ma'apilim (refugees who fled mostly from war-torn Europe) during Mandatory Palestine and who were temporarily stationed in camps on the isle of Cyprus." I think that this would be sufficient. No more; no less. It shows their concern for their stranded Jewish brothers at a time when Britain refused to let them in the country.Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Redrose64's point is that RfCs should be presented as neutral and brief statements/questions. They aren't supposed to be statements of the originating editors's viewpoint. After writing an RfC in a brief and neutral fashion, you can start the Comments section with your own viewpoint. You are not the first editor to make this mistake. Zero^talk 01:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Redrose64, now that I understand the import of your question to me, this is my question in brief: "Is there a place in this article to mention briefly Tabenkin's efforts on behalf of 4,500 stranded people in Cyprus whom he brought illegally to Palestine, from a mere humanitarian perspective?" --Davidbena (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In which case, that is what should have appeared as the opening statement, i.e. between the {{rfc}} template and the next timestamp after that. Remember that it is the opening statement that is copied to the RfC listing pages - see this bot edit for example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that I understand what I should have done, we'd still be happy to get your feedback on the RfC. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) has made this edit. Observe what a difference it has made to the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Source is inadequate. I will address the proposed text in the RfC point by point. First I will note that the source is the record of a discussion between several people, chaired by the historian Nathaniel Lorch, on the practice of writing history. It is not a historical article.

• "In an act that has not received much notoriety" -- The only source provided is a statement made 46 years ago, which obviously says nothing at all about the present. Unsourced.
• "Tabenkin is also accredited" -- No, Tabenkin accredited himself and no other source is offered. Later in the same discussion Davidson used Tabenkin's example to make a point, but did not say that he had heard of it before. The strong "nobody appreciates me" tone of Tabenkin's statement should make us wary of the likelihood of exaggeration. Unsourced.
• "during Mandatory Palestine" -- Not stated in the source, and we shouldn't make assumptions. Actually, most of the residents of the Cyprus camps were still there when the British left Palestine and were only later brought to the new state of Israel and inducted into the army if they were of fighting age. The process was only completed early in 1949, more than half a year after independence. We have no way to tell whether Tabenkin was referring to before or after independence or both. Original research.
• "Soldiers from the Palmach escorted them on boats and took care to have them safely brought to shore without being detected." -- This is completely made up as the source mentions none of it. Original research.
• "The same new immigrants were later given full military gear." -- Since the source says "fighters in uniform" this is not so bad as the rest, though I don't like "full military gear" as writing style, also I don't believe the distinction between "military fatigues" and "full military gear" appears in the source.

