This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
A fact from Palestinian enclaves appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank (map pictured) constitute an "archipelago" of 165 islands?
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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as unsuccessful per comments from reviewers and general instability after two months.
This is the wrong forum. Your blanking is not consistent with WP:DELETE. You are welcome to open a deletion discussion, then we can get back to this afterwards. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The POV problems in the article are beyond repair, the article duplicates existing articles. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have never submitted or reviewed at DYK before. I suggest you review the policies and procedures here before commenting further.
Please explain your issues with the article at the talk page so we can proceed constructively. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong forum. You can call them what you want (islands? enclaves? patchwork? fragments?) but they are real. No respectable source denies that. The sources used in the article are of the highest quality. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is one sided POV fest with chosen Pro-Palestinian POV authors to push a Bantustan concept in to I/P conflict. Its never could be a DYK material --Shrike (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shrike, sorry but you are wrong. Let’s discuss on the article talk page (your sources appear to have failed verification), and then come back here afterwards. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read both sources before making your claim? --Shrike (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article is still there and discussions have been going forth on the article talk page, a new review is clearly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article is not that clearly defined. To my reading, the main thrust is a mixture between a potential future final state which consists of enclaves, and a coverage of the comparisons of such enclaves (past, present, and future) to the bantustans. Regarding neutrality, while the usage of "bantustan" and related words through quotes seems like a necessary part of covering the topic well, the widespread usage of such words outside of quotes is concerning, and does not reflect common usage. Specifically regarding DYK, the proposed hook is inadequate, as it does not cover either of the entwined topics I mentioned before. Looking at just the hook alone the expected bolded article would be West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. If the intended topic of the article is just those areas, then this article would be a POVFORK. If the intended topic is otherwise, and this can be clarified, the hook would need to relate to that topic. CMD (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chipmunkdavis: thank you for these comments. The article has undergone significant improvements in the last two weeks, and an RM is still ongoing. This topic does seem to have struck a chord with a lot of editors; it was described in Haaretz a couple of years ago as "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century." I have also made some tweaks to the hook above. I suspect there will be further discussion on the talk page, including another RM, so I think it is better to wait a little further until reviewing again. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing has changed its same POV fest with cherry picked sources to present one sided POV.Its not DYK material --Shrike (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this editor has behaved this way previously in DYK nominations about well-sourced topics covering elements of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. See Template:Did you know nominations/Old City of Hebron.
Raising concerns is good, and to be encouraged. But this editor raises non-specific concerns which cannot be addressed, and makes no effort to address the concerns themselves or engage in any real discussion. At Old City of Hebron they started with a few specific comments, which were all addressed, then pivoted to general comments which they refused to engage in discussion on.
I am not saying this article is perfect – as I have said above, there is work to do and discussions are ongoing. I am simply highlighting that there is a chance that this editor repeats the above claim going forward even when the article is ready and discussions have been resolved.
Its not only me.Other editors opined that the article is problematic exactly like in the example you brought --Shrike (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raising concerns is good and helpful. Topics related to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are often politically sensitive, and our open-source encyclopedia is the best place on the internet for the topic precisely because we get input from editors of all persuasions.
If you don’t follow up your concerns with constructive discussion or editing, and endlessly repeat the non-specific claims, it is disruptive. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to leave this article on hold for now, but it cannot be considered for DYK while it remains unstable. I hope that the ongoing talk page discussions will provide more input regarding neutrality concerns. Perhaps the RM and similar discussions can also help hone in on a clear article topic. On DYK specific concerns, the current article posits the main topic as "proposed enclaves", and I would prefer a hook that reflects that topic (even though the current situation was undoubtedly proposed at some point). Hook assessment will also require a more stable article. CMD (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w Chipmunkdavis. Also, the hook is confusing to me. What's the other 10 per cent? One island? 1000 islands? Not under PA control? Full PA control? It's just very confusing. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narutolovehinata5, yes – we have started to see some stability at the article, which is very encouraging. The editor above, Shrike, who has a track record of regular sniping at Israel-related DYKs but does not engage in constructive dialogue, has sadly continued this trend of non-engagement. His input would be appreciated. There remains an open RfC, which needs to be resolved before this DYK can proceed. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, The problem that the author has history of writing one sided WP:POV articles against the policy its not only my opinion but other editors think so also.Talk:West_Bank_bantustans#NPOV_concerns.Also there is an emerging consensus about name change against the author wishes. But let ask other editor that opined in this DYK if its became DYK material.@Buidhe:, @11Fox11: Could you please give your opinion about the article if it ready for DYK --Shrike (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready, very POV. It was almost deleted, but just barely closed no-consensus at AfD. I probably will start a merge discussion soon. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem to be very stable at the moment so I would suggest withholding a final review until that is resolved. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been checking in occasionally, but I am leaning towards expecting this article will inherently not be stable enough for DYK at the moment. CMD (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the stability and neutrality issues, as well as the disagreements between editors as to if the article is suitable for DYK or should even have an article at all, it appears that the article meeting DYK requirements is not feasible at this time. As such, this is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, any chance we could wait until the (possible) name change and then take a view? The article is actually very stable; despite all the friction over the name, there has not been a single edit war as far as I am aware. This is because the editors claiming POV have not brought any sources to support their claims. There doesn't seem to be any rush, and I don't think it is healthy to give in to this kind of transparent behavior which is, again, unsupported by sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least three separate editors have mentioned that the article is lacking in either stability or neutrality, and I haven't seen any comments from you explaining how the article is in fact neutral and stable apart from you dismissing their comments instead of addressing their concerns, regardless of their validity. In addition, I took a look at the article's history and it is still being continuously edited by other editors. At the very least, given the status of the article is in flux, it does not appear ready for DYK at this time. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narutolovehinata5, yes I agree it should wait until the RM is done and any subsequent proposals are fully discussed. But I would appreciate if it was not closed at this point; I don't think we should set a precedent game plan for the exclusion of "difficult" subjects from DYK. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to "explaining how the article is in fact neutral", it has been built from a bibliography of almost 100 sources, primarily widely respected scholars and commentators. The sources have a reasonable balance of Israeli and Palestinian authors (albeit more Israeli than Palestinian), as well as American and other international authors.
I note that two months ago an opposing editor described it as a "one-sided POV fest with chosen Pro-Palestinian POV authors"; unfortunately in two months that editor has failed to provide a single source from any other POV. The article has also been expanded significantly since the date of that comment. Should this editor, or others, make further claims going forward, I hope they will be asked to substantiate them with actual sources, which – should these sources exist – could then be addressed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That this is on a difficult or controversial subject is itself not the issue here, the problem right now is more of stability since it's still actively being worked on by multiple editors. In addition, multiple editors have also expressed concerns about the article's neutrality and have yet to raise their objections. Until these issues are resolved, the article may not be approved for DYK. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narutolovehinata5, understood. What should we do if editors continue to raise objections without providing a clear route to addressing them? I am keen to avoid creating an easy way for editors to block articles from DYK. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be nice to avoid that but the fact is it is easy for them to do it and so they will, I even saw one of these editors saying they should tag just to "keep the article off of the main page". Another just writes POV/UNDUE on everything regardless if that is true or not. This is to be expected in IP area, going by the sources is way down the list of priorities. So in practice, they can keep any DYK from progressing and I notice that's what has been happening. Just don't do DYK's for IP area, that's my advice.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a good moment to step back and consider how we think about DYK articles which cover "difficult" subjects. See below two examples which I have been involved in over the last couple of years, with some of the same opposing editors here, and which both relate to some of the more "sensitive" areas of the way the West Bank is run:
The first of these went through, only after I conceded to temporarily remove any reference to words which did not reflect well on Israeli policy, despite them being well-sourced. The second I withdrew, because the opposing comments essentially said that unless the article was rewritten to duplicate Hebron#History then they would not consider it fulsome. In both cases, as here, the opposing editors did not make any effort to edit the article themselves, and in the subsequent years did not edit the articles either.
I would appreciate thoughts on how we should approach such situations more broadly.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been moved to Palestinian enclaves. Nevertheless, the article still appears to be in an unstable state and there are some statements with a "by whom" tag. Due to these, and the fact that the nomination has been ongoing since November without the issues being adequately addressed to allay editor concerns, I just cannot see the article staying in a stable state anytime soon. As such, I would recommend that the nomination be closed as unsuccessful. As mentioned earlier, I do not believe that being on a "difficult" subject is by itself a disqualifier from DYK and indeed we've already had multiple articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on DYK. However, stability and neutrality are two of the most important DYK criteria and an article that may never meet either or both just simply won't be passed. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your comment that “being on a "difficult" subject is [not] by itself a disqualifier from DYK”. The DYK process has to balance the challenge that difficult subjects usually require more time to reach consensus, against the fact that old nominations cannot remain forever (there are still two nominations older than this one). If we get that balance wrong, we create a situation where difficult subjects are being excluded in practice, even if we aren’t intending to. My primary concern is not allowing an easy way for the system to be gamed by those who oppose a particular article for non-sourced-based / non-policy-based reasons. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I just can't see this article ever being ready for DYK given the stability issues that are currently existing. In addition, I'm not really sure why there appears to be an apparent persistence of keeping this particular nomination open instead of accepting the prevailing sentiment that the nomination cannot proceed at this time. Not all articles are meant for DYK and sometimes nominations don't work out the way we wish for, there will always be other opportunities to nominate other articles in the future that may meet guidelines. This particular nomination may be closed, but it doesn't mean that the gaming concerns can't be addressed. If you do believe that there are gaming issues with DYK with regards to difficult subjects, you are always free to start a talk page discussion over at WT:DYK and discuss possible solutions. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 08:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As the reviewer of this DYK, I found issues with this article outside of strict stability concerns. Instability may have played a part in their not being able to be addressed fully, but I do not believe that this constitutes the article being gamed out of DYK. If there is a larger pattern, this is not the place to discuss it. I agree this should be closed now, but note that a failed DYK should not be considered a diminishment of the effort put into this article. CMD (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to include the use of the term "bantustans" in the lead without qualification and in bold text. I am basing this on my own understanding of Wikipedia's consensus around the use of alternative names and our readers' expectations as well as my having read through the entirety of the arguments given in the discussion, which was no small task. A loose necktie (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The three questions below relate to the first paragraph of the lead, and how/if to present the "bantustan" analogy described regarding the proposed enclaves and racially segregated areas in apartheid South Africa. For those new to the discussion, please feel free to review the prior move discussion, which resulted in an article title change from "Palestinian bantustans" to "Palestinian enclaves."
Question 1: Should the lead make mention of the bantustans analogy?
Question 2: If yes to Q1, which one of the following three versions should be used to describe the analogy? (These are drawn from the prior three versions of the sentence present in the article. Please feel free to suggest slightly modified wording, but it would be helpful to indicate which is your closest preference based on the versions below.)
A Critics of the enclave proposals have analogized them to the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, which were areas set aside for black inhabitants.
B By way of the popular comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as the West Bank bantustans.
C The enclave models are, typically by critics, often referred to as bantustans, a term implying a comparison in this regard between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, and figuratively as a Palestine Archipelago among other terms.
Question 3: Should "bantustans" be bolded as an alternative title?
Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1Yes, fine with it. At this point it's likely to remain. Q2Option A for the reasons described above. It is necessary and appropriate to describe this as a criticism, consistent with how reliable sources like the NYT have framed it in the broader discussion over Israel-related issues. This term has not been established to be in widespread usage, as per the agreement in the prior RfC. Q3:No, bantustans was rejected as failing POVNAME and should not be presented as an alt title. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not re-argue the same points you made in the discussion under votes for added visibility. You are entitled to expand on your vote, but it'd be better if you kept that in the subsection below. See "Please keep your votes concise."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: The section below named "Sources explicitly supporting . . ." Violates WP:TALKHEADPOV by asserting that these sources support that this phrase is "widely used," without noting the crucial caveat that each of those cited source area academics who've expressed strident opinions either 1) opposing Israel, 2) opposing US-Israel relations, or 3) promoting the Israel-Apartheid analogy, something vigorously contested by commentators on the other side of the debate. This should not be construed as in any way establishing that POVNAME is satisfied, especially given that these same sources were reviewed in the prior move discussion and dismissed the reasons I outlined above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, did you not complain about the NYT's bias (notice I didn't use scare quotes) because it used directly opposite language? All of the authors hold strident views, so repeating that they are "valid" doesn't address the issue here. and POVNAME unquestionably applies to alternative titles that aren't redirects. My later replies to the inevitable response will be in the extended discussion section below. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please quote what from WP:POVNAME supports any part of the idea that a commonly used name should not be bolded in the lead because it is supposedly "POV"? An actual quote from policy would be appreciated, not this repeated hand waving at some set of capital letters that when one actually clicks the link they find nothing supporting the position being bandied about here. And also, for the record, with the exception of Wikieditor, there is unanimous agreement at WP:RSN that the sources below are reliable and directly support that the term bantustans is widely used. Here is the state of that discussion Note there is only one person claiming that the scholars quoted supposed bias makes those sources not directly support what we quote them saying. nableezy - 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments at section Peteet where I wonder why it is you have not added the NYT to the article sources? Considering that you never stop going on about it? And no, I said the NYT had a bias in response to your saying that the NYT (a newsorg) was gold plated while scholarly rs was "biased". I have never questioned the validity of the NYT as RS and your implying that I have done so is yet more misrepresentation on your part.Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Obviously, this is a well sourced alternative name for the topic. WP:LEAD and WP:OTHERNAMES require it be included. 2. B or C. It is well sourced that this is an alternate title, not simply a criticism. Yes, people who find apartheid to be a bad thing will likely see the usage of this name as critical. For example This source (which are often referred to as Bantustans), puts lie to the claim that this is not a commonly used alternate name for the topic of this article. And that being the case, the lead needs to treat bantustans as an alternate title. This nonsense argument about consensus being against using bantustuns as the title of the article means that it should not be given as an alternate name in the lead is just that, nonsense, and it makes a mockery of our policies on NPOV which require that all significant views be given their appropriate weight. The sources are clear on this, bantustuns is an alternate name. Our policies are likewise clear as to how alternate names should be treated in our articles. And that means 3, obviously yes. nableezy - 16:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was just "the one source Nableezy linked to", I've added a couple more to the bottom of the additional comment section. We have several reliable sources that explicitly say that "bantustans" is a common way of referring to these "enclaves", and as such, per WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:LEAD, that needs to be included in bold in the lead. Personal opinions that that either bantustan is inappropriate or that the reliable sources are wrong (absent any source disputing them) are quite simply non-arguments on Wikipedia. nableezy - 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments based on WP:POVNAME fail to recognize that the policy is about article titles. Usage in the lead is governed by WP:OTHERNAMES, and with the rock solid sourcing supporting this as a significant alternative name failing to include it is a basic violation of WP:NPOV which requires due weight to all significant viewpoints. nableezy - 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVNAME governs article titles and names. A bolded alternative name can be just as relevant as the title and the same concerns about NPOV highlighted in WP:POVNAME. Nowhere does that policy say we shouldn't apply POVNAME to alt titles. However, Palestinian enclaves is appropriate as a redirect because it is a plausible "first-guess," and NPOV standards are more lax because redirects are not technically part of the article. WP:RNEUTRAL. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very much no. That is a subsection of Neutrality in article titles. And if you look at the examples, such as Octomom reditecting to Nadya Suleman but having Octomom bolded as a common name, youll see why the idea that WP:POVTITLE would somehow contradict WP:OTHERNAMES is mistaken. As WP:OTHERNAMES says, an article can only have one title, and there you can make an argument on POV. However, as WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV require, all significant viewpoints need to be included, and that it being an established fact with sources directly supporting that there is a commonly used alternate name that needs to be included. nableezy - 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, POVNAME actually says the opposite of your argument. POVNAME says that generally we don't consider POV in article titles, only commonality. It's actually amazing to me that a policy that explicitly disavows the position of those linking to it is being used here and was successfully used in the RM. nableezy - 01:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a bit more, there are times where we engage in the one bit of OR that is still widely used on Wikipedia, and that is determining the common name for a title or commonly used alternatives. And we'll look at google search results and n-grams and a host of other things we normally wouldn't allow. But here, we do not need to do that. Because here we have several reliable sources that do that for us. They directly assert that bantustan is a commonly used alternative name. We have actual scholarship to answer this question. They report, as a statement of fact, that bantustan is a widely used alternate name. The idea that it is only used by critics may or may not be true, but regardless it is irrelevant. If they were only widely called bantustans by Palestinians it would merit inclusion as an alternate name (see for example Gaza War (2008–2009), Six-Day War1948 Palestinian exodus for examples of names being bolded purely because they are used by either participant). If it were only used by critics that likewise would not negate that it is widely used, what matters is if it is a significant alternative name. And the sources here make excessively clear that it is. When multiple rock solid sources say something is a fact, one cannot simply say I disagree with them, that is their opinion. Multiple rock solid sources say as a factual statement that bantustan is a widely used alternative name. On Wikipedia, absent sources that directly dispute them, that makes that a fact. And a NYT article that says that critics call it this or another source saying BDS supporters call it this does not directly dispute that others call it this or that it is widely called this. A set of users is asking us to replace the informed views of scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise with their personal position. That cant be allowed here. nableezy - 21:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1: Yes but in accordance with sources and I've yet to see language that matches the sources. Q2: No, no, and no. None of the three formulations pass WP:V, IMO. For example, they are not "often" called bantustans, and not only by "critics". Q3: Probably not. Notwithstanding the one source Nableezy linked to, other sources say that the Palestinian enclaves are different from, not similar to, South African bantustans. I think it's an analogy more than an alternate name, and we should look at the sources more carefully to determine if it's a common enough alternative as to merit being a bolded alt name in the lead. So in sum, yes it should be mentioned in the lead, but probably not as a bolded alt title and not in any of the formulations proposed so far. Levivichharass/hound 17:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The astronauts on the international space station have pointed out that in the middle of the massive wall of text below, there are some academic sources that say directly that "bantustan" is widely or frequently used; it's not just one as I said above ten days ago. Now some of my colleagues are going to throw their keyboards out the window when they read this next clause, but it doesn't change my !vote. I'm still ambivalent about all the Q2 options for reasons I've described elsewhere and I'm happy to not !vote on that and let others decide. As for Q3, I still think—notwithstanding that there are multiple sources that would support bolding "bantustan" in the lead—I still think doing so in the current lead, which would result in "enclave", "archipelago", and "bantustan" being bolded, gives WP:UNDUE weight to "bantustan" as judged by the totality of all sources (including the sources that say it's used but not widely, or by critics, or by Palestinians, or some other qualification or nuance, and including the sources that list it as one of many alternate names, and including the sources that mention "enclave" or "archipelago" without mentioning "bantustan" at all). I would be more open to having it be bolded if it were one among more names (supported by sources) like Selfstudier suggests below (fragment, canton, etc.). So while I acknowledge that there are more than one source that favors bolding, it's not enough sources to convince me that the consensus of sources is that the popular alternative names are enclave, bantustan, and archipelago, but not anything else. Levivichharass/hound 07:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1&Q3 are in a way the same question and idk why it is even a question, a cursory examination of the sources in the article provides the answer to both. If James Baker and a parade of notables (all sourced) can call these spaces "bantustans" then so can WP. Q2 The reason for this question can be found in the RFCBefore (editorial discussion on the issue) in nearly all of the talk page sections above. The sources give instances of many descriptors for these spaces and the sources also suggest that there is no "correct" word to use so in that sense all the words are analogies of something there is no proper word to describe; you can describe it all the same just not in one word. Are some people using the word pejoratively (insultingly), sure. I don't think the notables are doing that, they are using it because it is the simplest word that makes the point they want to make and yes it IS intended as criticism. A United Nations rapporteur (John Dugard) more than familiar with Apartheid and all its implications says (it's quoted in the article) "Within these areas further enclaves have been created by a system of checkpoints and roadblocks. Moreover highways for the use of Israelis only further fragment the Occupied Palestinian Territory into 10 small cantons or Bantustans." and there you have it, fragment, enclave, bantustan and canton in a couple sentences. It makes absolutely no difference at all which word is being used, none of them are intended as a compliment. If I really must make a choice between A, B and C, then B is the closest although I think the exact final wording needs more thought. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1&Q3 Both Yes, very clearly these names are frequently used in reliable sources. I'm not entirely happy with the wording of any of the 3 options. B is probably the best, but I think it could be worded better to explain what the similarity is, perhaps in more detail in another section? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1: Yes, Q2: A, Q3: No. Per Wikieditor19920. Mottezen (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(2) the Encyclopedia of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict (ed. Cheryl Rubenberg; Lynne Rienner Publishers): "Bantustans: Also referred to as cantons or enclaves, "Bantustans" are the small areas of Palestinian habitation in the West Bank. These small disconnected areas are the result of several factors, among them the crisscrossing of numerous Israeli Settlements, settler bypass roads, military encampments, nature preserves, and the barrier (separation wall). Because these cantons are not contiguous, it is unlikely that a Palestinian state could be viable when (or if) the conflict ends"
Bantustans is a significant alternative name for this topic, so should be treated per WP:OTHERNAMES. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1 Yes as it is a well used alternative name. Q2 No opinion, Q3 Yes as it is a well used alternative name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1: Yes, Q2: not only critics use it, so alt B, Q3: Yes. Huldra (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1: Possibly, if yes, then Q2: A, Q3: No. It has been demonstrated previously during the naming discussion that this name is much less frequently used when referring to these areas. Alaexis¿question? 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1, yes, but also mention that the apartheid comparison is considered to be incitement, possibly racist per source, Q2: A + addition of note on apartheid canard, this terminology is used by critics who themselves are criticized for using this inflammatory language. Q3: no, as this is a pejorative use, a POVNAME. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1 yes but per Fox and others we should make it clear that this analogy is controversial and could construed as racist ,Q2 A,Q3: no --Shrike (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: Just on Q2, would you mind indicating which of the options presented you prefer? Sorry if this one was confusing. Others have abstained from expressing a preference, which you're also free to do. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q1/Q3 yes obviously. A no-brainer. I concur with Onceinawhile's remarks, however. I disagree with Levivich but his impression that 'None of the three formulations pass WP:V implies that this RfC's options are flawed. Only 3 options have been given (all cherrypicked by wikieditor from a much larger number of variations and suggestions. Note, e.g., that we had: 'The enclave models are also often referred to as bantustans, a term implying a comparison in this regard between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa' as an option. Wikipedia manipulated this by inserting 'typically by critics' therefore in my view a manipulation of evidence to prime the result wanted), with both A and C restrict the language to 'critics', which is exactly what he wants, but which, per numerous discussions, is misleading, since Israel's planners also use the term and they are not critics. One should not in an RfC be compelled to vote on choices that are misleading and unrepresentative of prior discussions.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per the instructions above, please continue to place votes in the section above. Further comments about the RfC, the options, or any related commentary may be made in the sections below. Votes are preferably accompanied by a concise summary. A well-organized RfC ensures that everyone is able to have their poitns come across, especially to those unfamiliar with the discussion previously. Thank you for your cooperation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor19920's opening statement did a fair job summing up the conclusions that I think the majority have reached on this talk page, so I concur with Q1: Yes, Option A and Q3: No. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the 8th February Editors familiar with the numerous sources and the discussions were asked to vote earlier here. This call for lead input was boycotted by Wikieditor, who refused to reply to the set of simple questions, then opened, a week later, (15 February) this RfC, which, in my view, is poorly formulated and pointy. Obviously Bantustans should be in the lead, the RS evidence is overpowering. But if one adopts that, the three options are inadequate.
A. Limits mention of bantustans to critics, which has been strongly contested..
B. ‘By way of popular comparison’ overlooks the fact that so far our best source refers to ‘scholarly and popular comparisons’ (Peteet 2016:248). Dropping ‘scholarly’ makes this option sound as if only the uninformed use the word, through hearsay.
C.These are not ‘enclave models’ but realities, and again ‘typically by critics’ suggests those who use the Bantustan term do so as critics, not as sober analysts.
In any case, it is improper to boycott by silence one provisory vetting of editors’ views that offers a way forward, only then to cog the dice by setting up an RfC whose three options were written by just one editor, and not in consultation.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the three options in the second question should be stricken as they dont really encompass all the possibilities, but the questions put forward in the first and third questions can be answered by an RFC, so instead of wishing that the RFC had been set up more collabaritively lets just move on with getting through it. nableezy - 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy the three options presented were text that existed in three prior versions of the article. Nishidani, if you want to complain about this RfC, take it to another forum and stop clogging the votes section with discussion. No one participated in the prior discussion you linked because it was poorly organized and practically incoherent.. I asked it be reformatted, a request that was rebuffed, and then opened this RfC, which served its purpose because it's given everyone on this page and others a chance to 1) vote and 2) articulate their views. Raising all of these "concerns" now that voting and discussion is well underway and intentionally disregarding the discussion/votes divide is petty and disruptive. If you want to challenge this RfC, take it to the appropriate forum. In the interest of keeping discussions and votes siloed, lest this become more of an unreadable mess, I'm dividing this into yet another section for procedural concerns or comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
NableezyThis will be the last and only time I ask you -- stop messing around with the format of this RfC. There is a vote section and a discussion section, and there are perfectly rational reasons to have the two separated. No one is detracting from your points. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OWN. And WP:TPO. You may not section off somebody else's comments, you do not own this talk page or the RFC. Nishidani replied in the section above, not in this segregated section you seek to create. I am getting to the point where AE is the next place where I ask you to conform with our policies. nableezy - 04:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section is WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, and the above is not a reply to any part of the preceding vote section, is is a "comment" on the RfC entirely unconnected to the vote discussion. To prevent the vote section from becoming practicably indiscernible, it is necessary to maintain some sense of order. I have moved this thread into a new section appropriately titled to reflect the new spinoff discussion. Stop playing these games. Your continued efforts to disrupt this RfC by 1) arguing under votes repeatedly and ignoring requests to use the below section and 2) repeatedly altering subheaders to merge unrelated discussions will be noted at AE if you keep it up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor you have been and are persistently refactoring and adjusting the talk page in an effort to gloss your position and degloss that of others so you ought not to be surprised if others repay the compliment. But I agree with you, please take it to AE right now and we will discuss it further there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You dont own the RFC, and Nishidani was replying in that section. Please, pretty please, go to AE. And try reading the links you post, SECTIONHEADINGOWN is about changing the title of a section, not about trying to segregate comments you dislike. nableezy - 14:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now Nishidani has voted in the RfC, but this was previously merely a set of gripes having nothing to do with the voting section, such as my supposed "cherrypicking of the options." This is a curious one, given that these options are drawn from the current and past two versions of the article, including versions Nishidani wrote. Of course, either you or Nishidani are free to present your own wording, as also mentioned in the RfC instructions. Or you could continue edit-warring over subheadings meant to organize the discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: You claim that I "manipulated" the wording of one of the options. That seems a poor synonym for "wrote," but I have some more news for you, and that's that I actually didn't write that version. As I stated earlier, each option is from a prior version of the article, specifically this one. I'd ask you to strike this bad-faith and inaccurate accusation from your vote. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a gripe (I'll reply here because you say discussion should be elsewhere, and yet you personally keep discussing in this section). I documented your manipulation of the options. Perhaps you simply miss the meaning of texts and evidence. Certainly you do so when you write (in favour of the 'critic' language two of your options insert)
Several users have claimed that the bantustan analogy is "not a criticism," and seem to imply that referring to it as such somehow diminishes its impact. This fundamentally misunderstands our role as editors, which is not to assert the WP:TRUTH of any matter, and is not consistent with the sources.
As Annexation Looms, Israeli Experts Warn of Security Risks,'The New York Times, June 24, 2020: But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” — could close the door to a viable state, forcing Israel to choose between granting Palestinians citizenship and leaving them in an apartheidlike second-class status indefinitely.
To rephrase that distortion in a way that faithfully reflects our discussions, 'several users have stated that the Bantustan analogy is not just 'criticism'. I can't see any evidence of 'several editors' claiming the analogy is shorn of a critical tone. Onceinawhile even agreed that it is mostly critical; I said that 'critical' has to be understood also as 'analytical' etc. Can you name at least four editors who have denied the obvious, and therefore justify that, to me, utter distortion of our comments?
Did you read all of that article? Editors have in the discussions emphasized that if we use 'critics' we must avoid the implication that these critics are outsiders, by specifying as per the NYTs, that this criticism comes from within Israeli and beyond its borders. The whole point you have been, alone, opposing so insistently is that 'bantustan' language arises within Israel, among its policy makers, as well as from scholars, lawyers, activists whoever. Your options erase all mention of these huge discussions, and just focus on the short versions you prefer (that exclude the extensive range of tweaks offered on this talk page). In my book, that it cogging the dice. Please note also that a majority of those voting here do so with reservations, saying the RfC fails WP:V, or voting with reservations that suggest different possible formulations. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, follow instructions. For some inexplicable reason, some admins may find this long-form commentary cute, but no one else does, especially not the targets of your accusations. It's very simple: all three options were drawn from the last versions of the article, including the one you wrote. If none are satisfactory, indicate that in your vote and offer different wording, per the RfC instructions. I have nothing further to add to the debate here that I haven't already laid out in multiple sections. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any administrator would view favourably ('cute') the extraordinarily excessive lengths of this humongous quintessence of uncollaborative WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT/WP:Bludgeoning we have all been dragged into on this talk page. I've lots of experience but I have never witnessed such a repetitive requestioning of points already discussed, negotiated, or compromised on. Please note that when one editor asked us to join an internal RfC about changes in the lead, to find consensus, his meticulous 11 point list of questions was totally ignored - boycotted is the term - and after a week, you invented this question-begging RfC to ask outside editors as well, what they think of your cherrypicked summary of the options. I think it cruel to expect outside editors to read through the thick stack of commentary here, a minimal prerequisite for an informed opinion, since most haven't time to actually familiarize themselves with the literature a few of us have gone to the trouble to read over the past forty days. This RfC, in my view, was designed to step round the collaborative questionnaire Onceinawhile set up. It is a complete mess: I'm sure no one in here can remember anymore what was said by whom, and where the compelling evidence for this or that proposition lies, and this applies with greater force to those whom you invite to come in and vote on your version of what we here have discussed. You now tell me that the instructions you wrote should be followed, after, what is it, a month? not listening to anyone else here. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that I "boycotted" a discussion is almost laughable. I offered a suggestion to reformat the "meticulous list of 11 questions" so that it wasn't so confusing to follow. I have no control over what other editors decide to weigh in on. This RfC was designed with a narrower issuer in mind and to attract a broader audience. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'It was poorly organized' according to you. According not only to me, your alternative was poorly organized. 'Confusing to follow'? You must be joking. To whom? No one else had a problem with a very simple set of questions.
You above say, I' wrote what we have to do here (0Nishidani, follow (my)instructions'), what the correct procedure is, so you guys, fall in line and follow my rules, respect my spinning of the choices. Notwithstanding this, the people who offered their comments to Onceinawhile's list, also, albeit reluctantly participate here. You seem to be completely unaware of the difference. Some of us collaborate, and one here just pushes and pushes and pushes, ignores, rejects, until I suppose, everyone else falls into line. It really is disgraceful that one has to put up with this lack of perceptiveness about the collegial nature of consensus-forming.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Division of votes/discussion is a common practice for RfCs. No one's asking you to juggle bowling pins while balancing a pineapple on your head. Again, I don't know why you care what I felt about the prior discussion, or why it's relevant here. Your contribution here is appreciated, and I hope that the final outcome reflects a suitable compromise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several users have claimed that the bantustan analogy is "not a criticism," and seem to imply that referring to it as such somehow diminishes its impact. This fundamentally misunderstands our role as editors, which is not to assert the WP:TRUTH of any matter, and is not consistent with the sources.
The New York Times, June 24, 2020, As Annexation Looms, Israeli Experts Warn of Security Risks: But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” — could close the door to a viable state, forcing Israel to choose between granting Palestinians citizenship and leaving them in an apartheidlike second-class status indefinitely.
The only support for calling them "Palestinian bantustans" as an official name offered on this page are a limited number of academics sharply critical of Israel, and making the comparison as a criticism or in their capacity as critical commentators. This is fine; we can include these. But they must be included under the guidelines of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The term "Palestinian bantustans" is attributable to less than a dozen scholars all who primarily focus on Israel and are sharply critical of the state. When dealing with these types of sources, we must attribute them. Per policy: Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.) This is precisely what B and C violate. They fail to properly attribute opinionated assertions and misrepresent them as widespread.
As for the suggestion that a single source "puts the lie" to the notion that bantustans has not been established a widely used term, this makes no sense. To show that a term is widely used, it must be shown that it is consistently used in mainstream, reliable sources across different types of sources. A small group of fringe academics using the phrase "Palestinian bantustans" does not make it widely used, and this is why the term was rejected per POVNAME in the last move discussion.
Levivich, I think you bring up some reasonable points. Please note that none of the wording is meant to be perfect at this stage. If one of the options is less problematic to you than others, please indicate as much. I understand nothing presented will be perfect (it's all a work in progress) but it'll be much easier to move forward once we at least have a rough draft closer to WP:NPOV and that avoids weasel words (at least by my interpretation). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I have no preference between the three Q2 options. Primarily, Q2 presupposes that we should have a sentence in the lead about the word "bantustan", which I'm not convinced of, as opposed to mentioning it, which is what Q1 asks. I think, per RSes, these are called "enclaves" and an alternative name is "Palestinian archipelago" (which I just changed it to from "Palestine Archipelago", we'll see if that is disputed), and probably only those two should be bolded in the lead. I think the lead could use a sentence along the lines of, They are also sometimes called 'cantons' or (usually pejoratively) 'bantustans', a reference to racially segregated areas in apartheid-era South Africa., but I think a full sentence on either of those is probably undue. The whole "bantustan" thing is more a wiki-controversy than a major part of the literature about Palestinian enclaves IMO (notwithstanding that there are a few papers specifically about the Israeli–apartheid analogy). The body is where we should explain the bantustan analogy more fully, but I don't think it merits more than a mention in the lead. As for the particular Q2 choices, A says "critics" which I think is not correct, B says "popular comparison" which I think is not correct, and C says "often" which I think is not correct. So given the choice of three sentences, each IMO equally wrong, I just can't bring myself to support one over the others, esp. when I don't think we should have a full sentence at all. I'm also not sure about this being in the first paragraph of the lead as opposed to elsewhere. I guess voting "no" on all is the same as abstaining from Q2. (Altogether I'm personally more interested in spending my time working on the first sentence, which incorrectly says "proposed", than any other part of the lead right now.) Levivichharass/hound 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Levivich, there are sources that dispute that these should be called bantustans. I am unaware of any sources that dispute that they are in fact often called bantustans. Whereas there are reliable sources that explicitly say that they are. As such, WP:LEAD and WP:OTHERNAMES require that we include that in the lead as an alternate name. And I have as yet seen not one person even attempt a response to that point. As far as sources, I'll take a book published by Duke University Press over a couple of news reports any day. I seem to recall you having a similar position on other topics. nableezy - 19:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources explicitly say that they are often called bantustans, other than the one you linked to above (Harker 2020, which says "Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves..., which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa.")? You have seen editors attempt a response to that point: Wikieditor specifically responded to that point in their second-to-last paragraph above ("As for the suggestion that a single source ..."). I agree with Wikieditor, a single source doesn't settle the issue. You only made that point a few hours ago, give it some time, I'm sure others will respond as well. Levivichharass/hound 19:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he responded with what on Wikipedia remains a non-sequitur. He challenged what a reliable source says not with a reliable source that disputes it but with some requirement not found in any policy that I prove the reliable source correct. You are likewise doing so now. You have a reliable source (nobody is disputing that right?) that directly says that these "enclaves" are commonly referred to as bantustans. You have no reliable source that disputes that statement, right? Do I follow all parts of this? Forgetting all the sources that use the phrasing, which normally would be sufficient to demonstrate that a name is commonly used in nearly any other topic on Wikipedia, you have a source that directly backs up the statement that bantustans is a commonly used name for this topic. Care to explain to me how your or anybody else's unsourced assertions trump that on Wikipedia? nableezy - 20:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we shouldn't say "X" in wikivoice unless most sources say "X". If only one source says "X", then we don't say "X", even if we don't have a source that explicitly says "not X". This is especially true if X is controversial. So if I read 10 sources and only one of them says "often", and the others do not say "often", then I don't think we should include the word "often", even if there is no source that explicitly says "not often". I think we should have multiple sources saying "often" in order to say "bantustan" is an often-used term in wikivoice. Now, I understand if you disagree with this rationale, but disagreement doesn't make it a "non-sequitur" nor does it justify saying "not one person even attempt a response". Levivichharass/hound 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Care to back that up with anything resembling a quote from Wikipedia policy? But here:
Yes, it says pejoratively. It also says often referred to as. Which is what matter for usage as an alternate name. nableezy - 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Yambert 2012 says Palestinians often refer to it pejoratively as "Bantustans". Peteet also says "bantustan" is a word used by Palestinians. Saying in wikivoice "often referred to pejoratively by Palestinians" is quite different from saying just "often referred to". Levivichharass/hound 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt what Yambert says. Yambert says the Palestinians complained that the proposals would leave three disconnected cantons. And that those cantons are commonly called "bantustans". It does not say that it is only the Palestinians that call them that. nableezy - 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe... what you wrote in two sentences (Yambert says the Palestinians complained that the proposals would leave three disconnected cantons. And that those cantons are commonly called "bantustans".), Yambert wrote in one sentence: Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as 'Bantustans' [Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem]), each surrounded by Israeli territory. (brackets in the original). My reading of that sentence is that Yambert is ascribing "often referred to pejoratively" to "Palestinians", since it's in the same sentence, which begins with Palestinians noted .... And I note that Yambert 2012 says there are three cantons: WB, EJ, and Gaza; and he's talking about the Palestinian response to the Oslo peace process that ended in 2000, not the actual present-day situation on the ground. So I'm not sure how relevant this is to the lead of the article "Palestinian enclaves". I wouldn't use this part of Yambert 2012 to inform me about how to complete the sentence "Palestinian enclaves are ...", and if I did, I would draw the conclusion that "Palestinian enclaves are three noncontiguous areas: Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank", and I don't think that's an accurate summary of what all the RSes say, as it doesn't describe the fragmentation within the WB, and in fact presents the WB as a single, implicitly contiguous, canton, which it isn't. Similarly, I'm not sure whether this Yambert quote which describes a viewpoint circa 2000 informs whether we should say in wikivoice, present tense, without restriction, that enclaves are often called bantustans, in 2021. Levivichharass/hound 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that unless he says "which they refer to pejoratively" that you cannot claim that he is in fact attributing what he says is commonly called to a specific grouping. And yes, the usage bantustans is not new, in fact you will find sources referring to "ever-shrinking bantustans" or things along those lines, to discuss how this process has been continuing unabated over time. nableezy - 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, you wrote you think often is not correct, and you later objected to my calling the request that I take a wholly unsourced belief that it is incorrect and prove that my reliably sourced statement that "often" is correct to be a non-sequitur to be an issue. Sorry, but saying one must prove a reliable source correct when they have no reliable source disputing it is indeed a non-sequitur on Wikipedia. We challenge reliable sources with other reliable sources. Not with personal opinions not grounded in any policy. Here, you now have two solid sources that not only use the phrasing, which again is taken as evidence for common usage across Wikipedia, but directly back up the statement that the term is commonly used. Do you have anything of equal reliability that challenges that? Anything of any reliability at all? nableezy - 20:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think he forgot mine: "We drove through Ramallah and into Area B. The wall ran parallel, half a kilometre to our right, as we travelled along a Palestinian road built seven years ago to link what are popularly described as “Bantustans”, those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its check-points."