In summary, we have a 46-year-old assertion made by a person about themselves and no independent confirmation. Moreover, much of the proposed text is not supported even by this weak evidence. I believe this is nowhere near enough. We should not have to rely on such weak evidence for something that should be easy to source. I read multiple academic articles on the Cyprus camps, and although I found mention of fighters being brought from Cyprus none of them named Tabenkin. As always, I have no objection to a good source being cited correctly, but this is not it. Zero^talk 01:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Added: See Cyprus internment camps#Escape attempts for a sense of proportion here. If Tabenkin had managed to smuggle out 4,500 people secretly it would have been an extraordinary achievement that would have spawned books and movies. We wouldn't have to rely on a few ambiguous words from a 1972 conversation. Zero^talk 03:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• In body, attributed to Tabenkin. This was published. It was authored by Tabenkin. Given that the article is currently rather brief, we definitely could include a self-attributed statement - e.g. According to Tabenkin he smuggled 4,500 Jewish fighters from Cyprus, and also organized the first Jewish pilots for combat operations.. As for the "truthfulness" of this - it is possible. In Cyprus there were 24,000 Jews in concentration camps in May 1948.[1] By end of July there were just 11,000.[2] The British did allow 4,100 to leave on the Pans.[3]. The British policy was to prevent the departure of men aged 18-45 (or "fighting ages") - however they did allow other departures until January. While escapes via tunnels from the camps were rare, it is certainly possible that men aged 18-45 pretended to be women, youths, or old men - possibly by swapping camp IDs with other inmates - Tabenkin's claim is far from extraordinary.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  In this source - Tabenkin is mentioned vis-a-vis the concentration camps - as organizing the "Shurat Maginim" operation of the Palmach there. According to this source, at least 4,000 of the "Shurat Maginim" personnel managed to reach the Yishuv between April and September 1948.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Lest I be accused of OR in regards to detained fighting age men infiltrating into those the British allowed to leave - this source says this. Also note that in terms of terminology - following May 1948 this wasn't illegal immigration, and that the British action in arresting the men was unilateral.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Your proposal is better, except that "smuggled" is not supported by the source. I would agree to the same sentence with "smuggled" replaced by "brought". Reluctantly though, because this is obviously an unsafe claim from a primary source that is essentially self-published. Zero^talk 09:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "brought" would reflect Tabenkin's words here better.Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, all of your accusations (that what is being stated above are either "non-sourced" material or "original research") are untrue. Everything is accurately sourced. For example, where we have written, "Soldiers from the Palmach escorted them on boats and took care to have them safely brought to shore without being detected," this fact is derived from the Palmach Information Center web-site here. Once you're on the page, click on the button קורות חיים (Life History) for the detail mentioned by us in the article. Although it is written in Hebrew, I can provide you with an English translation. There, it says (translated): "The battalion worked to escort boats containing ma'apilim, having them disembark along the coast."Davidbena (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As for why we have written "Mandatory Palestine," this is plain to any historian. Your argument is a non sequitur. The illegal immigration of "ma'apilim" only happened before the founding of the State of Israel, while the country was still legally under the British Mandate when Tabenkin's unit helped these men immigrate.Davidbena (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User: Davidbena, leaving aside the problematic nature of memorial sites, your new source doesn't support you either. It is true that the Palmach among others landed illegal immigrants in Palestine during 1945-1948, but they came overwhelmingly from France and Italy, with some from Bulgaria. I have a long list of ships and dates. Your source says exactly nothing about bringing anyone from Cyprus. Also, alas, what is "plain to any historian" is only plain to historians who don't know the history of the Cyprus camps. As Icewhiz has correctly pointed out, even after Israel declared independence Britain refused to release those Cyprus internees who were of military age on the excuse that it would violate a UN embargo. This continued until early 1949. I can recommend a book of Liebreich that documents it in detail, in addition to some journal articles. So if Tabenkin "brought fighters" (which is all he claims) it is just as likely to have been after independence as before. Zero^talk 11:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised at how you miss the source, Zero. You wrote, "Your source says exactly nothing about bringing anyone from Cyprus." Have you ignored Tabenkin's own words, where he says explicitly: "I was responsible for the organisation of the camps in Cyprus. I brought from there 4,500 fighters dressed in military fatigues" (Cathedra - 1976). To avoid the time-frame of the event (since it is indeed sketchy, not to mention that it is also irrelevant), we can simply add: "Tabenkin's unit brought to Palestine some 4,500 ma'apilim from the isle of Cyprus." Or else, "Tabenkin's unit is alleged to have brought Jewish refugees ("ma'apilim") to Palestine." Bear in mind that any Jews coming to Israel from Cyprus after the founding of the Jewish State were no longer classified as "ma'apilim." They were regular immigrants. Here, we're speaking specifically about the period of time when Britain still ruled Mandatory Palestine. The history of the "ma'apilim" principally begins in 1945 and ends in 1948, as described in Nahum Bogner's book, "The Isle of Exile" (אי הגירוש). Would this help matters any? I really cannot understand your opposition to adding this sourced material. If you feel for any reason that the official web-site of the Palmach is not a reliable source for information posted on Wikipedia, would you be willing to ask the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? To cut matters short, can you suggest a shortened way of saying something about Tabenkin's endeavors (or his unit's endeavors) to bring stranded Jews to Israel/Palestine?Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it is the Palmach memorial site that doesn't say Tabenkin brought people from Cyprus. It's reliability makes no difference to whether it be used to support a claim that it doesn't even have. Your original source (1972 personal statement) says he brought fighters, not ma'apilim, so it doesn't make any difference when the word "ma'apilim" stopped being used. Nor are you allowed (SYNTH) to combine two sources into one story when both the sources have simple alternative explanations. I already said that I can reluctantly accept Icewhiz's suggestion (using "brought"). Zero^talk 01:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the limitations imposed by WP:SYNTH, but this is not one of them. There are plenty of secondary sources that have, according to Wikipedia policies, briefly mentioned his role in repatriating the "ma'apilim." As a reminder of WP:Primary sources, it states: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." We have two ways of approaching this subject: (1) Either make note of the fact that Tabenkin brought "4,500 fighters from Cyprus," without mentioning who they were, or (2) we can elaborate further by bringing down another secondary source that mentions the fact that they were, indeed, "ma'apilim." As it turns out, Tabenkin was interviewed about his military exploits in the Palmach in 1985 by Avraham Zohar and Avraham Shavit, as you can see in the official Palmach web-site here (in Hebrew). The material on their web-site was given to them by the Tabenkin Memorial in Ramat Ef'al. This site, as you can see, is different from the one previously shown to you, the other one simply being a Memorial site as you rightly denoted. This one, however, is the official site. You may also wish to see this one here, where he was interviewed in 1984 by Avraham Zohar, and which appears to be the general stop-over for all papers relating to Joseph Tabenkin's involvement in Israel's War of Independence and duties as the Palmach's Fourth Battalion Commander. It may be necessary for me to revisit the Hebrew University library, to glean more material on Joseph Tabenkin. Meanwhile, without yet reading any of these sources in-depth (but only a cursory review), we have found the following material. I will make an effort for the sake of this noble venue (Wikipedia) to read each of these books for the precise information about Tabenkin's involvement (or his unit's) in the rescue of "ma'apilim," just as stated in the Memorial site.