Editor @Levivich: has suggested multiple bolding but policy says "If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology"." I think the Names section we have should be kept and I prefer bolding bantustan along with one other, canton probably. The argument that there needs to be some mystery number of sources to establish wide usage is ridiculous, what is needed is for sources contradicting the sources that say there is wide usage of which I have seen precisely zero. Where do people think that all these different sources (hundreds of them) using bantustan in this or that way come from? It's because it is a widely used comparator, duh.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, you wrote above that the handful of sources below are not enough. How many sources do you want? I can provide more, especially if we open it up to news sources. But how many is enough? And why would bolding "bantustun" preclude bolding any other significant alternative name? nableezy - 17:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had the reverse impression, that he sought to bold more, not less. It is difficult to get a handle on it after the top two, a not very scientific source review suggests that canton might be the third one, the archipelago seems a more geographical thing rather than political and not so many sources, it's nice to put in the lead and all for the imagery but perhaps not bolded. Fragmentation is often used but that goes back to the process versus place discussion which is not resolved ftb. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and I'm fine with that. Im asking why he thinks that bolding bantustan would preclude bolding any other term that can be verifiably called a commonly used name for the topic of this article. nableezy - 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that bolding bantustan would preclude bolding any other term that can be verifiably called a commonly used name for the topic of this article. I think that bolding "enclave", "archipelago", and "bantustan", and nothing else, would be giving undue weight to those alternatives over the others (canton et al.). I think for now we should just bold enclave tbh. Then worry about the whole "proposed" thing. And the whole does-it-include-Gaza-and-EJ thing. And when-did-it-start thing. And then the what-do-they-call-it thing, and then rewrite the lead with all those parts "correct", or at least, per sources. To answer your question above about how many sources, the number of sources we should look at is equal to the number of sources that meet an objective source criteria (such as the one I suggested in the "Sources" thread now in the archives: recent books by academic publishers, and peer-reviewed journals with an impact factor above 1). However many sources there are that meet that criteria, we should look at. In that thread I got to 18; I think since then you and others have brought up maybe something like 4 more, so there's around 20 that I know of. When we look at "are enclaves proposed or already existing?", "when did they begin?", "what are they called?", etc. etc., we should look at what all those sources say about those questions, and we should write that. To do what I'm proposing means not looking at what three or five or ten sources say, and not looking at what sources that do not meet the criteria say. The idea is to have a source criteria that will capture the mainstream view, and then to summarize the mainstream view, no matter what it is. I honestly don't know, if we look at all 20-whatever sources, what they're going to say about what names are used and in what context they're used. Levivichharass/hound 03:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really see how WP:DUE supports that position. Sources that dont discuss alternate names dont mean that they promote the idea that there are not commonly used alternate names. And do you include all the sources that actually use "bantustan" and not just report on them being called that as being in that set of sources? nableezy - 04:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think sources that explicitly discuss nomenclature should be given more weight when it comes to nomenclature. (Mention > use.) Levivichharass/hound 04:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources that discuss nomenclature, what names have you found to be reported as being in common use? I know of at least one. nableezy - 04:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't look at all ~20, but off the top of my head, canton, and, pejoratively, open-air prison and ghetto, I remember being reported as being in use. I don't remember which are common or otherwise qualified. Levivichharass/hound 04:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mainstream in the sense you mean, there is no single word to describe these spaces, although we are pretending that it is enclaves by virtue of a vote. It is transparently obvious that the whole point and purpose of the RFC is to somehow downplay the significance of "bantustan" usage. In pursuit of that objective, you and others have tried to slice and dice by (1) requesting sources that actually call enclaves bantustans and (2) then asked for sources that specify wide usage and now that those have been successfully produced, seek yet more ways to evade the obvious conclusion. Even though they are commonly called bantustans, that comparison is not exact. Because of that, a lot of sources (which we have not typically considered because we did not wish to tangle the article up in SA apartheid comparisons) parse their usage of bantustan by way of comparison (they are similar to, look like, etc) to the SA setup which I think is probably where the RM closer came up with his "popular comparison". If anything is "mainstream", that way of tackling it is probably the most common approach of all.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's a mainstream, and of course there is a single word to describe these spaces: it's enclave. We had an AFD about this, and an RFC about this, and multiple RMs about this, and have posted like two dozen sources that meet objective reliability criteria (recent academic books and peer-reviewed journals with impact factor >1) that use "enclave" in their own voice. The topic of this article is: "Palestinian enclaves". That is a topic about which there is a great deal of scholarship. That scholarship uses the word "enclave", which is why Wikipedia uses that word. I haven't tried to "slice and dice", I came up with an objective source criteria and posted a bunch of sources that meet that criteria, and others posted more, some two dozen so far in total, and I have said repeatedly that what alternate names we use should be based on an analysis of those sources. This approach is neutral and methodical: first gather sources based on objective criteria of reliability, next summarize them. When two dozen sources that meet the criteria all call it "enclave", that's the mainstream. Levivichharass/hound 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think anybody should have a problem of trying to bring together the sources that you said youd like compiled. I still want to understand the objective criteria you would propose for what would be a significant alternative name that per LEAD and OTHERNAMES we should bold in the first sentences. The scholarships uses enclaves, it also uses bantustans. Archipelago has been, from my reading, described as a result of the process, not a name for the areas or the process of creating them, but if some source says it is commonly referred to as that then sure that one too. Im just still unclear on what youre looking for to demonstrate that something is a significant alternative name. And do you agree or disagree with the idea that what Palestinians refer to it as, being one of the involved parties here, should be included in those significant alternative names? nableezy - 17:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to have a problem trying to bring together the sources because it was already mostly done a month ago at Talk:Palestinian enclaves/Archive 1#Sources, which are listed again on this page at #To do list and sources, and there are more below at #Requested sources and in various other discussions. These sources, or at least some of them (I think maybe all, but I haven't gone through all of them) explicitly give alternative names: there's no guesswork or tea leaf reading involved, they're explicit about what the alternative names are, and that can be seen already in the quotes that have been posted on this talk page. If the consensus of sources say that "bantustan" is a name widely used by Palestinians, then we should say in wikivoice that "bantustan" is a name widely used by Palestinians. In terms of whether that's enough to bold it, I'm not sure. It depends on what else we're bolding (if anything), it depends on what the common alternative names are per the consensus of RS, and it depends on how the sources describe those names. For example, some sources distinguish between pejorative names (bantustan, open-air prison) and non-pejorative names (enclave, canton). If that's the consensus of RS (I'm not sure), then we should not bold the pejorative names, but perhaps they should still be in the lead somewhere. Levivichharass/hound 20:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"bantustan" is in common use and has been for some time. The proof for that statement is in the article itself, one only has to read it. The best sources are all compiled there already, I just added some for the "popular comparison" which we have mostly ignored up to now and I could sit here and add new ones in that particular category all day long. I am not really concerned with the other names, they are all used but not that commonly, one might perhaps bold canton.Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
During the RFC process, additional sources were requested showing explicit support for calling enclaves bantustans and for the wide use of the expression bantustan. These sources were produced, are shown below and were subsequently complained of by Wikieditor in an additional comment to his "vote". Also subsequent to their production, it was alleged that all these sources were not only unacceptable but "biased" for what they say and so that specific issue was taken to RSN noticeboards, strictly unnecessary since it is perfectly clear by simple inspection that the sources are valid rs. To correct possible misapprehension created by Wikieditor's post fact commentary above, we are not here attempting to satisfy POVNAME nor is it true that these sources "were reviewed in the prior move discussion" as these sources are new sources in addition to the multiple sources previously present in the article, although several of them have been added to it subsequently. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that explicitly support that these "enclaves" are widely or commonly called "bantustans"[edit]
Harker, Christopher (Associate Professor at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London) (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa
Penny Green (Professor of Law and Globalisation at Queen Mary University of London) & Amelia Smith (author of The Arab Spring Five Years On). (2016). Evicting Palestine. State Crime Journal, 5(1), 81-108. doi:10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0081 "what are popularly described as “Bantustans”, those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its checkpoints"
Sources that explicitly support that "enclaves" are referred to as "bantustans"[edit]
"The Palestinian enclaves struggle:an interview with Ilan Pappé". King’s Review. April 21, 2015. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) "They think that if you keep people in the enclaves I mentioned—or as others call them, Bantustans— and don’t give them full rights, you almost achieve the same goals as if you actually kick them out."
Nasser Abourahme (2009) The bantustan sublime: reframing the colonial in Ramallah, City, 13:4, 499-509, DOI: 10.1080/13604810903298771 "Ramallah the bubble, Ramallah the enclave is also Ramallah the bantustan, even if it doesn’t always feel like it. Fragmentation, here, is the name of the game not some benign side effect." (p503)
Abdallah, Stéphanie Latte; Parizot, Cédric, eds. (2016-03-09). Israelis and Palestinians in the Shadows of the Wall: Spaces of Separation and Occupation. Routledge. ISBN978-1-317-11185-6. "It was in the perspective of modeling and conceptualizing the situation that in the 1990s some researchers started comparing the Israeli political regime with the apartheid regime in South Africa, seeing the imposition of restrictions on movement imposed on Palestinian labor and the creation of autonomous enclaves administered by the Palestinian Authority as reproducing the system of bantustans."
Dear, Louise; Mushasha, Sufian (2010). Human Development Report 2009/10 Investing in Human Security for a Future State(PDF) (Report). UNDP. "Israel has systematically segregated Palestinians communities into a series of archipelagos (referred to variously as isolated islands, enclaves, cantons, and Bantustans) under an arrangement referred to as "one of the most intensively territorialized control systems ever.""
Sources attributing "bantustans" to critics/suggesting more limited usage[edit]
Halbfinger, David (June 24, 2020). "As Annexation Looms, Israeli Experts Warn of Security Risks". The New York Times. But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to "bantustans" — could close the door to a viable state, forcing Israel to choose between granting Palestinians citizenship and leaving them in an apartheidlike second-class status indefinitely.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Ally, Shireen (February 29, 2012). "'Let's Talk About Bantustans'". South African Historical Journal. 64: 1–4. At the same time, the necessity for revisiting the bantustans emerges from the still-continuing political value of its critique internationally. In the rhetorics of broader political struggles today, the idea of bantustans is symbolically powerful. Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaigns against Israel, for instance, have resuscitated the concept of the bantustans as a semantic tactic in struggles for Palestinian social justice.
At the risk of feeding into this obvious violation of WP:TALKHEADPOV, whereby talk page headers should not be used to communicate a content position, I think some balance is in order. First of all, many of the sources provided under each of those "headers" does not even relate to what the header suggests. The HDR report does not "explicitly" use the term bantustans. Second, it's not clear that such support is "explicit" in many instances either, especially where one sources notes its a pejorative. And finally, none of this negates the bias concerns raised below, which are especially relevant when considering whether a source is appropriately reliable for attributing a loaded term to widespread or more limited usage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources marked requested above were produced at the request of "your side" during the RFC to support the mentioned statements, the ones I have now marked not requested were requested by no-one and you are merely inserting them into another section for effect. I could equally randomly add a hundred sources here to show usage of bantustan in many different contexts.Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier This is absolutely incoherent reasoning. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you believe sources are available to support your assertion, you are entitled to supply them. The same goes for anyone else. Hiding them under a subheader "sources no one requested," even though they are clearly relevant to the discussion, is juvenile and I would expect better from you. I have noted this at ANI and don't expect to see this again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We were asked to supply sources and we did, you can supply as many sources that no one has asked for as you like but put them in your own section. You are not even replying to anyone, you just shoehorned these into this section to be pointy. More of your tiresome antics, keep going.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "who asked for them," it's what's relevant to the discussion. These are. So for you to justify deleting the ToC links for these sources while presenting others under pointed headers -- it's just inexcusable. Readers are entitled to review both. I asked this conduct to stop at ANI. I hope you'll oblige. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping the diffs as I go now, save me time later.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note just in case some read too fast and miss the obvious, as has unfortunately happened too frequently (or widely) here:
The Palestinian areas will be nothing more than “Bantustans,” it is frequently said in Israel,
The only correct grammatical construal of this is that, 'it is frequently said in Israel' is a parenthetical clause defining 'Bantustans'. I.e. the analogy is widely/frequently understood in Israel, and not just some foreign outsider view. It is formulated neutrally, implying neither Israeli criticism nor Israeli endorsement, not to speak of Israeli realism. Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even a brief look at these sources indicates they are each partisan commentators on the subject, and none of them provide any first-hand information to confirm the term "bantustans" is widely or "popularly" used.
Jerome Slater, a historian who contends that the reason there is no peace in the MI is attributable entirely to Israel. See here.
Christopher Harker, makes regular use of the terms "Israeli settler colonialism"
These sources don't even pass the smell test. I find it baffling that users can parse every syllable in the New York Times to discern bias and dismiss statements contrary to their position as "throwaways," yet present these sources without any context as to the WP:PARTISAN nature of the author's views. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt quite do what I was trying to compile here, which are sources that explicitly say that these "enclaves" are called "bantustans". Not that they are compared to them. nableezy - 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: There is a difference between reliable and biased. This is a select presentation of sharply biased sources, all representing the same point of view, as if it is somehow evidence of that view being "widely held." Mainstream sources like the NYT attribute the bantustan analogy to critics; earlier, these same users called the NYT hopelessly biased, yet here are bandying about sources that are engaged in open advocacy. You can't have your cake and it it, too, and we're not going to ignore the issues of bias that's obvious in these sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a listing of sources of the highest quality, per WP:RS (scholarship), that directly support what you, without any sources at all, claim is untrue. On Wikipedia, several rock solid reliable sources are given more weight than the unsourced opinion of a partisan editor (also please actually read WP:PARTISAN, you may be surprised at what it says). If you have any sources that support your contention please bring them. If you would like to challenge any of these sources, WP:RSN is thataway. But just stomping your feet and saying I dont like these sources is not one of the available options. And no, I am not taking a select presentation of sharply biased sources, all representing the same point of view, as if it is somehow evidence of that view being "widely held.". I am bringing actual reliable sources that explicitly say that the phrasing is indeed widely used. I have yet to see a single source challenge that statement that now has a handful of scholarly sources supporting And, oh by the way, news sources are unequivocally worse sources than scholarship. Maybe Levivich can explain that one, since I know for sure he has been in support of higher quality sourcing standards in other articles. I wonder if that carries over here. nableezy - 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a (very) pro Israeli source "The word “Bantustan” is often used to describe Israel’s policy for a future Palestinian state. It might look like that, superficially, but it is not. Bantustans were intended to pen blacks into defined areas that served as labour reservoirs. Israel’s aim is to keep Palestinians out and to have as little to do with them as possible." https://hsf.org.za/publications/focus/issue-40-fourth-quarter-2005/israel-is-a-democracy-in-which-arabs-vote Says it all, right there.Selfstudier (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, what makes these sources so high quality? Because they are written by academics with strident views on a particular subject? They are certainly usable, they are also limited by the fact that they are written by individuals with sharp and occasionally inflammatory views on the subject matter. Acknowledging this isn't "stomping my feet," it's pointing out the obvious, especially when you and others claim bias when I note that the NYT noted that this analogy is typically drawn by critics of Israel. Selfstudier, the source you just mentioned specifically rejects the bantustan analogy, which indicates it is not a universally held view as Onceinawhile earlier seemed to conclude (without evidence). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 15-year-old Benjamin Pogrund article which Selfstudier quoted proves my point because even this very pro-Israeli author explicitly confirms that they look alike. But, just to make it rock-solid, here is another article from Pogrund from a few months ago:[1]For Pogrund, who lives in Jerusalem where he continues to writes books about South African history, the idea of Palestinian enclaves within sovereign Israel is reminiscent of the bantustans in apartheid South Africa — non-contiguous territories the racist Afrikaner government set aside for blacks. “The bantustans were simply a more refined form of apartheid to mask what it really was,” said Pogrund, who was born and raised in Cape Town. “One of them had 15 areas that were unconnected to each other; we called it a nonsense state. The same now with whatever Palestinian state comes out of this, with a whole lot of bits and pieces here and there — it’s a nonsense state.”Onceinawhile (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All agree that Peteet is a key source. Pogrund's position is identical to hers, with the sole difference that, after drawing out numerous examples of similarity in the analogy, she says Israel does not use the 'enclaves' as a source of labour, whereas SA did. hence the analogy is not correct. Pogrund simply states this one minor difference in the following terms:
“The bantustans were simply a more refined form of apartheid to mask what it really was,”
The analogy therefore cannot be disowned because of Peteet's singular minor difference for
(b) in sociological methodology, a single feature of comparative difference does not destabilize the congruency of an otherwise strongly (even by Peteet) documented analogy. Were that so, comparative theory would be invalidated, since every cross-cultural comparison cannot but evince minor differences between the compared realities. Monarchies the world over differ far more pronouncedly in their specifics (i.e. an 'absolute monarchy ' as opposed to a constitutional monarchy) than does a WB 'enclave' and the SA bantustans.
In this sense, Peteet's dissenting viewpoint should be definitely noted, but it cannot determine whether or not enclave is the more conceptually accurate term than Bantustan.
We do know that it is official policy, with Israel leaders like Netanyahu asserting that “Israel is not a state of all its citizens … Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and them alone” , to vigorously challenge any public analogy between the rigorously ethno-territorial separation practiced by South Africa and Israel in the occupied territories. That POV abhorrence of the analogy is being reproduced in many arguments here. Okay. But the official view of a state cannot be passed off as conforming to what scholarship generally affirms, i.e. the strength of the analogy and the influence of the SA model on Israeli policy.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, many sources go out of their way to state that the comparison with SA apartheid is not exact, apartheid 2.0 is quite common, to signify a different and in some ways worse thing than SA apartheid. Those constructively using the word bantustan are simply taking advantage of the imagery to make their point not asserting an SA parallel per se.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why these sources are high quality. Particularly the lines When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. and Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.Oxford University Press, Taylor & Francis and Duke University Press are all such well-regarded academic presses. International Security (journal) is a peer-reviewed journal published by MIT Press. We base our articles on scholarship, and that does not change simply because an editor seeks to disqualify sources on the basis of the perceived politics of the author. The NY Times is an amazing source for the news of the day. Not for taking a fragment of a sentence and seeking to use it well beyond what it supports (the NYT saying that critics have likened these places to bantustans does not in any way refute that it is either also not used by people besides "Israeli critics" or, and this is the important part for bolding it as an alternative title, widely or commonly used). nableezy - 04:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have at no point said that any of these sources should be disqualified; I said exactly the opposite and agreed they can be used.But the fact that these sources are from sharply opinionated authors indeed limits their usefulness, and they should not be accorded excessive weight. The NYT isn't being used for the "news of the day" and the article cited isn't a "newsy" article. It's coverage of the longstanding debate that touches exactly what we're discussing here -- the usage of the term "bantustans" to describe these enclaves/etc. and its connotation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why the NYT is not anywhere close to being a better or even equivalent source as actual scholarship. You keep confusing "sharply opinionated authors" (which can fairly describe you here) with scholarship. Wikipedia places the vetted views by the academic community as being the highest quality and most reliable of sources. Full stop. These academic sources all support that the term bantustan is a widely used name for the topic of the article. You still have not come even close to addressing that rock solid fact. nableezy - 13:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have any objections to characterizing usage of the term as "often" / "widely" / "popularly" / "frequently", I suggest we simply pick the one which we are most comfortable with. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we see the sources that say that the authors of the sources provided are "sharply opinionated", please? Sources were requested and sources were found. The usual way to balance things up (if unbalanced) is to cite contradictory sources so we want sources stipulating rarely, infrequent, not widely used and unpopular. I think it's quite difficult to find these when it is clear from the article itself that it is used a lot and has been all the way back to 1967 and even more so now.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezywhich can fairly describe you here, No, actually, that's not "fairly," this is a personal attack and also complete nonsense. My points are grounded in policy and can be applied to a source on any side of the spectrum. You, on the other hand, accuse me of "sharp opinions" and ignore the constant POV-pushing by other users on this page, including accusations of Israelo-centric, conspiratorial nonsense about the NYT, and a host of other comments. Curious. I suggest you go back to read more on what an ad hominem is, which you're keen on linking but not following. Claiming the sources are "academic" over and over again is not a counter to the caution we need to exercise when using clearly WP:PARTISAN sources, which the ones provided are. "Full stop." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my calling you a partisan editor is a personal attack then you calling the named living people above partisans is a BLP violation. Glass houses. nableezy - 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, it is appropriate to recognize a bias in a source. The authors of each are prolific for commentary on Israel that is highly critical and has repeatedly veered into the controversial, if they have any sort of public profile. See the links I provided above. If you were to apply this same logic to a "pro-Israel" source (Alan Dershowitz is one example), that would be perfectly fair game. It's great that you did the research to find a source; that doesn't mean we silence commentary on those sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, this won't do at all. We now have a fair sized selection of acceptable sources and it will not suffice to trot out the usual "they hate Israel" argument, you really need to clearly and unambiguously discredit these sources and I doubt that you will be able to do that. Better still, produce contradictory sourcing but as I have already said, that will be just as difficult.Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you're not understanding is that "academic" doesn't mean "unimpeachable" and if you are presenting a source as above commentary or criticism, then we're not doing our job as editors. Nowhere have I said that these sources are not credible or worth of use in the article. They are -- but not for what you want to use them for. Objective media sources attribute this view to critics, and the sources you cite are—surprise—critics. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a critic is only relevant if there is a credible other side. All credible commentators on climate change are critics of the phenomenon. And all credible commentators on these enclaves are critics. In three months of discussion, I have not seen a single reliable source which argues that these enclaves are a good thing. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the argument even is anymore, afaics the main purpose of this rfc seems to be to dredge up any kind of argument at all in order not to have bantustan as an aka in the lead. It says in the article right now in the Names section "Critics, including those using the term pejoratively, frequently describe the areas as "bantustans," a reference to the territory set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa." and if that is right and all the evidence indicates that it is, then you cannot avoid bantustan as an aka.(idk why what is actually in the article was not given as a choice in the RFC if it comes to that)Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor, I have not said my sources are unimpeachable. I have however said that there are no other equally or more reliable sources that dispute what they say at all. You, a random person on the internet, are not a reliable source. Your personal opinion is not relevant. Do you have any sources that dispute what now has a handful of scholarly sources supporting. And once again, please try to get this point. I am not using sources that call what our article calls "enclaves" "bantustans" as evidence that they are commonly called "bantustans". I am bringing a number of indeed unimpeachably reliable sources, and if you want to challenge that then please say so and we can see what the crowd at RSN thinks of a source list with 3 university presses and a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles explicitly supporting the contested statement, that flat out say that the topic of this article is in fact widely referred to as bantustans. Do you have any sources that challenge that? I do not care what you think of the politics of any of the authors, there's a reason why publisher and peer-review matter here. Are there any sources that dispute the statement that the topic of this article is widely referred to as bantustans? nableezy - 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You, a random person on the internet, are not a reliable source. Your personal opinion is not relevant. Here we go again, this is utter and complete hogwash. It is the job of editors to review sources and assess them for reliability, bias, and whether they can be used to support article content. That's exactly what I'm doing, and that's what you're doing as well -- we just happen to perhaps disagree, specifically on whether these sources support the "widely used" wording. I think they are "widely used," but by critics, and that is bolstered, not weakened, by the sources you have provided here. The available information about these scholars indicates harbor strong and controversial views on the subject matter in question. They are not neutral commentators on a debate like the NYT, they are participants in the debate, so taking their word alone that an analogy is "correct" or "widely accepted" is ludicrous when objective sources recognize that this bantustan analogy is indeed one raised by critics. A source provided by Selfstudier confirms that this is used as a pejorative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I regard favourably that admission you realize our advice was correct. It has taken you two weeks to come round to that view, but it is perhaps the most striking result of the humongously tedious argufying that has been forced on the page over the last half month. It's one of those Neil Armstrong moments, one small step for you, one huge step taken on behalf of the rest of us. At this rate, we may have consensus on one or two other niggling points within the decade (though unfortunately I won't be round to pop the champagne cork with the younger set in here when that happens).Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'm just wondering how much more mileage you're going to try and squeeze out of that diff. I never said people shouldn't read the relevant sources. At all. And we'll reach consensus when the RfC concludes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to miss the point here. No, these are not "participants in the debate". These are academics writing in the area of their academic expertise in books published by the most prestigious university presses on the planet and in peer-reviewed journal articles. We are not "taking their word alone", there is not a single source that disputes what they report as fact. And when academics writing in their area of expertise in books published by the most prestigious university presses on the planet and in peer-reviewed journal articles say something is a fact, like oh say that these "enclaves" are commonly called "bantustans", then we on Wikipedia accept that as a fact if there are no equally or more reliable sources disputing it. Again, do you have any sources, any at all, that despite that "bantustan" is a term commonly used to refer to the topic of this article? Because, again, there are several rock solid sources that flat out state that fact. And yes, your personal opinion on the politics of the academics writing in their area of expertise in books published by the most prestigious university presses on the planet and in peer-reviewed journal articles is in fact entirely meaningless here. nableezy - 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here, how about this. Are you challenging any of these sources' reliability for the statement of fact that these places are commonly called "bantustans"? If so, which ones. nableezy - 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think their unreliable per se, but I think they are overrepresenting how widely used the "bantustans" terms are because of their bias on the subject. They may simply perceive wider usage than evidence supports, and they really don't offer anything but a conclusory statement to back it up. This is contracted by reporting from the NYT and other outlets which attribute this analogy to Israel's critics, probably are more capable of offering a mainstream, objective take. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think they are overrepresesnting something because of their bias? You think your personal feelings mean more than actual scholarship here? And no, it is not contradicted by the NYT, and no the NYT is not probably ... more capable of offering a mainstream, objective take. One more time, are you challenging the reliability of any of these sources listed for the statement of fact that bantustan is a widely used term to refer to what our article calls "enclaves". Its a simple question, Id appreciate a simple response. Because if you are we have a process for getting further views as to the reliability of the sources for this statement. If you are not then we can cut the charade right here. nableezy - 04:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think their unreliable per se, but I think they are overrepresenting how widely used the "bantustans" terms are because of their bias on the subject.
Have you any idea of the puerile conceptual error of remarks like that, in the context of what you have been saying?
You are in no position to judge whether the content of a given number of texts overrepresents the situation unless you have read and mastered all of the relevant literature, something which you admit you don't do. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, your relentless and belligerent POV pushing, and intentional misunderstanding of where the WP:ONUS lies for sweeping claims, is tiresome. Nothing you have presented supports the claim that this term is widely used by anyone except for critics. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've repeated that phrasing dozens of times, and 4 editors have patiently wasted some weeks pointing out every flaw in your assertions, always introducing articles that give the lie to your claims, or introducing new angles, or teasing apart the obvious unfamiliarity with the topic your relentlessly self-repetitive posting displays. Technically, the extra dozen miles these editors have gone through to get you to move a millimeter from your entrenched position, means that no one, at this point, need respond any more, because all of your points have been exhaustively answered. Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you have presented supports the claim that this term is widely used by anyone except for critics.
You have the following quotes from the following sources:
Harker, Christopher (Associate Professor at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London) (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa
Which of these sources are you challenging for the statement that these enclaves are "often referred to" or "widely called" as bantustans? Please actually answer the question. Because they explicitly say, despite your claim that "nothing [has been] presented that supports the claim that this term is widely used by anyone except critics", that the term is widely or often used. Beyond that, can you tell me where in WP:OTHERNAMES it says anything about not including as an alternate title a widely used name because it is critical or used by critics? nableezy - 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments that this a perjorative name and as such should not be bolded in the lead are based on no policy. Nothing in WP:NPOV supports the idea that widely used names should not be bolded, in fact NPOV says exactly the opposite. I sincerely hope the closer of this RFC evaluates the arguments and does not simply count heads, as there are a number of votes that do not even attempt to wave at our policies and instead seek to turn NPOV on its head. nableezy - 01:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There also seems to be a fairly solid consensus at RSN that the above sources are both reliable and directly support that the term "bantustan" is widely used. nableezy - 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: There is no consensus at RSN for anything, and I suggest scrolling up to see what I've already responded to before claiming I haven't look at what you provided. The notion that WP:POVNAME is satisfied by a limited group of highly opinionated sources was already rejected in a prior consensus. WP:RSN is for determining whether sources are reliable and may be used, it is not a forum for content proposals. As I stated earlier, these sources are usable but not for what you've suggested here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments that this a perjorative name and as such should not be bolded in the lead are based on no policy Just wrong, the policy is WP:POVNAME, and it applies to both article titles and "alternative" titles. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.(as is the case in the article right now, the version put up by the RM closer)
Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article.(as is the case in the article right now)
Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them.(as is the case in the article right now).
There are plentiful reliable sources both in the article and above to show that this is a significant alternative name, the RSN discussion is clear cut on policy grounds, your personal opinion notwithstanding.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:POVNAME is about the title of the article. This is not about the title of the article. Which makes that hand wave towards policy especially confused. As far as consensus at RSN, every person who has commented save Wikieditor has agreed that these sources are reliable and support the statement. Anybody can look at that here. You disliking a consensus does not make it less of a consensus, sorry. nableezy - 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few editors said the sources seemed reliable, and also acknowledged that they are biased. There was no consensus on the narrow issue we discussed here, nor does a discussion on RSN have any bearing on wording or article content here. Nableezy, this edit violated the consensus-required imposition. The discussion is currently roundly opposed to bolding of any alternative titles, and the bolding should not be restored unless there is a consensus for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor who has commented agreed that the sources are reliable for that statement. And no, your edit violated that requirement. The discussion is an RFC that will need an uninvolved admin to close, not an involved editor declaring his side the victor despite policy being emphatically opposed to his positions as repeatedly demonstrated. Your edit is the re-revert here, and I expect you should be sanctioned for it. nableezy - 22:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at RSN certainly does have a bearing since much of your argumentation consists of dismissing (and I see you are still doing it even now) entirely acceptable rs that was produced on request. Your revert in the lead not only undid a (relatively) long standing text, it went against the (informal) agreement to maintain the "consensus" lead for the time being (ie the version put up by the RM closer). I have reverted you on this talk page as well where you even sought to extend your argument to a section header against GTG guidelines. This doesn't seem like dialling it back, I have to say.Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not an involved editor declaring his side the victor Nableezy, when you declared (and still declare) consensus at RSN, was that not the same as this? The fact that sources are biased means they are of limited use for certain purposes, especially to claim a view is widespread. That concern is doubled when other mainstream sources do not repeat the same view and attribute to to critics. Scrutinizing a source for bias, especially for sweeping claims, is absolutely appropriate and what we should be doing, so it's rather hypocritical to on the one hand, slam me for noting bias the sources you provided, and at the same time claim bias in sources I provide, like the NYT. The key difference here is that all of those articles were written by openly opinionated commentators/academics, whereas the article I cited was from the news section of the NYT. Apples and oranges to compare the two.
And no, RSN is not for hashing out content differences—that is what this page is for, and if you fail to persuade at the content page, RSN is does not present an alternate forum for you to argue the same points and then claim to override the decision-making process here. Regardless, I don't think this will be an issue. There is no indication of any "consensus" at the discussion you linked. Of the 7-8 editors who are involved in that discussion, literally maybe six of them are all editors who migrated over from this talk page to that thread to argue the same points, and maybe two additional editors commented to vaguely weigh in on the issue. One such editor did not dispute the apparent bias in these sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An allegation was made that the sources produced following a request made as part of this RFC process were unsatisfactory as rs and biased for what they say, although even a simple inspection of those sources indicates that they are perfectly acceptable rs. In the face of repeated denials from yourself, those sources were taken to RSN for scrutiny. All sources are biased, the only question is the degree, bias is not of itself a reason for dismissing rs simply because you personally do not approve of what they say. The two "additional editors" did not "vaguely weigh in", one said "These sources are sufficient to state that the term is in common use." and the other said "All the sources look reliable to me." These continuing misrepresentations of prior and even current discussions are becoming exceeding tiresome and I would like you to stop doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally every single person except for you that has commented at RSN agrees that these sources are reliable for the statement that bantustan is widely used, full stop. Your view on bias of sources is backed by literally no policy. Yes, a consensus exists at RSN that these sources are reliable for this statement. You not liking that is unsurprising but also unimportant. nableezy - 14:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, a few weeks ago you placed a consensus required limitation on this page. We now have an RfC that shows the following results:
1) General consensus for noting the bantustan analogy in the lead
2) General consensus around Option A (7/15) with Options B and C seemingly splitting the remaining votes
3) Unclear consensus on bolding bantustans
Editors who opposed the result in 2) are now unable to accept the outcome of the discussion, seemingly violating a specific DS on this page. At what point does this conduct become actionable? Or does the consensus among the majority of involved editors have to be subsidiary to the will of the few who are willing to closely monitor this page and revert to their preferred version? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus is not determined by a headcount. Ill post at ANRFC to ask that an uninvolved admin determine what the consensus is, something that does not fall to an involved party. nableezy - 17:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And done. nableezy - 17:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point, but it seems a waste of administrator's time here with this closure request. Nableezy and Selfstudier's preferred position actually prevailed on 2/3 points, one by clear consensus for inclusion of the bantustan analogy (which I agreed with) and the other on the bolding of "bantustan," for which there was an even split and the default is to maintain the prior version. On point 2, out of three options, one garnered basically half of all votes and the other two garnered less than a quarter each, yes Nableezy refuses to accept the outcome absent a discussion closure, in an RfC over a single sentence in which 15 editors participated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not get about this isnt a vote? Like seriously, how is that not clear to you. Have you read even the opening paragraphs of WP:CON? Did you get to where it says nor is it the result of a vote? nableezy - 17:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how "consensus is not a vote" and "it doesn't matter what consensus is because everyone else is wrong" are always the arguments raised by those on the side unhappy with the result. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny how people who very obviously have not even read the first two sentences of one of the pillars of this place seem so confident in making such silly pronouncements. nableezy - 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With that DYK mishap out of the way, which let us never speak of again, I'm confused, Wikieditor19920. The RfC has yet to be closed, so there's no consensus (or lack thereof) to speak of. You are jumping the gun here. El_C 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C OK, I'll accept your weighing in here as definitive and will await a close. My only thinking was that per, WP:CLOSE, Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious. and here, there is a broad coalescence in the discussion and vote sections around Option A, and the outcome seems obvious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCEND: Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance. RFCEND #2 (The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time...) > #4 (Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion...). Levivichharass/hound 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking. You missed this bit "If the matter under discussion is not contentious....Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few editors contending it doesn't make it contentious. The full line is "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." To me, it's obvious that Q1 yes, Q2 A, Q3 no consensus to bold. But if an editor wants to have some other editor take up their time to close this, in the hopes that they'll discount the !votes and make it come out some other way, that's their prerogative. Levivichharass/hound 21:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me it is obvious that the only way one arrives at "no consensus to bold" is if they dont weigh the arguments based on Wikipedia policy and instead count votes. But thats just whats obvious to me, and as an involved party it isnt really for me to decide such a thing. nableezy - 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not required. And yes, an uninvolved editor can close it. An involved editor declaring what the consensus of the RFC is appears to however be conspicuously absent from what youve quoted. I wonder why. But I for one think that question two should be ignored entirely, it presented a set of options that many of us didnt agree to at all. And that was raised in the discussion. And I hope that the closing editor takes into account the deficiency in trying to determine the exact sentence that should be used without looking at the sources at all. nableezy - 20:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich makes a great point. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Nableezy, you are basically asking for a WP:SUPERVOTE to close this out in your favor. All three options were present in the article for a period of time and nothing about Option A is "deficient" or not compliant with policy. It's just not your preferred phrasing, which is fine, but it is the preferred phrasing of the majority of those involved when presented with a plethora of options. And by the way, Levivich actually did not vote in favor of Option A, yet he seems to acknowledge the consensus around it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am asking for an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, to determine the consensus of the discussion. Again, read WP:CON at least up through the end of the second sentence. And I thought you accepted El_C's comment as definitive? There are any number of instances in which consensus of a discussion turned out to be the opposite of the numerical vote count. I have no idea if this will be one of them or not, I do however know that as involved editor it is not for me to determine what the consensus of a discussion I am involved in if it is isnt so blindingly obvious that no reasonable person can dispute it. And oh by the way, you disputed a unanimous consensus existed against you at RSN was a consensus at all. Proving why you are a poor judge of such things. nableezy - 21:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, I pointed out that a discussion where you claimed "unanimous agreement" glossed over more nuanced disagreements from two editors who had commented, something you continue to do. If anything, that discussion indicates that you will happily claim "consensus" absent a closure when you feel discussion has been in your favor, yet when the discussion doesn't go your way, you pull out every procedural backstop. This should have been resolved already, and there are more than just "numerical votes." Just as votes are not always determinative (though they frequently are), substance behind a position is not measured by how many characters you can fill up a page with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very obviously not true lol. Ive already asked for a closure. Youve already been told that this needs to be closed as formal dispute resolution. You already said you accepted that. And yet you still feel the need to what exactly? Argue against your previously accepted position? Set the record you likely already hold for most signatures in an RFC? nableezy - 22:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accept El_C's determination that closure is the preferred course in this particular case. I also agree with Levivich's pointing out that closure is not always required for RfCs per WP:CLOSE. And I am raising why demanding closure can be abused for disruptive purposes, like where a limited discussion over a single aspect of an article reaches a conclusion, and then that conclusion is rejected by the dissenting editors because it didn't appear to resolve in their favor on every single point.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then just wait for a close. This talk page is for discussing the topic of Palestinian enclaves. Not your beliefs about WP:CLOSE. You have apparently acknowledged this should be formally closed. So maybe let that happen now. Thanks. nableezy - 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dragged this (before and after comments edited out) back out of the archive. I am assuming we do still want to look at these elements now the RFC is finished. If not, tell me, I will delete it all and we will start over :)
Beginning archive content
1. Archipelago reference moved after bantustan reference
Disagree, although open to use of the word subject to my points about re not implying that it is only critics who use it and not implying that most other terms are used uncritically. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, criticism ought in the first instance be in the names section and not just be limited to users of the word bantustan. If suitable sources exist, I prefer some sort of identifcation rather than the anonymous/throwaway "critics"Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Debolding of all alternative names ==> [See RfC above, which partially covers this question]
No objections, if archipelago place under bantustanKeep as to the policies mentioned (illuminating my ignorance) immediately below this comment. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary to bold aka's, especially in this case where there is no clear commonname, so bantustan and probably archipelago.Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as highlights notability. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a somewhat odd quote from a newspaper article, the last para we have now is much better as notability.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Reference to "A number of US-Israeli peace plans" deleted
Delete, gratuitous, gilding the lily, as compared to the "enclave option"? the "canton option". Seems out of place.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. "...group of non-contiguous..." sentence moved down
Keep, per wp:lead and consistency with sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is self evident by the article content.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Move Francis Boyle reference in footnote c down to the main body
Support. No need for this complex footnote in the lead. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is petty but that's okay if shifted to name section, but no further down, and it is not a complex footnote. The thrust of much POV editing is to move 'stuff' out of sight of the lead, on the assumption that in our times, people never read beyond that, and so shifting down proposals are often viewed as 'disappearing' acts, or desaparecido demotions.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this one is moved, then I see no reason why we cannot move all the rest of the footnotes/refs out of the lead and then the discussion becomes "Does the lead reflect what is in the body?"Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of six notes in the lead after the bolded "bantustans" actually supports the notion that they are called bantustans (or a variation). The others are merely comparative - that these are like bantustans. Which is very important, but not what the article says. The lead needs serious work. I was going to take up the GAN but I am not interested when the lead's citations/notes are not verifying the content. Urve (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Urve: That occurred because of an RFC over whether or not bantustan ought to be bolded in the lead and all those (like a..) refs in the lead were added by myself in support of that argument (you would need to read the RFC to get it, the mess up above). The conclusion of the RFC was that they are referred to as bantustans and it should therefore be bolded as an alternative name. There are plenty of suitable references in the article itself. There was also a discussion about not having refs in the lead and having them only in the body but that didn't proceed at the time, maybe it should now (otherwise we would have a couple dozen refs sitting there).Selfstudier (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the refs used for that sentence are not correctly used. They should be the ones that specifically say widely called bantustans, not ones that use the term. nableezy - 21:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cites in the lead are fine. As long as they actually support what is being said. These almost entirely do not. There is a side question as to whether it is synthetic to call the analogy "popular" anyway, but that is secondary to source-text integrity. Urve (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Urve: thanks for pointing this out – it has now been fixed. The other refs were supporting the first clause in the sentence, not the second clause. I do think it looks a little ugly having so many refs side by side in the lead – a number of them could be consolidated. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The popular thing came from a closer, who chose to summarize the debate in that fashion. He was essentially referring (I think) to the "like a../ referred to as../ "compared to.." references which are plentiful, so I think it is not absolutely necessary to retain that at this point, the main principle is that they are referred to as bantustans apart from the popular comparitive.Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article twice and looking over the criteria again, I'm not sure I am able to review this article as well as it deserves. I was worried it would be a quickfail on stability, but it is not in my judgement. I'm going to ask for a second opinion, and would ask the second-opinion-giver to fully take over the review. I hope this one can find the reviewer it needs! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the quotes in the "Notes" section are so long and not even fair use (or necessary for the article) such that they're copyvio, but I could be wrong. Moneytrees (a copyright admin) might have a more informed opinion here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quotations in the notes section are consistent with right to quote. They are used to provide thorough attribution in what is a complex and sensitive subject, without overburdening the main article with too many in line quotations. This practice is often used in high quality articles in controversial topic areas. In the Israel-Palestine area, see for example Balfour Declaration (FA) and Mandate for Palestine (GA). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are several excessive quotes in the notes section. I understand that quoting large portions of sources in order to combat claims of source misinterpretation and misinformation is commonly done in controversial topic areas; however, the non-free content criteria needs to be respected, a lot of the quotes are excessive and I wonder how much of the information in them is needed. I would request the article creator trim them down. I personally don't think the quotes in Balfour Declaration are really ok either, but past attempts to remove them have been met with resistance so they've stayed. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 23:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence above is not quite right - the Balfour Declaration quotes were trimmed down to where they are now, but they stayed because there was consensus for them to stay. It was discussed in a few different places, perhaps most notably at this ANI thread which included comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long." This is in line with our non-free content criteria guideline examples which state "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."