• Sefer ha-Palmach ["Book of the Palmach'] (vol. 1), ed. Zerubbabel Gil'ad, Hakibbutz Hameuchad: Tel Aviv, 1953 (2nd edition); 1955, p. 600 (seen here), and where we read:

מפקד הגדוד חרביעי, יוסף טבנקין, נשלח לקפריסין על־ידי מטה הפלמ״ח, על־מנת לעמוד מקרוב על הצרכים והאפשרויות. ואמנם, ביקורו זה וגו

(Translation) "The commander of the Fourth Battalion, Joseph Tabenkin, was sent to Cyprus by the Palmach headquarters in order to get a close-up look at their needs and to get an appraisal of the situation for future options. However, this visit, etc."

• Geḥelet Loḥemet ["Fighting Spark"], by Yakeb Markovetzky & Yaakov Markovitzky, Ramat Ef'al 1995, p. 69 (seen here), and where we read:

ארגון המשלחת, שיגורה והאחריות להפעלתה הוטלו על מטה הגדוד הרביעי, שהיה נתון לפיקודו של יוסף (יוספל׳ה) טבנקין ואחראי על כל ״המבצעים המיוחדים״, ההעפלה והחבלה הימית

(Translation) "The responsibility for the delegation's organisation, its dispatch as well as the responsibility for its operation, were given to the headquarters of the 4th Battalion, which was put under the command of Joseph (Yosefle) Tabenkin, and who was responsible for all 'special operations', the illegal immigration and sabotage at sea."

• Sefer Toldot Hahaganah ["The Book of the History of the Haganah"] (vol. 3 - part 2), by Ben Zion Dinur, Yehuda Salutzky & Shaul Avigor, Irgun Hahaganah: Tel-Aviv 1964/1972, p. 1173 [Chapter: The Rising Influence of the Haganah in the Camps], (seen here), and where we read:

בחשון תש"ח (אוקטובר 1947) הגיע לביקור במחנה יוסף טבנקין, מפקד גדוד הרביעי של הפלמ”ח, ועמו משלחת חדשה. משלחת ב'. של הפלמ”ח, עשרה אנשים בפיקודו של יצחק קרלינסקי

(Translation) "In the lunar month of Heshvan 5708 anno mundi (October 1947) Joseph Tabenkin, the commander of the Palmach's Fourth Battalion, arrived for a visit at the camp, and with him a new delegation, the Second Delegation of the Palmach, ten people under the [immediate] command of Yitzhak Karlinsky…".