I have just been through the quotes in this article again in light of the above. There is not excessive quoting from any one source, and no quote is more than a paragraph long (the majority are 1-3 sentences, and the longest is 277 words). I will review them in more detail, to see which we can trim further.
A. C. Santacruz, thank you for the nudge. I have now been through all the quotations one by one, and cut them down. The longest quote is now under 150 words; that is less than half of the 367 maximum length of quotations referenced above. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I pinged Ganesha811 on their talk page, and they will definitely not be returning to this review. Accordingly, I have returned the nomination to the pool of those awaiting a reviewer without any loss of seniority—it will be one of the oldest unreviewed nominations, and thus likely to be picked up reasonably quickly. The next review will take place on a different page from this one. Pinging nominator Onceinawhile, so they know what is happening. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: We are mostly finished as far as my review goes. The NPOV check remains, but as I said, I will ask another editor to consider that. I'm waiting for final comments regarding the NPOV issue.
Pass/Fail:
Hello Onceinawhile, this is my first Good Article nomination review. Since the topic is controversial (subject to WP:PIA), I will keep particular attention on neutrality; I of course would encourage other people to also propose their remarks on the article.
I'll start from the simplest and least controversial part: images. I've substituted one image from jpg to svg version.
AllonDrobles.jpg: I think it should be public domain as PD-UN-doc (we shouldn't restrict copyright where not warranted) as it was published as part of a UN transcript of a conference and it appears in the French version with a UN logo.
Other than that, the images lack alternative text. When this is remedied, this will be turned to green. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comment: Alt text added throughoutOnceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the history of the article, I can conclude that the article has not been recently subject to edit wars and is fairly stable (plus it has 500/30 protection due to ARBPIA), so the article passes this test. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing that struck me (which point was also made during the first review of the article) was the length of quotes, but these have been appropriately trimmed and even larger quotes are used in other GA/FAs, so I'm fine with the explanation and their usage. I am also satisfied with the breadth of coverage, though I'll have to admit that I don't have particularly deep knowledge of the topic, so some professional might say that something's missing/something was coatracked. Earwig did not detect any plagiarism from what I could see, but I believe the text uses too many in-text quotes, which could be easily paraphrased. Unfortunately, the person/people who were writing this text do not seem to notice that some of the sentences are written as if Google Translate was used, so there will be a lot of sentence rewriting so that the text is in English. I can also say that on the first look, the text did not have some serious NPOV, V or OR issues, which bodes well for the nomination, but I might find some issues when drilling down in the article. Please ping me when you are done with the first portion of corrections (there are quite a lot of them), so that we can proceed with the following parts.
As well as the comparison often drawn between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as bantustans and figuratively as the Palestinian archipelago, among other terms. --> The enclaves are often compared to the nominally self-governing black homelands created in apartheid-era South Africa, and are therefore pejoratively referred to as "bantustans" or figuratively as "the Palestinian archipelago", among other terms. (adapt the markup to the text; wikilink some part of the sentence to "Israel and the apartheid analogy")
Onceinawhile comment: This sentence was subject to a very long-winded debate on the talk page about eight months ago, so I am keen not to impact the stability of the article by changing it too much. In particular there were a number of editors strong against labelling the term bantustan as performing only a pejorative rather than descriptive or other normative function. The syntax could certainly be improved though. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I haven't read the RfC. In this case, remove the "pejorative" label (though it would be consistent to include it due to it appearing in the body). Other than that, my rephrasing follows the spirit of option B, it's just less awkward, so it should stay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comment: Done although I am not entirely convinced, I have followed your proposal word-for-word. I agree it is less awkward. I separated out the final clause (re archipelago and other names) into a new sentence, as it seemed to confusingly imply that these other names were somehow related to South Africa. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "islands" first took official form as Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord; this arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; no such transfers were made Run-on sentence, split into two or three parts; some contrasting conjuction (however/but...) should be put btw 2nd and 3rd part.
Para 3: awkward repetition of "bantustan" in two consecutive sentences -> delete "bantustan/" from the first sentence, as this will make the prose more stylistically correct and remove potential NPOV concerns (particularly that none of the two quotes given in i-j include the word "bantustan").
Para 1: 1. Please use single and double quotes consistently, and use them on all words if we are talking about labelling the territories. 2. spell UNDP in full, add the abbreviation in (parentheses). 3. If you quote something, do not paraphrase the quote - use the exact same words. Or else remove the quotes and then paraphrase. I'd rather you did the latter.
Onceinawhile comment: I have gone through and fixed the " vs '. Now the only place were ' quotes are used is when we have a quotation embedded within another quotation. I have fixed UNDP. On the final point - please could you let me know which paraphrasing you are referring to? I couldn't find it. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote that goes "Israel has systematically segregated Palestinians communities into a series of archipelagos (referred to variously as isolated islands, enclaves, cantons, and Bantustans) under an arrangement referred to as 'one of the most intensively territorialized control systems ever.'" (in the original, it's "The State of Israel has systematically segregated Palestinians communities into a series of fragmented archipelagos (referred to variously as isolated islands, enclaves, cantons, and Bantustans) under a system that has been deemed “one of the most intensively territorialized control systems ever created.") - differences underlined. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comment: Thank you for this. It looks like the quote actually came from p.54 (the citation incorrectly states p.15, which has slightly different wording vs p.54 – hence your markup); it also missed off the final word which was in the next column. I have fixed both these matters. DoneOnceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2: 1. The spaces are often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans" while Israeli critics and others make the popular comparison to the territory set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa. The name "bantustan" is considered to have economic and political implications that imply a lack of meaningful sovereignty. --> The enclaves are often pejoratively compared to "Bantustans", particularly among those critical of the Israeli policy towards Palestinians, in reference to the territories set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa. The label implies that the areas lack meaningful political sovereignty and economical independence. (wikilink: Criticism of the Israeli government, "compared to" -> Israel and the apartheid analogy; move other markup features to the new sentence). 2. According to Julie Peteet - who is she (scholar, UN official)? 3. The quote of Julie Peteet should best be paraphrased.
Onceinawhile comment: Done I removed the word pejorative per the comment further above; also it was not in the sources given and it was duplicated in the subsequent clause above critics. I also added the "but not exclusively" in reference to the talk page discussion on that topic, and the breadth of usage that we have in the sources. On Peteet, I gave her background and paraphrased part but not all of the quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2 (quotes): 1. Sharon didn't seem to say that. It was others who said that the best summary of his views was the advocacy for a Bantustan-like entity, but it doesn't seem that Sharon himself referred explicitly to the areas as "Bantustans" or to the plan as "Bantustan plan"; 2. James Baker - use this link, as it is more accessible while containing exactly the same text; 3. Amos Elon's quote is not present within Levy's article - it seems you might have wanted to quote this 4. Gorenberg does not himself use the word. The passage containing the word says Allon’s answer was an updated version of his plan. He had realized, he later explained, that Palestinian autonomy under Israeli sovereignty “would be identified as…some kind of South African Bantustan.”, so it's Allon who's using the quote. 5. Avi Primor's quote seems pretty much irrelevant, so I'd propose to delete the quote and simply cite the Haaretz article, which does an indirect comparison with Bantustans; 6. Benvenisti's article is good for the purpose of the article, but the quote is irrelevant, again. It doesn't even contain the word "bantustan" despite it appearing 6 times in the article. 7. It would make sense, from an NPOV standpoint, to name the folks who oppose the labelling of Palestinian enclaves as bantustans as well (Michael Kinsley, for example, see Polakow-Suransky, 2010, p.235) - find those folks, too. 8. You can add some organisations, too, such as UN.
Onceinawhile comment: Hi @Szmenderowiecki: with respect to your point 7, on this article's talk page a huge amount of effort was put in over many months by numerous editors (with a wide range of apparent political viewpoints) to find all the relevant sources on this bantustan-label topic. In all that talk page work and debate, no reliable source was found to provide a meaningful argument against the term. Your suggestion is a good example of this – (1) the quotation of Kinsley in Polakow-Suransky is actually from an opinion piece in Slate (the online magazine which Kinsley founded), which was subtitled Jimmy Carter’s moronic new book about Israel; and (2) the quote given is then cut off – the full quote is "Palestine is no Bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews." So even if it was more than an opinion piece, its equivocation means it cannot be construed as Kinsley arguing that the term is wrong. Putting this aside, the article tries to avoid this issue by not providing any argument as to whether or not the term bantustan is appropriate. Personally I would be happy to add in such a debate, but coherently-argued "against" sources have not been found by any of the editors, and I do not want to create a one-sided view. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. If we can cite Amos Elon, Schiff and other journalists and political commentators, I think Kinsley's opinion is relevant too, since we speak of "bantustan" used in various contexts referring to the Palestine. That said, I've reached to the full article and I can agree with your conclusions. Anyway, I think citing the article will do nothing bad, as quite a few pieces are opinions or book reviews (as Kinsley's piece happens to be, too). I'm disappointed by Polakow-Suransky's sleight of hand, though.
2. I've reviewed the talk page and I can state that the pro-Israeli editors have repeatedly failed to produce a list of scholarly resources, but I can't say for sure they simply don't exist. As for a reviewer, it's super important for me to understand that NPOV is preserved before I put the imprimatur of GA status. For now, I only have an indication NPOV is preserved; but given the abundance of pro-Israeli outlets and positions, and the possibility that there might have been filibuster efforts on behalf of editors opposing the article additions (no accusations made here), it is extremely strange there are only two sources (both not of the highest quality) referring to the concept, barring those appearing in the second discussion of Archive 1, which do use "Bantustan" in various contexts (and which I'd ask you to mention in the "Names" section, as they belong there, even if the authors associate the usage of the term with the far left or Israel-haters: [2], [3]). They are admittedly not top-notch but IMHO are good enough for this exact purpose (the first is a peer-reviewed article while the other has been reputably, though not academically, published); I also believe that it doesn't matter that they don't have their own WP articles yet.
Onceinawhile comment: I just read the Proquest article linked in the comment above. The relevant references used by the author are "Palestinianfacts.org" (ref 22), an unreliable anti-Palestinian propaganda site now removed from the internet, and Wikipedia itself (ref 23). Any sources which cite Wikipedia are unusable, per WP:CIRC. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2a. I think I should ask Shrike, Wikieditor19920 and 11Fox11 to provide more sourcing (among the "many" they claim exist) that would provide a pro-Israeli point, and then adapt the text accordingly (if they don't, I will have to dismiss their comments about POV and move forward with the nomination).
3. As for point 1 for Para 2 (quotes): I've also seen the discussion about whether Ariel Sharon actually referred to the areas as Bantustans. I'm still not convinced, however, that he certainly did that (and that's quite a strong claim); though I'll admit there's high probability it happened. It's more or less the same likelihood as with the reported usage of bantustans in context of Palestine by Moshe Dayan. Since we don't have certainty, I would still suggest to remove it or to state that he probably used this phrase too, based on third-hand accounts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comment: Done 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. For 1 (Sharon) I added the word "reportedly". On 8, a UNDP report is quoted in the paragraph above, and I am keen not to overload the section. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Szmenderowiecki: thanks for bearing with me during this process – it has taken me longer than I hoped. I am pleased to say that we are down to just one last topic (phew!) - this point 7 above that we discussed three weeks ago (with related discussion on these sources at Talk:Palestinian enclaves#NPOV Balance). I believe your proposal was to add Kinsley and Havardi,. I have to admit I am struggling to figure out what to write about them and how to write it. I was wondering whether @Shrike: might be willing to draft something for consideration? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kinsley and Havardi could be listed among the other people already present in the article. It might get too long, but then GAs don't require perfection, and that list seems pretty relevant IMHO. I am open to any proposals offering specific remedies, particularly from those who claim that problems still exist in the article. The review is still open, so maybe something new will appear in the process. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 3: The process of creating the fragmented enclaves has been described -> add "also"
Allon Plan: In his view, not to give back to that country Palestinian land outside of the territory proposed for annexation for Israeli settlement would leave Palestinians with an autonomy under Israeli rule, a situation that would lead observers to conclude that Israel had set up an arrangement akin to "some kind of South African Bantustan". -> In his view, if Israel did not give back the Palestinian lands that were not supposed to be annexed for Israeli settlement to that country, it would have to leave Palestinians with an autonomy under Israeli rule. This, Allon argued, would lead observers to conclude that Israel had set up an arrangement akin to "some kind of South African Bantustan". (Move this sentence to the very end of the paragraph - we should first describe the gist of Allon's plan and then the motives behind it).
1968 Jerusalem plan: 1. The masterplan defined the need to ensure "unification of Jerusalem" and prevent a later division -> The masterplan set the objective of ensuring the "unification of Jerusalem" and preventing it from being divided in the future. 2. The plan called for Jewish neighborhood construction in stages beginning shortly after the war with Ramot Eshkol, French Hill and Givat HaMivtar "closing the gap in the north of the city. -> The plan called for the construction of Jewish neighbourhoods in stages, which started shortly after the Six-Day War. In particular, the new settlements of Ramot Eshkol, French Hill and Givat HaMivtar closed the gap in the northern parts of the city. (Also, watch out: you're using "neighborhood" and "labour" in one article, so stick to either Commonwealth English or American English). 3. Then in the 1970s through early 1980s, in the four comers of the annexed areas, Ramot and Neve Ya'akov in the north and Gilo and East Talpiot in the south. The third stage included Pisgat Ze'ev in 1980 and "the creation of an outer security belt", Ma'ale Adumim (1977), Givon (1981) and Efrat (1983) on high ground and beside strategic roads in the Palestinian area. Har Homa (1991) and attempts to achieve a link between this neighborhood and Ma'ale Adumim, known as the "Greater Jerusalem" plan. -> The second stage took place in the 1970s and early 1980s, when Ramot and Neve Ya'akov in the north and Gilo and East Talpiot in the south were built. The third stage included Pisgat Ze'ev in 1980 and the creation of the so-called "outer security belt", which consisted of Ma'ale Adumim (1977), Givon (1981) and Efrat (1983), built on high ground and next to strategic roads in the Palestinian area. The most recent endeavours included the construction of Har Homa (1991) and the so far unsuccessful attempts to connect Ma'ale Adumim with other Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. (given the location of Har Homa, it is extremely unlikely they wanted to go from there to Ma'ale Adumim).
Para 1: 1. Just to reduce ambiguity, I'd propose to replace "their [settlements] main architect" to "its [policy] main architect". 2. across the full depth what does it mean in English?
Para 3: Masterplan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 1979–1983, Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem, 1979, authored by Matityahu Drobles(s) -> Masterplan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 1979–1983, authored by Matityahu Drobles and published by Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization in 1979. (wikilink Matityahu Drobles; besides, is his surname really written with double s?)
Para 4: Plans including the Allon, Drobles and Sharon master plans as well as the Hundred Thousand plan, never officially acknowledged, were the blueprint for West Bank settlements. Plans, including the Allon, Drobles and Sharon master plans, as well as the Hundred Thousand plan, which has never been officially acknowledged, were the blueprint for the West Bank Jewish settlements. (add internal link to Hundred Thousand plan); convert parenthetical referencing to normal reference.
Onceinawhile comment: I have done the first sentence here. Please could you confirm what you mean by "add internal link to Hundred Thousand plan", and which parenthetical reference you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that (hint: start with a hash, then write the name of the chapter, e.g. #Oslo Accords or the next part of the review :)). The parenthetical reference is (UNHCR 2013, p. 31) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comment: Thank you. I have fixed the parentheticalOnceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Road to Oslo
Para 1: According to the former deputy director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's department for Africa, Asia and Oceania, then ambassador and vice president of Tel Aviv University Avi Primor, writing in 2002 According to Avi Primor, the former ... Oceania, who was an ambassador and vice president of the Tel Aviv University at the time of writing.
Para 2: PLO leader Yasser Arafat -> unwind PLO abbreviation, write PLO in (parentheses); "Plan for West Bank and Gaza Strip" -> add "the" in front of each entity.
Para 3: "Published in 1983, the "Ministry of Agriculture and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization, Master Plan for Settlement for Judea and Samaria, Development Plan for the Region for 1983-1986" aimed at building settlements through 2010 by attracting 80,000 Israelis to live in 43 new Israeli settlements in order to raise the total settler population to 100,000 and for whom up to 450 km of new roads are to be paved" -> the "Master Plan for Settlement for Judea and Samaria, Development Plan for the Region for 1983-1986", co-authored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organisation aimed at attracting 80,000 Israelis to live in 43 new Israeli settlements (for which up to 450 km of new roads were to be paved) in order to raise the total settler population to 100,000 by 2010.
Para 5: 1. In 1984 elections, Labor and Likud, on opposite sides of the debate over territorial compromise were forced into coalition and any thought of land for peace tabled - that's not exactly in English. There should be a comma after compromise. 2. Second sentence: remove first quotes; Rabin -> Yitzhak Rabin. Split into two parts (second part: Additionally, the Israeli settlements ..., italicise de facto. 3. "but 15 years later" - comma after later; 4. Last sentence should be split in two. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2: 1. by the end of 1999 the West Bank had been divided into 227 separate entities, most of which were no more than 2 square kilometres (0.77 sq mi) - a. if you abbreviate miles, you should abbreviate kilometres for consistency; b. most of which were smaller than 2 km^2; 2. c.1005km2 -> c. 1005 km^2 (use Convert template); 3. last sentence - split the last part of the sentence from the rest: "In fact, no such transfers have been made to date".
Onceinawhile comment: Done (I left out the "in fact"). Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 3: "Swiss Cheese" -> lowercase for cheese; would be advisable to take inside quotes.
Onceinawhile comment: Done (I also added a little more detail to explain the Swiss cheese label) Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly nothing more to add.
Subsequent peace plans
Para 1: "would have conceded Palestinians 97% of the West Bank" -> would have handed control over 97% of the West Bank to Palestinians.
Para 5: 1. "Road map for peace" -> road should be lowercase; 2. "Bantustan model.In March 2002" add space; 3. "In March 2002, Israel began Operation Defensive Shield and commenced the Israeli West Bank barrier which frequently deviates from the pre-1967 ceasefire line into the West Bank." From what I read construction of the barrier started in June 2002, so it's misleading to couple the two; also, add comma before which.
Onceinawhile comment: Done I removed "March" so it now describes all of 2002. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 6: 1. It emerged that in private Sharon indeed had openly confided, when as Foreign Minister for the Netanyahu government, to a foreign statesman as early as April 1999, that he had in mind the Apartheid Bantustan example as furnishing an 'ideal solution to the dilemma of Palestinian statehood'. -> It later emerged that in private, Sharon had confided to a foreign statesman as early as in April 1999, when he was serving as Foreign Minister for the Netanyahu government, that he believed the apartheid-era Bantustan provided "an ideal solution to the dilemma of Palestinian statehood". 2. When d'Alema, at a private dinner he hosted for Israelis in Jerusalem in late April 2003, mentioned his recollection of Sharon's Bantustan views, one Israeli countered by suggesting that his recall must be an interpretation, rather than a fact -> When Massimo D'Alema recalled the discussion during which Sharon explained his preference for Bantustan-like Palestine, one of the guests, who attended a private dinner the Italian Prime Minister hosted for Israelis in late April 2003, countered by suggesting that D'Alema's recollections must be an interpretation rather than a fact. (D'Alema must be capitalised throughout; few people rid the footnotes, so we should mention D'Alema's name, too). 3. You don't need to quote D'Alema's answer - paraphrase it. 4. Another Israeli guest present at the dinner deeply invpolved in cultivating Israeli-South African relations Another Israeli guest, who was present at the dinner and who was (deeply) involved in cultivating ties between Israel and South Africa, ...; 5. "into three fragmented entities" -> needs colon.
Onceinawhile comment: Done 1, 2, 4, 5 all complete. On 3, the D'Alema quote is only seven words, and given the subject of the sentence is about precision I think it is elegant for us to be precise too. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 8: to minimize the amount of land on which a Palestinian state would exist by fixing facts on the ground to affect future negotiations -> you mean something like fait accompli politics? The current wording is pretty awkward.
Onceinawhile comment: Done I deleted most of that clause as it was most duplicative with the first part of the sentence. I also added a link to the article Facts on the ground. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Para 9: remove quotes, paraphrase all of them, also: These findings were discussed with the Israeli government; the Israelis "never challenged those findings" -> These findings were discussed with the Israeli government, which never disputed them.
Onceinawhile comment: Done First quote shortened (I didn't completely paraphrase it, because Rhodes is already paraphrasing Obama so better to stay as precise as we can); second quote paraphrased as suggested. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comment: Done Both acronyms clarified. I have left the remaining quote as it is only 6 words, and therefore difficult to accurately paraphrase without copying. The rest of the reference to Svetlova is a paraphrase. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trump peace plan: there's no particular reason for which to highlight Cohen's quote -> introduce back into text by rephrasing it; The plan in principle contemplates a future Palestinian state, "shrivelled to a constellation of disconnected enclaves, following Israeli annexation," while a group of UN human rights experts said "What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world." -> The plan in principle contemplates a future Palestinian state which would be, as the Financial Times describes, "shrivelled to a constellation of disconnected enclaves". A group of UN human rights experts also sided with the opinion, saying that "what would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world." Similar opinions were expressed by Daniel Levy, former Israeli negotiator and president of the U.S./Middle East Project, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory Michael Lynk.
Onceinawhile comment: Done Also I moved the Cohen reference into the subsequent section, as it was primarily focused on annexation. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Netanyahu annexation plan: Para 1: since you've already summarised Netanyahu's quote, it makes sense to get it in a footnote for reference instead of repeating it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comment: Done I reduced the paraphrase to remove repetition. I prefer to keep the quote because it is short and also important given it is the words of the plan's author. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General remark: The section somehow feels not finished. For example, I can't see what is it about the Jerusalem Master plan 2000 that warrants mention here. Plus only relying on one person's opinion to present a "key issue" isn't something that I'd expect to see in a GA-class article. While Dumper provides an example of how East Jerusalem contributes to the fragmentation of the community, there should preferably be more voices saying that.
1. The Jerusalem Master plan 2000 reflects Israeli policy. The plan proposes the maintenance of a 60% Jewish 40% Palestinian demographic. -> The Jerusalem Master plan 2000, which proposes the maintenance of a 60% Jewish to 40% Palestinian demographic (in Jerusalem?), reflects Israeli policy. 2. Please paraphrase at least two of four Dumper's quotes and explain why Dumper's opinion is needed here (scholar, researcher, politician, UN official?...).
Onceinawhile comment: Done Thank you for pointing this out. I have carried out a major rewrite of this section, adding to and upgrading the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Settlements
General remarks: That sentence in a separate paragraph should be merged with either of the two, while the last (mentioning the plans) should in fact be the first; plus the fragment should be also expanded with some more information and insights into the situation. As far as I understand, there should more or less be a section describing the quality of life in the enclaves (IDK, poverty, corruption, Israeli policing, flight of young people to Israel proper/elsewhere, if such stuff exists), particularly since the influx of Jewish settlers, but I don't see it. I hope more information could be found on the first two topics, because I don't think these two paragraphs broadly discuss the "key issues".
Onceinawhile comments: Done I have reordered all these paragraphs and combined them into one, which I think reads well. We do have a comprehensive article covering the main topics around life in the enclaves: Israeli occupation of the West Bank (currently linked in the first section of this article under Names). I prefer not to duplicate that article here, given its depth and complexity. I could certainly add a small subsection in the key issues section, with a main article link above it, but I am not sure I would be able to do it justice. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Land expropriation: paraphrase Financial Times quote; italicise all newspaper names in the article (Financial Times, Haaretz...); Highway to Annexation which concludes add "that the"
Contiguity: Post Oslo closure and separation (hafrada)-> Post-Oslo closure and separation (hafrada); paraphrase Peteet quotes; italicise hafrada; paraphrase Benvenisti and Indyk quotes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile comments: Done I also merged two paragraphs which were quite similar in nature. I paraphrased Peteet, and most of Benvenisti. I left the final Benvenisti quote and the Indyk quote, because they were so nuanced that I felt I couldn't do them justice with paraphrasing. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After some thorough review, I feel that the Israeli/pro-Israeli viewpoint is not sufficiently present in the article. It is obvious that the Israeli govt does what it does, but I think that the Israeli perspective there is lacking (if to discount Haaretz, which is known for being "Israel's most vehemently anti-settlement daily paper"). For example, the version proposed did not offer any examples where authors and politicians said that the Palestinian enclaves were not Bantustans, and AFAIK there are quite a lot of folks supportive of Israeli policies. However, being a non-expert in these issues, I will refer the NPOV question to a second person so that they could analyse if I'm right saying that there are potential NPOV issues hiding in the article and hopefully that other editor, if they find it necessary, will propose some adjustments and remedies. I'm waiting for the corrections to be made, or discussed in case of problems, after which the article will be reviewed by another user. I hope you won't have to wait for another three months for the review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only core NPOV issue here so far, unless I misunderstood the discussion that determined the default title, was whether the reality of 160 odd areas of Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank, now or in the future, situated between Israeli settlements, were to be called 'enclaves' or 'bantustans'. The choice of the former does not resonate with the South African analogy, the latter does and it was thought therefore that it was 'neutral' to employ the term pro-Israeli sources prefer. The title is what that POV prefers, the alt name what the majority of sources commenting on Israeli political and planning thinking had in mind. This is amply covered in the body of the text.
The gravamen of the second NPOV issue is whether those enclaves or bantustans are territorily continuous or discontinuous. Both 'enclaves' and 'bantustans' imply discontinuity in English (one enclave being separated from the other).
So, figuring out in what precisely consists NPOV is extremely difficult, since we have the pro-Israeli default term in the title, and the 'pro-Palestinian' alt name in the first para of the lead, and the text sums up the objective realities associated with both terms (which, apart from the difference in connotation, refer to the same reality - a discontinuous, broken chain of Palestinian 'settlements' with a projected (and at the moment de facto) Greater Israel. The best we can do is, as I think has been endeavoured, to describe the history of the idea, and the ways it has been implemented. I gather you think, perhaps I'm wrong, that more space should be given to Israeli arguments that the model for Palestinians is a net good all round?Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. What I basically mean is that in multiple discussions in which editors whom I can reasonably assume to take the pro-Israeli side (consciously or not) have only been challenging addition of material, instead of finding material of their own (which is a very annoying thing, as I've personally experienced on Wikipedia). That, however, is no indication that the material is nowhere to be found; rather, it did not surface at all. I have to be sure that the article gives adequate balance to each side. That is not to say it must be 50/50, or that any of the main authors of the article here have done a lousy job finding sources (actually, with such a mass of good-quality sourcing, I'm more than satisfied with the coverage). What I simply do here is an extra precaution against the possibility that this article, as pro-Israeli editors may contend, has skewed coverage in favour of Palestinians, by insufficiently reflecting the pro-Israeli commentary on the history of Palestinian enclaves/bantustans (not the history itself, which, barring a few details, like the 2000 Camp David negotiations minutiae, has facts that can't be reasonably disputed). Hence the enquiry to find publications that might be worthy of addition to the article representing "the other side" for consideration. To be clear, it's not as if I demand that the Israeli perspective be more prominently shown if there indeed are no good-quality sources covering that (which I find personally a little puzzling). If no one responds with the list of articles for consideration in a reasonable time framev (say, a week), I will simply move on with the review, as I've stated (see point 2a).
As for the title, I wasn't speaking of the title at all. In fact, the move discussion and the RfC happened back in Dec 2020/Jan 2021, and I, as a reviewer of this GA article, have no power to override the conclusions of both the RfC and the RM discussions. Since both "enclaves" and "bantustans" are used in reference to the territories, they can be used interchangeably, though for NPOV considerations, we shouldn't stick to bantustans only or enclaves only - and that's only so much I can say. That's not a problem I was thinking of, though. In short, it's more or less the same as presented in the previous paragraph. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: thank you very much for this excellent review. I will begin working through it and ping you again when these comments are resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say thanks for your attention to detail, and for your continued comments and support on this. The article is looking much better already. I believe I have now implemented all but four remaining comments, for which I am going to clear my head to think through further. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Szmenderowiecki:, yes I have been busy gathering a number of additional sources to address the points (primarily the Jerusalem question). I have just resolved / responded to three of the four open comments, and will be addressing the remaining one (para 2) over the coming days.
In the meantime, I am conscious that the other editors (those you mentioned in para 2 part 2a above, and those who have been discussing on the article talk page) have not provided any sources. I am not sure how I can prove a negative, other than for us to keep asking them. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't prove the negative (which you in most cases can't) and in fact, needn't worry about that, either. The time is running up, because I can't be stretching the review into infinity. I will simply leave a note to the second reviewer about the lack of response. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before I transfer this to the second editor's opinion, I have a few remarks to leave for the second editor to consider.
The only potential issue that is left in the article is the balance of the points of view in the article, which I would ask the second editor to review. While some editors have raised the point of NPOV violations, I have unfortunately seen no specific remedies, or sources for consideration, which could somehow deal with what is said to be the article's problem, and that despite repeated calls to propose them. (The only one discussed was inclusion of Ross's quote, but ultimately the section was IMHO rewritten in such a way that better summarised the main article of the section, which is Camp David negotiations). What we are most interested in is whether RS sources, or, better still, academic sources, show the article's subject from a perspective other (perhaps positive) than is already presented. Personally, I am more inclined to the nom's arguments which said that this was not the case, partially because the sources used all seemed to be very good and partially because of lack of meaningful action of those saying that some problems existed.
All other issues have been resolved as far as my checklist went, but if any problems appear with any of the other points that I haven't captured, feel free to suggest the solutions for them.
Because the review has not received any feedback for almost a week since I was done with all points of the checklist, I believe it's appropriate to thank all editors for the input made to improve the article and to close my part of the review. Cheers, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile greetings, I will take over the secondary review and carefully read the prior discussions and talk page discussions. I am familiar with with WP:ARBPIA sanctions and Israel/Palestine editing in general. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shushugah, thank you. Looking forward to discussing this with you. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a whole, I get a very good summary of the development of the various partition/enclave plans from a Palestinian perspective, but am missing the Israeli perspective on it. For example how it relates to hyper growth of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (which Israel doesn't consider to be settlements in the latter), security considerations with border fence/apartheid wall. The following line from Israel and the apartheid analogy aptly describes it, which you could copy.
The barrier has been called an "apartheid wall" by Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network. Israeli officials describe the barrier, constructed in 2002, as a security fence, limiting the ability of Palestinian terrorist groups to enter Israel and making it difficult for them to carry out suicide bombings.
I generally get a good sense of the Pro Palestinian perspective on the Batustan term/analogies and criticisms of the various partition plans, but I do not get a good sense of what the pro Israel perspective is, except for specific quotes/responses here and there. To concreletely help with this I'd suggestion the following sections
== Bastustan analogy== section should adequately summarize why pro Palestinian activists/scholars use it, and why pro Israel supporters distance themselves from it (in most cases). It heavily relates to Israel and the apartheid analogy and that article would be a good guideline for a more neutral way of summarizing multiple view points. Another related suggestion in next bullet point:
Israel's foreign relations with Batustants and or apartheid South Africa. You could move the bit about Ariel settlement/Bisho there and further contextualize it, for example West Bank/East Jerusalem's lack of global recognition in 1987 was comparable.[1] Simularly, the quote from Chomsky about the similarities/differences would be more relevant here.
Settlements section already exists, but needs further expanding. A lot has happened in the Settlements since the year 2000.
While being sensitive to the fact that contentious topics benefit from notes, I concur with prior reviews that there is excessive number of notes and their lengths. Some of these would benefit from being content in the article directly, for example about the political connotations/implications of using canton/enclave over bastustan, is a very interesting topic, which is not present in the article at all. This quote hidden in a hatnote is one example.
Ariel Sharon...The latter indicates a structural development with economic and political implications that put in jeopardy the prospects for any meaningfully sovereign viable Palestinian state. It makes the prospects for a binational state seem inevitable, if most threatening to the notion of ethnic nationalism.' (Farsakh 2005, p. 231)
Given the length/numericality of the various plans, I'd move Palestinian enclaves#Key issues to be the 2nd section and perhaps rename it == Background context == or something to that effect, to elaborate what's at stake. Otherwise, I'm reading all of this, but not knowing why any of this even matters/is contentious.
It jumps right into Area A/B, without ever defining them. If it's not so important, you could rephrase it to something like:
The area of the West Bank currently under partial civil control by the Palestinian National Authority (Areas A and B) was composed of 165 "islands" under the 1995 Oslo II Accord. This arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; however, no such transfers happened to this day.
This paragraph is only mentioned once in the lede, with no further ellaboration beyond the linked note. It should be expanded, removed or at least moved into the body: The consequences resulting from the creation of these fragmented Palestinian areas has been studied widely, and has been shown to have had a "devastating impact on the economy, social networks, the provision of basic services such as healthcare and education"
Greater care is needed with spelling of politician's names, for example Benjamin Netanyahu was spelled Binjamin, and Shimon Peres was spelled Simon Peres. I corrected some Hebrew spelling (and matched with provided Haaretz source), which is reasonable to not expect English editors to know
Avoid WP:weasel words/phrases. If there are disagreements/disputes over terminologies, state them clearly instead of hoodwinking that there's controversey, for example with West Bank vs Judeah and Samaria etc.. a hatnote could clarify at the first mention of Judea Samaria (or West Bank), that the former is the Israeli government's term for the same geographic areas.
The creation of this arrangement has been called[by whom?] "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century." just mention that Journalist Amira Hass says this. She's obviously a notable journalist on this topic.
This has been referred to as the "Bantustan option".: I mistakenly understood this as referring to Trump peace plan rather than all the different peace plans. Considering the source exists before Trump's plan, it cannot refer to that anyways. Should also clarify WHO's referring to these plans as the "Bantustan option".
There are some more things that I may add, but for now, these things stood in terms of the requirements of breadth, neutrality, layout/structure. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: thank you for these excellent comments, and for your edits that implemented a few of the comments already. I need to take a little time to digest how best to interpret some of the wider comments you have made. In the meantime, I came across an interesting article from David Remnick, editor of the The New Yorker, entitled "The One-State Reality: Israel’s conservative President speaks up for civility, and pays a price". It includes the following statement which explains why it is so hard to provide an equal weighting of “both points of view” in this article: Israeli politicians often speak of the country’s singularity as “the sole democracy in the Middle East,” “the villa in the jungle.” They engage far less often with the challenges to democratic practice in Israel: the resurgence of hate speech; attacks by settlers on Palestinians and their property in the West Bank; the Knesset’s attempts to rein in left-wing human-rights organizations; and, most of all, the unequal status of Israeli Palestinians and the utter lack of civil rights for the Palestinians in the West Bank. [My underlining.] The rest of the Remnick article is a very interesting read, of broader interest, despite being 7 years old.
In a similar vein, we should be cautious with terminology like "the Israeli perspective" and the "pro Israel perspective" on a topic like this one. It is like asking for "the Chinese perspective" and the "pro China perspective" on the Xinjiang internment camps; I know a great many Chinese people who are pro-China and not one of them supports what is happening in Xinjiang. I assume what you mean is the Israeli government "line" on the topic; unfortunately consistent with the Remnick quote above, I haven't managed to find an official line on this topic anywhere. I like your idea about using the lines on the settlements or the wall, but if such comments don't directly address the enclaves then we would need to be careful to use them only in their specific contexts.
@Onceinawhile Uninvolved editor here: maybe it makes sense to state this difficulty as simply as possible, paraphrasing Remnick as a source? -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Onceinawhile and Selfstudier for working to incorporate my feedback and improve this article. The restructuring of the layouts, and addition of a table to provide visual clarity are major improvements for the readability of an incredibly complicated topic! I am closing this 2nd nomination as successful! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that most of the sources one-sided pro-palestinian I propose to add following book [4]. The author talks about banthustan concept and then tells that such notion at page 62 is popular among far left I suggest to add this to the article when we discuss the term.
I suggest to remove long Carter Quote. IMO it give WP:UNDUE weight to one-sided book that was heavily criticized for its bias[5],[6]
There are more issues so that article can be GA material I will get to them soon. Shrike (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he does not say that the Bantustan concept 'is popular among (the) far left'. What he does is make a rather bizarre argument, that then contradicts itself in the sentence you want to add.
Jeremy Havardi actually says that people like Ronnie Kasrils, Meron Benvenisti, Jimmy Carter and Archbiship Desmond Tutu, Max Blumenthal and John Mearsheimer are engaged in a 'bigoted assault upon Israel'. These people are not examples of 'far-left' radicals. Kasrils was long a member of the Communist party when he was an activist, like many SA Jews, against South African apartheid; Benvenisti was deputy mayor of Jerusalem; Tutu is a Nobel Prize winning religious figure; Carter was the US President who made the agreement between Begin and Sadat; Max Blumethal is certain a radical, nothing evil in that. Mearsheimer is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and like Benvenisti a political scientist of the realist school. So they have nothing in common, other than, since 2004, remarking on the extraordinary historical and structural similarities between SA bantustans and the fragmented townlets engineered by Israel on the West bank by people known to be inspired by the SA model, a view that extends from the far left to notable centralists and moderates having different outlooks and backgrounds from several different countries.