• Monitin Press Company: the University of California (Heb. מוניטין), published in 1988, issues 116–120, p. 24, where we read:

יוסף טבנקין, בנו של יצחק טבנקין, מנהיג הקיבוץ-המאוחד ואחדות-העבודה. כשהיה בן ... היה מפקד הגדוד הרביעי של הפלמ"ח, שעסק בליווי אוניות מעפילים והורדתם לחוף; ותחת פיקודו היו מחלקות הטיס וה"מסתערבים"

"Joseph Tabenkin, the son of Yitzhak Tabenkin, the leader of the Kibbutz HaMeuhad [movement] and the Labor Union, when he was aged… He was the commander of the Palmach's Fourth Battalion, who worked to escort the ships of the ma'apilim and their eventual disembarkation on the coast; and under his command there were the flight units and the 'undercover Arabic-speaking Jews' [used as operatives]…"

• Palmach Hayami (Palyam) ("The Maritime Palmach") [Heb. פלמ"ח הימי - פלי"ם], by Avraham Zohar & Meir Pe'il, Israel Ministry of Defense: Tel Aviv 2001, p. 121, where we read:

באביב 1947 ההחלטה לשגר למחנות ... לפני צאת המשלחת לדרכה תודרך מפקדה יהודה דרכסלר על־ידי המג״ד החדש יוסף טבנקין, שזה אך קיבל את הפיקוד על הגדוד הרביעי. ... בהנחיות לשיטת העבודה ובניית המסגרת נאמר לדרכסלר כי אל להם לפלמ״חניקים לקבל על עצמם במחנות משימות שלא מעניינם, ולהפוך לעסקנים שיטבעו בתוך המון המעפילים

(Translation) "In the Spring of 1947, the decision to send to the camps… Before the delegation departed for their journey, its commander Yehuda Drexler was given instructions by the new battalion commander, Joseph Tabenkin, who had also received command of the Fourth Battalion… With instructions as to the work method and building of the [proper] framework, Drexler was told that the Palmach enlistees should not take upon themselves tasks that were of no concern to them, etc."

As you can see, there is a wealth of information, all secondary sources and all attesting to the same thing. Perhaps we can agree to write: "According to Tabenkin, he brought 4,500 Jewish fighters from Cyprus, and also organized the first Jewish pilots for combat operations." Meanwhile, I'll make an effort to visit the Hebrew University in Jerusalem to gain more knowledge about these events.Davidbena (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

David, I won't stand in your way if you add the sentence "According to Tabenkin, he brought 4,500 Jewish fighters from Cyprus, and also organized the first Jewish pilots for combat operations." with only the 1972 source. Even though I don't feel that source satisfies RS. From the beginning I have wanted to know what the full story was, but the fact that you still didn't manage to find any other source that states that Tabenkin brought people from Cyprus bothers me. Your plan about "bringing down another secondary source that mentions the fact that they were, indeed, ma'apilim" would be fine except that you brought no such source. It is just your SYNTH that the ma'apilim mentioned in your other sources were the same people as the alleged 4,500 from Cyprus, when it is much more likely that the reference is to the larger number of ma'apilim that the Palmach brought from Europe. Zero^talk 15:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I assure you, my friend, that I will investigate the matter further when I go to the Hebrew University in the next 2-3 weeks, God willing. I will add additional sources from the material I cited above. Thanks for being patient with me. Only if the source states explicitly that they were "ma'apilim" will we add this one descriptive noun. Again, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the source text and bibliographic information along side the proposed article text in clear presentation with links if possible. I don't object to this RfC format, but in future you could put your "Brief and neutral" statement at the very top at the opening and you can put detailed comments and proposals as your reply to your own RfC as a comment or sub section. You can also consider using roll up tags to optionally hide your text if it's very long. Edaham (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm not very computer savvy. If you will kindly explain to me how to use "roll up tags" I'd appreciate it. As for your request to receive the source text and bibliographical information, I will gladly comply to your request once I go to the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem to retrieve this information. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)