So, that is a self-goal. One can't win an argument by identifying a small minority that use it as 'radical leftists' (except in hasbara disinformatsiya) to imply that everyone who developed or uses the argument is, by guilt association, a 'radical far-left' activist. Rather than 'refuting the anti-Israel Narrative', he has provided extensive evidence that the view is mainstream, entertained by major figures in the world of religion, politics, mainstream scholarly studies and of course, also by people 'on the left'.
The book is RS, but it's rather pointless citing the concluding tidbit about this being a 'far-left' emanation which infected the mainstream. It gained notoriety when Israel and Jewish politicians and political scientists of distinction wrote up the historic record of how the SA model came into effect. It can be used, but as a secondary reference to the broad span of notable people who entertain this viewpoint. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to the Carter quote, no. It is a very terse yet comprehensive summary of the designed fragmentation already in place by 2000, from a figure whose knowledge of the situation is intimate, because he was, as President, a political insider privy to negotiations (see the relevant wiki pages) endlessly misrepresented. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your view those figures are mainstream the author doesn't say that. We may say that the term emanated from far left but entered mainstream discourse Shrike (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my view that 4 of the 6 are 'mainstream'. There is no evidence in his book that the view 'emanated from the far left', to the contrary, so it cannot be used for that statement, since he lacks any authoritative credentials as a scholar of the topic, and documents the exact opposite of what he concludes.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that Moshe Dayan and I.F. Stone both used the term in 1967. They are most definitely not considered far left. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks Shrike. Appreciate the collaboration here. A few thoughts:
Harvadi does not appear to be a professional historian, but a school teacher and director of the UK arm of advocacy organization B'nai B'rith. Having said this, his book is reliably published and I don’t object to its inclusion. I couldn’t see in there anywhere his own view on the bantustan terminology question though?
Carter is core to this, being a former US president (we mention most of the others during the relevant time period), and he is the only one who has written extensively on this subject. The source you provided – Havardi – comments on Carter’s work as an archetype of the commentary on this matter, and provides numerous Carter quotes, as do many others. So Carter is quoted by “all sides” of the political spectrum on this topic.
I suggest to the body of the article we may attribute his view.
The question is how it quoted and what the context. Carter was not on those negotiations he have no special knowledge of what happened there. Carter view can stay but it should be like Ross a short quote in the reference. Shrike (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ex-Presidents are duly informed of high level details even in their retirement.Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont actually think that book is reliable, McFarland & Company specializes in sports publishing. The author seemingly acknowledges that the views he is opposing in this book are the mainstream. I dont see how that qualifies as needing any WEIGHT, and I dont see how the author has any expertise on the topic, and several much more reliable sources dispute entirely what he writes. nableezy - 17:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My views regards the comments on sources: Mr Havardi is, as Onceinawhile correctly described, an advocate working for the Anti-Defamation League, but since we want to include the breadth of the usage of the word "bantustan" in context of Palestine, let his voice ring. Even if that's a non-mainstream view, among 10 examples of usage of bantustan as a description of the territories, we can include one or two per WP:BALANCE. Responding to Nableezy's comment, McFarland & Company, Inc. is an American independent book publisher based in Jefferson, North Carolina, that specializes in academic and reference works, as well as general interest adult nonfiction. It is certainly a well-regarded publisher.
Havardi makes the claim about the bantustan analogy being a far-left concept, but among the personalities involved in calling out the enclaves as "Bantustans", calling all of the people he mentions (as well as those cited here) far left is a stretch. Indeed, I wouldn't say that either Carter, Tutu or Mearsheimer can reasonably be even called left-wing (Tutu is a self-declared socialist, but his policies on the ground don't seem to be particularly characteristic of the left-wing politics). It is certainly Havardi's opinion, but I don't see any reflection of it in fact, so I have to side with Nishidani here.
I can also agree that neither Stone nor Dayan are left-wing, so this is a good reason not to quote Havardi's assertion. But we can surely quote cite him simply for the diversity of opinions.
Jimmy Carter's book: while the book itself has received pretty substantial criticism, I rely on the description provided in its own Wikipedia article, which is IMHO very well-written, and the best I can say is that this book is controversial. We don't require sources to be neutral, therefore, I advised to include the two sources in Archive 1 to the article. On the other hand, I'm convinced by the arguments of those saying that the full quote belongs (I haven't ordered its trimming). For one thing, it has a long but very good description directly pertaining to the topic from the highest federal official in US serving in the years when he could already talk about Drobles and Allon plans (the former appearing during his presidency), and it is quite common knowledge that ex-leaders are normally well-informed of the minutiae. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article is better with the full quote than the trimmed one, and thus should stay in the form it is now.
What interests me in particular, if you've actually started the discussion, is to find more pro-Israeli sources of similar quality to those present in the article, because they might be underrepresented but I don't know if that's indeed the case. I'm waiting for the list for consideration. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you response. I will look into it. What about giving more space to Ross i.e give full quote and do a little trim to Carter. So their will be equal contrary to Carter he was part of the negotiations to the very least he should get the same space. Shrike (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think trimming down Carter's quote is unwarranted, but Ross's quote, on the contrary, could be well expanded, I have nothing against it. Let's see the implementation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might pass RSN, but this is considerably more on the popular publisher side of an academic v popular publishing house. And by the books own position, his is a minority view, saying the book argues against the press and the policy establishment. There have to be better sources for that pro-Israeli position. nableezy - 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some might bridle nervously at the use of Finkelstein for this point. But he is far from alone. The Camp David breakdown has a considerable literature, little of it vindicating Ross's extremely partisan and simplistic story, for a personal story it is, one of vindicating Israel and blaming the Palestinians that consistently distorts a very complex reality (He was so biased he even heatedly reprimanded Israeli negotiators who were disposed to make territorial 'concessions' (Ehud Barak indeed dismissed many of Israel's best Oslo period negotiators from Camp David) that gave back more Palestinian land than he personally thought (he was supposed to be a neutral US broker) suited the 'needs' of that nondescript people (nondescript because in his book he denies that Palestinians have any ethnic unity other than a generic 'Arab' identity)). Compare for example, Myron Aronoff, 'Camp David Rashomon: Contested Interpretations of the Israel/Palestine Peace Process,'Political Science Quarterly, 124: 1 Spring 2009 pp. 143-167, which is a meta-analysis where Ross is somewhat primary, and has the benefit of the wisdom of detached hindsight and scholarly regard for historical sources.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To meet Shrike's point, I have added from Aronoff Barak's dismissal of the Bantustan criticism which, together with Ross's point, is closer to NPOV. Barak's remark can be read as an Israeli POV, which was what was required (even if many Israeli negotiators disagreed with him). As Aronoff's essay shows, close historic analysis will tell you rather rather than national POVs, events like this are muddled battles not only between national camps, but inframural, with dissenting views among both Palestinian and Israeli politicians and negotiators as to what eiter nation required. If we were to become more historically literature, and faithful to scholarship, our articles would slowly erode the cheap binary I/P stereotypes of one POV vs another. The details always undercut such simplistic narratives. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's going a good way forward (the edit with Barak).
Regards Finkelstein, Norman is himself pretty controversial (so much as he was denied entry to Israel for some reason), and the account of Ross is from the first-hand negotiator in the process, so I don't see the problem here, though no one claims Ross is neutral. Since Ross's view, for at least some time, was pretty much mainstream, we should mention it and display it prominently. Now whether we should mention it as an account to which we oppose Carter's without any extra commentary or we provide some on his narrative from say, Finkelstein is another matter. Personally, I think some extra commentary is warranted, and Finkelstein is a good example. If there's any other piece of commentary supporting/opposing Ross's theses, I'm ready to evaluate it. Btw, use [7] this link for Finkelstein as it's more accessible. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose using Finkelstein. I don't thinking anyone has successfully challenged the extremely close 'forensic' historical work he has done for spin or misreportage. His accuracy is never under challenge. His 'attitude' is (even by Palestinians and the BDS movement leaders). Disliked intensely by both sides, and therefore, in my view, pretty close to neutral because he is writing to the facts, not to a POV constituency. His removal from tenure was political. He spend years in the wilderness publishing in small presses, but in 2017 the University of California published his minute history of Gaza's tragedy to general acclaim. That brought him back to the mainstream. The fact that he cannot set foot in Israel is neither here nor there. Neither can dozens of major mainstream academics, many of them Jewish. Aronoff, while more rounded than Finkelstein by noting also Ross's criticisms of Barak, concludes:
The analysis of Israeli and Palestinian narratives employed by Dennis Ross is an anachronistic national character approach that treats culture as if it were homogeneous for all groups within society -whereas it is always contested- and as static, rather than as dynamic.' pp.164-5
One could elaborate extensively on that, Ross's book being thorough ly 'orientalist' in its skew(er)ing of the adversary's 'Arab' mentality, which means he can't, just as most of Barak's critics within Israel also argued, grasp the reality of the 'other' he is negotiating with, or trying to 'figure out'.
There are numerous other sources one could use. One early one, Jeremy Pressman, 'Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?,'International Security , 28:2 (Fall, 2003) pp. 5-43 is balanced in its analysis of spin on both sides but does remark:'In this article I argue that neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian version of the events at Camp David and subsequent talks is wholly accurate. The Palestinian version, however, is much closer to the evidentiary record of articles, interviews, and documents produced by participants in the negotiations, journalists, and other analyses.' But, that's from 2003, and we probably need later historical studies.
We're looking for specific mentions of the 'bantustan' interpretation of what Israel offered. Many sources cite the 90-91% restitution of the land occupied, but fail to mention how that is mapped. The maps point to discontinuity, whereas the land size 'offer' looks 'generous'. Pressman comments on this narrative:-
on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was not forthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections.'p.16
The difficulty lies here. POVs are one thing, even in history. We control them by close data analysis. Both Ross and Barak must be represented for denying that bantustans would be the result. But a huge mass of analytical material states that Palestinians read the proffered maps, not in terms of sq.miles, but continuity/discontinuity. We can hardly say Ross and Barak are misleading. All we can do is provided the data (in perhaps a footnote) and tweak the contrast we already have in text, between the continuity vs discontinuity narratives.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please include it in proportion to the prominence of their explanations. I will see, based on the arguments presented here and the implementation in the article, the new version, possibly including such sources. I'd like to remind you, though, that the topic is not about calling the areas "bantustan" but the Palestinian enclaves in general, including their bantustan aspect. Therefore, while you didn't want to include Finkelstein, or Pressman, I think that their commentary, if it can be included in the article (and it certainly can), should not be hidden from the view of the readers.
As for "hiding in the footnote", I don't think the discontinuity and the continuity theories should be presented differently just because what appeared in fact was fragmentation. That is precisely, in my view, the question of neutrality - we briefly present the main arguments of the negotiating sides in an equal way (Ross on the one side and Carter on the other) and we briefly present the prevalence of scholarly positions on the topic (because there is a separate article for Camp David). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reluctant about using Finkelstein/Pressman or any of a score of other scholarly studies on minutiae relevant to the issue. What I was doing was citing them to show aspects of the larger context digging up stuff that readers of the talk page, and editors, might find useful. The problem with the Ross/Carter contrast is that most expressions I have checked of the Israeli POV (Ross) consist of curt dismissals. I simply cannot recall, or find even now, a close analytical refutation of the enclave/Bantustan argument in 'pro-Israeli' sources. Carter cites, by contrast, details on the ground which, in his view, means that the enclaves are effectively bantustans. I.e. he doesn't assert or dismiss, but draws out the implications. That was my reason for being uneasy with an expansion of Ross. With due diligence we may well find a source presently that counters the inferences and details Carter outlines, and that, indeed, would fit a balancing statement. Cheers (and by the way, thanks for the meticulous review). Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike, Nishidani, and Onceinawhile: The nomination process has been stagnant for five days. I would like to get some input on the questions that remain unanswered. Also, courtesy pinging other editors who have participated in this discussion: @Wikieditor19920, El C, Levivich, and Drsmoo:, to suggest any new ideas that you might have while reading the discussion and the GA nomination, in particular as regards the unanswered questions and some suggestions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are other several points that need to be addressed IMO:
1.Situation before First Intifada there was free movement of people and goods as far as I know.
2.Explain that checkpoints is a security measure to stop Palestinian terrorism
There are additional points that exist I hope to cover it on weekend Shrike (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shrike, I am fine for you to add these points. A couple of notes:
1. The terminology "free movement" is incorrect. Freedom of movement usually implies a person can live in the different areas. What you are correctly referring to is that between 1972 and 1989 Israel issued a general exit permit for Palestinians to allow them to work in Israel between 5am and 1am (see Israeli permit regime in the West Bank#History). They were not allowed to stay overnight. If we mention this we should point out that this mirrored exactly the model the South African bantustans - see e.g. Bishara & Usher describing the situation today: "...even more restricted than in the bantustans of South Africa, where at least you could travel to work..."
2. We would need to balance such a statement with an explanation of how the checkpoints have evolved. Per United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: "It is becoming apparent that the checkpoint and obstacles, which Israeli authorities justified from the beginning of the second Intifada (September 2000) as a temporary military response to violent confrontations and attacks on Israeli civilians, is evolving into a more permanent system of control that is steadily reducing the space available for Palestinian growth and movement for the benefit of the increasing Israeli settler population."
Onceinawhile, fair enough. For now, I'd ask you to finish the rest of the points of the GA review (or discuss them in case you don't agree). The NPOV question is important, so maybe we should finish other points to concentrate on the possible NPOV issues, if any indication of these appears in a reasonable time. Thanks for reminding about my request. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Szmenderowiecki, OK that sounds like a good plan. I am working through the rest now. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed it, what is the source for the Fox News/Ross thing? Re "the map", there was no final map presented (only an earlier map reflecting what the Palestinian side said was the Israeli offer), the map by Ross is a map according to Ross version of events, this should be clarified (either the Ross map is not mentioned or we need to mention both maps). The idea here is not to rewrite the Camp David article according to one narrative or another, if so we can then give over more space to Taba/Clinton parameters as well (this is relevant context for the competing narratives at Camp David).Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment, when we say we look for the other side of the argument, we need to be clear which argument we are talking about, it is not a case of pulling up this or that narrative for one negotiation or one event that occurred, in the first place there are always competing narratives and the article generally points them up when these exist. More importantly, this article is mainly about the development of enclaves/bantustans over a long time period from 67 to currently so what we want is sources discussing that not the minutiae of one or other peace negotiation.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, but I'm not speaking of negotiations only. Your last point about the fact that this article is mainly about the development of enclaves/bantustans over a long time period from 67 to currently so what we want is sources discussing that not the minutiae of one or other peace negotiation is precisely what I have in mind, and we agree in this respect. As I said, the factual basis is in general not disputed. What was disputed here on talk is the absence or underrepresentation of commentary that would be favourable to these events (and there certainly is such commentary, as is with the case of refuting/trying to refute the apartheid analogy). This is the commentary that I labelled as "pro-Israeli", and it's this commentary that I am waiting for. (I won't be waiting for too long, though).
Re map: as far as I can understand, Ross was referring to the "generous offer" and comparing the old map to the new one. No final map appeared because the talks failed, of course. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Camp David specifically, apart from Aronoff (briefly cited in the article) there is the earlier 2004 analysis, Waging Peace Israel and the Arabs, 1948-2003 by Itamar Rabinovich. Both of these (and there are others) are scholarly interpretations of what went on, not just the Ross/US version of events. If we want to make a meal out of Camp David, then the Fox News/Ross stuff is not it so either it has to go or we need an expansion with proper sourcing of all sides and not just the so called "orthodox" version.Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would be best not getting lost down that rabbit hole. The lead section of 2000 Camp David Summit says Reports of the outcome of the summit have been described as illustrating the Rashomon effect, in which the multiple witnesses gave contradictory and self-serving interpretations.; I think that is the overall tone that the relevant section in this article should take as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I copied over that bit + refs from the Camp David article, then we only need to figure out what else we might need beyond that from the other material that follows it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think not much. I'm satisfied with the section as is presented now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to keep the Fox/Ross, then apart from it needing a source, we will need to expound further on the other POVs ie revisionist, eclectic and so on per Aranoff/Rabinovich. It would be simpler to just remove the interview material which gives undue preference to that particular POV (orthodox). Even the percentage ref is problematic because the sides did not calculate %'s the same way (they still don't).Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the interview is here: [8]. Unfortunately can't find the Fox News interview.
That's really not RS, is it? "HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct? ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.HUME: Right." Seriously? I can cherry pick, too:) We need a scholarly interpretation of this interview or at least a third party, if one can be found. If it is notable, some commentator will have picked up on it, somewhere, let me see if I can find something.Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole interview was read into the Congressional Record of 22 April 2002 (the following day), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2002-04-22/pdf/CREC-2002-04-22.pdf, at the request of Mrs Feinstein, Dianne Feinstein, presumably. OK, this is a step up from Havurah Shir Hadash and it gives some additional context, even if it is political context. We still need some third party/scholarly input to that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then the day after that, a third party review that includes a Palestinian response disputing the Ross/US version of events, Hassan Abdel Rahman, the Palestinian representative in Washington since 1994, at a forum sponsored by the U.S. Institute for Peace:
Some in this town say, 'Well, the Palestinians deserve it. They brought it onto themselves, because they were offered a very generous deal in Camp David, and they rejected it.' And this lie has been perpetuated so often in this town to the point where it has become a fact or appears to be a fact,"
As for the expansion, I would like to see the implementation to see if what you propose is any improvement, though in my opinion, the balance is more or less preserved. The problem is, if we remove the orthodox viewpoint, I see it as giving undue weight to the revisionist opinions (which, as the name suggests, are not necessarily the mainstream ones). If there are three, instead of two viewpoints, we should include the third one if it has enough prominence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aranoff gives the nod to the third school of interpretation, the eclectic. The revisionist view is attributed to Malley/Agha, not to Carter who is talking about the subsequent Clinton parameters not Camp David. There is a fourth "school" attributed to Shlomo Ben Ami, a bridge between orthodox and eclectic. So our version is presently POV in favor of Ross/US(Clinton) version (the orthodox).Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: do you have a source explaining the historiography in this way – i.e. the four schools? It would be a good addition at the main Camp David Summit article. We could then summarize it here, bringing out the relevant excerpt relating to the enclaves for each of the four positions. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Aranoff, already cited in the article (previously and again in the bit I copied over from Camp David, ref needs fixing up for consistency). Under the heading "Schools of Interpretation" (he makes use of Rabinovich 4 schools framework (I have this, too) for his take on it). I will see if it can be broken out in the way you suggest.Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only mention of bantustan/enclave/contiguity and such in Aronoff is the sentence we already had in the article to begin with, viz "He (Barak) calls the revisionist charge that he offered noncontiguous bantustans "one of the most embarrassing lies to have emerged from Camp David." The principal details of the 4 schools are little to do with this and I don't really see how we are adding value to this article by including yet more of the "orthodox" position than was in it already. It kind of feels as if we are casting around for "pro Israeli" things to put in the article and while I have no objection to that it needs to be on topic.Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the Camp David part so it is more balanced, Ross/Barak versus Hassan Abdel Rahman.Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the sentiment that the best course of action for the article would be to populate it with more neutral and mainstream scholarly depictions of the enclaves. This would be an improvement over the article’s current state: a collection of cherry picked sources that were chosen because they happened to use the term “bantustan” somewhere.Drsmoo (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We added a bunch of them during the months of discussion that we had before, do you have any more? Happy to add them if you do. The cherry picking argument was made previously and quite rightly dismissed, 50 years worth of "bantustan" refs is not cherry picking, its a trend.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t recall it being dismissed in any substantial way. Do you mean dismissed by the editors who did the Cherry-picking? Certainly it hasn’t dismissed by the parties who’ve said this article is non neutral. Also, clearly there are sources that have made that analogy, however, contrary to what you’ve written previously, it isn’t the common name. The overuse of the non common name, resulting from cherry picking from the smaller and less neutral pool of sources that use the term, is why the article is in its current non npov state. Drsmoo (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any pertinent sources? As for the rest, you have a short memory, go back and look at the lengthy discussions on these matters, bantustan is an altname. What do you mean by overuse, metrics please? Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, personal attacks already, lol. Drsmoo (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a no on the sources, right? Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: Just to show you the current environment on this page haha. Regarding metrics, Palestinian enclaves is used exponentially more often on both JSTOR and Google Scholar when compared with Palestinian Bantustans.
'
JSTOR
Google Scholar
"Palestinian enclaves"
112
501
"Palestinian bantustans"
19
80
Palestinian enclaves
2,810
18,500
Palestinian bantustans
724
4,080
"Palestinian enclave"
77
284
"Palestinian bantustan"
39
115
Palestinian enclave
2,945
16,000
Palestinian bantustan
509
4,070
However, in this article, "Bantustan" is found 118 times, while "enclave" is found only 58 times. This is a complete inversion of usage among scholarly texts, and reflective of the POV and cherry-picked nature of the article. Drsmoo (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of quick clarifications. Bantustan is found only 47 times in the main article, and the remaining usage is in the footnotes. A frequent function of the footnote quotations is to provide clear support for any sentence which might require it, so it is natural that there are more footnote quotations using the term bantustan than there are for enclave. Secondly your statistics above do not reflect the many months of discussion on the relative frequency of these terms, which carefully parsed the actual scholarly usage. Your statistics don't do it justice - the versions in quotations used an infrequent version for bantustan usage ("Palestinian bantustan(s)" is not that common as the adjective Palestinian is usually deemed unnecessary from the context) and the versions without quotations greatly overstate the Palestinian enclave(s) numbers (enclave is too generic a word; many of the articles in the non-quotation-marks enclave searches you reference above do not relate to this topic). Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to changing some usage of the word bantustan to enclave where that works. Of course, it would be even better if you would produce some of the scholarly sources you are referring to containing the words Palestinian enclaves and we could include those. In all of the prior discussions we repeatedly asked for these to be produced and none were, for months on end.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just put "Palestinian enclaves" into Google (I get 18,300 results), let me know which sources you would like to include.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is stopping you from adding any sources or material. nableezy - 15:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The stats show what they show (I was able to reproduce these), but these mean little alone. I mean, the article name reflects the prevalence of the term, but I have only seen two articles that we could call scholarly that would support the viewpoint. Please paste the links/citations to the relevant sources for consideration here and stop quarreling with each other. I need the former, not the latter.
As for changing bantustans to enclaves... so long as we don't refer to the areas as bantustans only or enclaves only, and so far as we don't distort the quotes, I am in general OK with that, so you may proceed with these changes. The sources are more important, however. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with @Drsmoo notion I think the article is unbalanced and hence I propose to start RFC to hear community input from uninvolved editors mostly who doesn't usually operate in this area about whatever this article meets WP:NPOV policy and if not what should be done to fix it. I of course don't need anyone approval to start such RFC but I first like to hear from @Szmenderowiecki about this idea. Shrike (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the RFCbefore. I'd suggest you also have a look in the archives.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussions included plenty of points and satisfied RFCBEFORE Shrike (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which previous discussions and which points? You need to identify the issues involved that you think have not been adequately resolved. Normally, there is a discussion containing them, I don't see one here.Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, I am sceptical of the idea of starting an RfC in order to determine whether NPOV is preserved, as this RfC would not solve the potential POV problem but simply instead say there is one, which is not the point of RfCs. The objection you and a few other editors raised, was not that the editors who were the article's main authors misrepresented the sources (or, where they did, it was not a major NPOV problem but simply not noticing the explanatory footnotes), but rather that the article presents few sources looking from the perspective which is other than critical of the Palestinian enclaves
The problem with this argument, however, is that for the duration of the article's existence, I've seen only two examples in talk that would somehow qualify as sources (and one of them is of rather dubious quality). Instead of making the RfC and using up other editors' time, I'd rather propose once again to look in the list of sources that would qualify for inclusion, as other editors and I have requested since at least 24 October (I think three weeks is more than enough to look into Google Scholar or JSTOR and paste a few of them). If you believe some extra input from the outside is needed (I will refer the article to the second reviewer anyway), you may ping whomever you consider good enough for the role, but remember about canvassing. If the problem persists for some reason, some input from WP:NPOVN might be needed, and only after that would I consider an RfC (though I believe by that time either the problem will be resolved or this GA review will be suspended).
Tl;dr: don't start it yet, look for some good sources to balance. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that most of the sources that discuss this issue only want to show one side of the coin and have a clear agenda so I am not sure if neutral article could be written about that. But even if accept that there are still problem with the article like WP:UNDUE quote of Carter without any counterbalance the Ross quote was removed. Shrike (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: the subject of this article has been written on in detail by some of the world's most eminent sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists. They are sourced and cited in this article. Your attempt to poison the well with your first sentence is shameful.
Thank you for acknowledging that the "other side of the coin" does not appear to have published any reliable sources. This was the case during South African apartheid too - the pro-apartheid side did not publish serious research on the good things about the regime, and academia was mostly anti-apartheid. The same is true of other academic topics today - those who are pro-climate change or anti-vaccination rarely publish serious research supporting their views, because they are not defensible outside of rhetorical podiums and political arenas. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Ross's quote back in citation after it being thrown out for some reason.
As for sources: we don't need the sources to be neutral, but we do need them to be usable. If you say there are no good sources for consideration, I will refer the review to the second editor because I'm done with the rest. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile has anticipated what I would have written. It is almost impossible (I've searched and searched) to find 'balancing' or positive quality literature on the enclaves/Bantustan or ghettoization precisely for the reasons given by Once. There is no dispute in sources 'pro-Israeli' or not, that the historic record of planning has consistently aimed to impose on Palestinians a fractured congeries of piecemeal zones. All sides agree that that is the geophysical and political reality that has emerged. The only significant dispute is whether those 150+ zones are to be called 'enclaves', 'bantustans' or 'ghettoes.' Enclaves won out in the RfC as 'neutral' because Bantustan evokes the apartheid analogy, while 'ghetto' creates problems in Jewish historical memory, but the POV remains exclusively in the title, nowhere else, since 'enclaves' is no less problematical, since it is widely viewed as euphemistic window-dressing. Well, consensus has determined that is to be the default term, so we stick with it. Once can't question the neutrality of the article Ghetto by noting the lack of academic sources that present in a positive light 'the other side of the coin', the perspective of the ghettoizers.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on Israel and Palestine wikiprojects Shrike (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is stopping anybody from adding any material that is reliably sourced and related to the topic of the article. If you think this article is lacking some source and material, add it. You dont need an RFC for that. nableezy - 02:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Ross quote" is included in cite 78 and the Palestinian response in cite 79 and neither one specifically addresses any of the enclave issues. Carter is speaking of the Clinton parameters not specifically about Camp David although the two things are related, his view as a President clearly has value and he addresses the contiguity issue directly. If there is a source disputing what he says I would be interested to see it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Malleywas also at Camp David so how to explain his 91% versus Ross 97%? This is the problem with cherry picking on a particular event and in the process ignoring details such as how these %'s were calculated (eg Israeli side excludes East Jerusalem).Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...As it stands now, the United States proposal would: 1) divide a Palestinian state into three separate cantons connected and divided by Jewish-only and Arab-only roads and jeopardize the a Palestinian state’s viability; 2) divide Palestinian Jerusalem into a number of unconnected islands separate from each other and from the rest of Palestine;...
If we want to relitigate these events then we ought to do it at the relevant articles rather than trying to do it in this article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I were going to expand upon this part, besides the straightforward providing of up to date demographic data, then what I personally would be looking at is the kind of developments discussed here, and here in the sense that these show the current continuation of the plans described in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliable sources here. Shrike (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If and when something is added, then by all means contest the sourcing. This is just a discussion following the GA reviewer comment "A lot has happened in the Settlements since the year 2000" Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is good and sourced. QPQ is done. Looks ready to go! Thriley (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting the main hook (ALT0) to Prep 2, with the image! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote a seems out of place: how does it expand on the first sentence? Seems to me like it should be integrated to footnote b. JBchrchtalk 16:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page 76 of the Amnesty report released yesterday[9] states as follows:
As mentioned above, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that “Arab citizens of Israel” is an inclusive term that describes a number of different and primarily Arabic-speaking groups, including Muslim Arabs (this classification includes Bedouins), Christian Arabs, Druze and Circassians. According to the ICBS, at the end of 2019, the Druze population stood at approximately 145,000, while according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Circassian population totalled 4,000 people. Considering the number of those defined as Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs together, the population of Palestinian citizens of Israel amounted to around 1.8 million, that is some 20% of the total population in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem. Today, about 90% of Palestinian citizens of Israel live in 139 densely populated towns and villages in the Galilee and Triangle regions in northern Israel and the Negev/Naqab region in the south. The remaining 10% live in “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Ramla, Lod, Jaffa and Acre. As will be seen below, this has been the result of deliberate policies by the government of Israel to segregate Palestinian citizens of Israel into enclaves as part of the wider goal of ensuring the Jewish settlement and control of as much of Israel’s territory as possible.
Can anyone see where the "deliberate policies by the government of Israel to segregate Palestinian citizens of Israel into enclaves" are sourced in the report? This is obviously a very different thing from the legally-enforced segregation in the West Bank, as all Israeli citizens have equal freedom of movement.
Possibly they refer to the expropriations of land from absentee owners. Alaexis¿question? 07:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please copy/repost your post to the Palestinian citizens of Israel talk page at the bottom, the 1.8million seem to tally with those we have been looking at there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is material about Israel situation p 146 and on. Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I0m a digital numbskull but has anyone else had the problem I have, using a laptop in a pub which when I google the report and call up the full pdf yields only the Arabic version, and resolutely refuses to allow me to access the Enbglish document? Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Does clicking Once's link up above work? It gives me the English, no problem. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once's link works, but the mystery remains as to why the site google gives if you search for it namely here, which is the English page only gives you the Arab text. A google misdirection?Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the left there is a drop down box to select the language.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. I had tried that. Inside the dropbox is Arabic. The scroll down tab to the right doesn't work, and Arabic remains the default choice and cannot be changed. It is extremely odd, since the page link states that it is 'en. Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nishi, I've emailed you a copy of the report, in case you can't access it by normal means. --NSH001 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This tired slipshod language, even in sources, has never made much sense. Here it intoduces the views of Meron Benvenisti. I don't think anyone familiar with his life and curriculum could call him anything other than a liberal in political terms, which however has no purchase in terms of Israeli politics. I think that kind of descriptive cliché pointy, as if any criticism of the occupation must be grounded in leftwing attitudes, rather than a broad culture of democratic sensitivity to human rights, which is not 'leftist'. Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you suggesting to change? Alaexis¿question? 06:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Leftist'/'rightist' descriptions, when not explicitly endorsed by the subject's known record but rather established by reflex newspaper opinionizing by third parties, should be dropped from articles, particularly if the person whose views are described has a wikibio. I.e., numerous papers will describe anyone opposing the occupation as a 'leftist', and anyone justifying it as a 'rightist', regardless of context. This is unencyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we need to follow the sources. If Korn says it's mostly used by the left then I see no reason to omit it. Alaexis¿question? 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No practiced writer or editor follows sources obsequiously. We exercise judgment in selecting what has encyclopedic cogency, ideally. That is just Korn's corn: I see the epithet 'leftist' anytime a journalist is required to mention a view critical of, in this case, Israel. I for one have never seen anything identifiably 'leftist' left in Israel, let alone abroad in so-called 'left-wing' parties. The term is a polemical buzzword to alert the reader that what follows is suspect. Benvenisti was not a 'leftist' but a liberal, and to confuse the two is to succumb to a known 'American' talkshow/Republican cliché confusing the two (merging the traditions associated with Karl Marx with those that flow from John Stuart Mill).Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The label "Israeli left" is just a convenient way to describe a certain political stance and the people which profess it. It's not some kind of innate characteristic. You may think that he's not a true leftist but for the reader it's convenient as it gives some context using familiar terms. Anyway, it doesn't matter too much. Alaexis¿question? 18:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that "Israeli left" is frequently used as shorthand for Israeli revisionist historians, e.g. the New Historians. I think it would be WP:OR to reject the descriptor if it's used by RS on the basis that editors think it's inaccurate for a specific historian – since that would inherently involve a judgement/assessment of an individual's views by wiki editors. However, I think there may be a MOS:JARGON case for avoiding "Israeli left", if Nishidani's argument is that it's a term which carries a connotation/association that would be understood by those familiar with the literature/field, but which a layperson would not get. What would you suggest as an alternative phrasing? Jr8825 • Talk 18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should follow sources as per WP:RS policy but I might agree to reasonable alternative as per Jr8825 suggestion Shrike (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike.Duh.Sigh.
Wikipedia text
(a)Many researchers and writers from the Israeli left used it in the early 2000s,[31] (b)for example with Meron Benvenisti referring in 2004 to the territorial, political and economic fragmentation model being pursued by the Israeli government.[32]-
(a)Reflects the source:
As the closure of the West Bank and Gaza intensified, researchers and political writers from the Israeli left used the term ‘bantustanization’ to describe the process to describe the process that the Territories had undergone.
(b) is WP:OR when it writes 'for example’ because it illustrates (a) by citing Meron Benvenisti here (see also here )who is not mentioned in these contexts as a member of the Israeli left, irrelevant to any assessmewnt of his judgment, but as the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem (the most common denominator in google books). His presumed place on the Israeli political spectrum is immaterial to his views. Calling him a leftist means using a universal descriptor that cancels the fact he was a Zionist, liberal or leftist as one wishes,Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007 showed that an Israeli retreat does not necessarily bring peace and prosperity to the region - exactly the opposite - it led to thousands of rocket attacks against Israeli citizens. The PLO no longer represents all Palestinians.
Vague statements such as "The "islands" first took official form as Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord. This arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; however, no such transfers were made." seems to skip these points. Tombah (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply adding unbalanced or neutrality tags to numerous well-established Israel-Palestine conflict articles without very specific reasons for doing so is not at all constructive. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope there are very good reasons for contesting the neutrality of an article that has been through GA review and had a very large number of eyes on it firstly in its creation and then as GA. So far I see no such reasons, what I see is opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such aimless tagging itself has often served a merely tactical function: to signpost to readers that an article is unreliable overall. As Self notes, this one has undergone serious external scrutiny so one needs strong grounds for tagging, which in any case, should focus on specifics, and not be generic. The hasbara rubbish posted above as an objection is immaterial to the topic: bantustanization is not linked to some failure in the peace process, since the processes described have persisted, and thickened before and through the peace process period, which died a decade and a half ago, after which Bantustanization became even more intense. Political talking points, hasbara or spin from Palestinians is the kind of stuff we should be avoiding. Encyclopedic articles must privilege what is known to have happened over POVs. Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need sources demonstrating a connection between topics, not personal opinions. You also need to have attempted to correct any issues. Since neither of those things are here, I am removing the tag. This article also has gone through GA review, and no such issue of imbalance was ever demonstrated. nableezy - 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have File:Oslo II Accord map of Area A and B.jpg (caption: "Area A and B under the Oslo II Accord"), which is "Official map of the first phase of the "Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement", Areas A and B (with C being defined as the rest of the West Bank)" according to the Oslo II Accord page. But all I see on it are a ton of individual islands, not any explicitly identified "Area A" or "Area B". And the image itself is so small in resolution as to make the text on it useless. Can someone who actually knows what the two areas actually comprise make a map like File:Allon Plan.svg that illustrates them? DMacks (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The light red / dark red is confusing – Area C should be a very different color
2) It doesn’t have a source and it doesn’t match with the official map that DMacks links to above. To answer DMacks’ question, on the official map, brown is Area A and yellow is Area B. I believe some parts of Area B were converted into Area A over time, but don’t have a source for it.
FWIW, the distinction between Area A and Area B has limited relevance in practice.
Thanks for your (plural) explanations! I agree that this map is what I had in mind but the choice of color (contrasting vs similar) is at odds with the described relationships of A and B (similar, part of one stage of process) vs C (a separate later stage). DMacks (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like a white paper from a Palestinian rights organization - it appears to be primarily premised on the idea that the situation it's describing should not exist. While I'm personally sympathetic to that argument, it's not at all consistent with WP:NPOV. The neutrality of the article has been repeatedly disputed here nn the talk page and dismissed without convincing arguments. Factual accuracy does not make an article automatically NPOV, nor does the inclusion of some skeptical or moderated voices, and being granted GA status doesn't ban editors from disputing its neutrality. I have added a neutrality dispute template to the top of the article, and it should not be removed until consensus is demonstrated directly. GeoEvan (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag. This article has remained substantially stable since it was promoted to GA almost two years ago. Consensus can change, but any change would need to be clearly demonstrated. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once beat me to it. GeoEvan, you need to support an NPOV tag with an explanation of why you believe it is in violation. It is not enough to merely restate that you think it is in violation. Zerotalk 03:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did give a summary of what the problem with the article is - it's a bit of a stretch to remove the tag before even engaging in further discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list all the things wrong with this almost entirely POV article right now, so I guess I'll have to throw in the towel, but I remind you again that there are several other headings not far above mine on this talk page also disputing the article's neutrality. That is not at all what I would call a stable consensus. GeoEvan (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent one I can see was 16 months ago by a now-banned user. If it was unbalanced, someone would have brought a source showing a different mainstream point of view not appropriately represented in the article. That hasn’t happened.
Almost everything in this conflict is debated, and those “uncomfortable” topics (on both sides) which cannot be credibly debated face efforts to downplay them. This is one of those latter topics. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The world desperately needs an accurate, objective, source of information on the enclaves right now. The following statement is included as fact when it comes from the co-founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). “The consequences of the creation of these fragmented Palestinian areas has been studied widely, and has been shown to have had a "devastating impact on the economy, social networks, [and] the provision of basic services such as healthcare and education.”(k) 2600:6C46:547F:E920:60F4:6C92:4D63:802D (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's from a journal, and judging from the rest of this article, the statement appears well founded. Do you have any source that contradicts it? Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Trump peace plan map should be taken out of the lead and the only image there should be the map of the existing situation. It's more appropriate to put the Trump map in the actual section that talks about it, since it's just one proposal out of many. Evaporation123 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only US-sponsored peace plan which had an official map showing the enclaves. Putting it side by side with the Oslo map provides a useful understanding to readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about putting the Trump peace plan map below the Oslo map, and noting in the caption that it is the only US peace plan that had an official map? Otherwise, the average reader might not understand why that specific map is in the lead region Evaporation123 (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article is still there and discussions have been going forth on the article talk page, a new review is clearly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The topic of the article is not that clearly defined. To my reading, the main thrust is a mixture between a potential future final state which consists of enclaves, and a coverage of the comparisons of such enclaves (past, present, and future) to the bantustans. Regarding neutrality, while the usage of "bantustan" and related words through quotes seems like a necessary part of covering the topic well, the widespread usage of such words outside of quotes is concerning, and does not reflect common usage. Specifically regarding DYK, the proposed hook is inadequate, as it does not cover either of the entwined topics I mentioned before. Looking at just the hook alone the expected bolded article would be West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. If the intended topic of the article is just those areas, then this article would be a POVFORK. If the intended topic is otherwise, and this can be clarified, the hook would need to relate to that topic. CMD (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the stability and neutrality issues, as well as the disagreements between editors as to if the article is suitable for DYK or should even have an article at all, it appears that the article meeting DYK requirements is not feasible at this time. As such, this is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
Alt text added throughout Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is good and sourced. QPQ is done. Looks ready to go! Thriley (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
