Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian enclaves/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Emirates plan

Mordechai Kedar's "Emirates plan" would be a good addition to the page. Not sure if he has published any maps of it. ImTheIP (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent addition

@Shrike: your edit here does not reflect the sources you linked to. If you disagree, please could you post a quote here from the sources? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read page 62 starting with words "these are central diatribes ..." Shrike (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I have read that, and the preceding two pages. It is not referring to the topic of this article. Sorry. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, It does it clearly describe the concept of Bantustans in a list of anti-Israeli diatrabes Shrike (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Shrike, those 10 paragraphs also refer to the Israeli West Bank barrier and other elements of the West Bank. Are you suggesting that any articles describing the more distasteful elements of the arrangements in the West Bank are inherently POV? If so, you are wrong. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
And for the avoidance of doubt, your citations definitely do not support the sentence "Such concept is popular among far left and could be considered as a group paranoia against Israel". I suspect you may not have read the article properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I have not myself consulted the proffered sources but the sentence is so vague as to be almost meaningless. It reads as some sort of political attack on the left and some sort of ill-defined defense of Israel against something. I have tagged the sentence, perhaps the author would care to elucidate? Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, I think its your who didn't read the the source please reread it again. The source list various example that used by fringe left and that it what sourced for Shrike (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Shrike, please bring a full quote to support your claim. If you think I am missing something, surely you can spell it out. “Hand waving” won’t cut it. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I have brought it here, until these problems are fixed: Such concept [further explanation needed] is popular among far left [1][failed verification] and could be considered [by whom?] as a group paranoia [further explanation needed] against Israel[2][failed verification] Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Havardi, Jeremy (2016-03-29). Refuting the Anti-Israel Narrative: A Case for the Historical, Legal and Moral Legitimacy of the Jewish State. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-9881-9.
  2. ^ Grossman, Gabrielle (2014-01-01). "The Reshaping of Anti-Semitism through the Ages". The Journal of Psychohistory. 41 (3): 198. ISSN 0145-3378.
And what are the problems precisely? The sources discuss this use. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The inline tags state what the problems are.Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@11Fox11: do you intend to explain your WP:OVERTAGGING? If you cannot justify them, they will be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The numerous problems in this article have been explained to you. Wikipedia writes from NPOV, not from extremist viewpoint. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Per below, please substantiate your allegations. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

POV, OR, lack of focus, tone

This article breaks WP:NPOV, as it discusses various plans (Oslo Accords, Trump peace plan) from the extremist partisan POV of Israel and the apartheid analogy. Neutral sources do not call areas A and B, ruled by the Palestinian Authority, as "bantustans". NPR does not report on "Diplomatic visits to bantustans". This extremist viewpoint and tone is present throughout the article.

This article collects sources in a WP:SYNTH manner, lacking focus, it is basically a collection of sources that are critical to different peace plans. The criticisms all use different terminology and their connection to each other is not established. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You assert that the article Israel and the apartheid analogy which exists and is therefore notable, verifiable and NPOV is instead ("extremist partisan") POV. If you believe this then you should address that concern at that page and not at this one. In the matter of sourcing you are free to provide alternative or contradictory sources that support your personal opinions. You say that neutral sources do not refer to the "islands" as bantustans. Then it should be a straightforward matter to bring sources showing references to them being called something else. Those can be considered in a rename discussion. Linking all these things together has already been done but if you want something current then https://www.ft.com/content/1192d481-6c17-49f7-9f2a-f629a41c555f is not an opinion piece and does exactly that all the way from 1947 to date including maps and finishing with

"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,” a group of UN human rights experts warned on Tuesday.

Of course you may try to argue that the ft is extremist partisan but I think that argument will not hold water. It seems to me that your arguments for the tags (4! of them) lack substance, I suggest you read WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:TAGBOMBING.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is full of high quality sources, and I could bring hundreds more. @11Fox11: I understand you are not a fan of the article name. But above you are alleging an "extremist partisan POV" and SYNTH, which is "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Your strategy seems Trumpesque - throwing around unsubstantiated nonsense in the desperate hope that something will stick.
If you are not to be ignored you will need to prove your allegations. Can you show us even just a single sentence in the article which has an "extremist partisan POV" or "impl[ies] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"?
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@11Fox11: you have had five days to answer these challenges. If you wish to add the tags back, please provide the evidence requested to support your claims. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that this article is a POVFORK: it covers the West Bank areas from the apartheid perspective. This is certainly a POV and by no means a universally held one. It ought to be merged into the apartheid analogy article or else into the West Bank areas article. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I.e. reality is POV. I don't know why it is so difficult to get editors to grasp what NPOV/POV means in practice. Much of what happens is ugly, always has been: no nation is exempt. Encyclopedias, following scholarship, describe this. If you take the South African case, or , say, that of separate development of aborigines and their children (Stolen Generations) engineered by Australia (far more brutal than apartheid practices) it is encyclopedic to describe how the idea arose, how it was applied, and how it worked out. To do so is not POV, unless by that one means that the description is not counterbalanced for equal weight by the rationale of the apartheid/Australian government, as though both were on a par. Israel is not exempt from this. If anything, the nervous nelly fits that arise anytime its behavior in these regards is documented in an article signify the break down of NPOV, because deleting, or ignoring scholarship with whatever policy flag one catches at to wave, is simply instrumental, a matter of denying coverage because that country must be accorded an exemption status.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Factually inaccurate, you must have just missed all that pre and post Oslo stuff in the article. The rest is the usual assertion minus evidence. The primary error here is in the assumption that this is some sort of comparison with Apartheid, SA style. I could write a whole other article if that's what this was about.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that the expression 'Neutral sources' is, in itself, flawed, a common misperception. No sources are 'neutral'. WP:RS demands that editors, optimally, bring to bear on a topic sources of the highest quality, of academic provenance, subject to peer review (which itself means in any discipline, evaluated by specialists whose personal views, political or cultural, differ widely), or from mainstream newspapers where fact checking is a standard procedure. In this area, a significant amount of material comes from think tanks that have a clear POV, whose researchers clearly identify with a political POV. No one in their right mind, as a wikipedian, could challenge the use of that material as not 'NPOV neutral'. One includes it because it meets the WP:RS highbar, like it or not. I constantly avail myself of such material(See how frequently Matthew Levitt's book is cited on Hamas, despite it being extremely ideological - but it is thorough and very useful nonetheless), despite its obvious total lack of a neutral perspective. NPOV is a balancing of POVs, not the search for NPOV sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

redirect abuse

The closing admin wrote:

I will also note that the comments about the possible POV nature of the article's title may have merit, and it may be worth considering an RfC as to whether the current title should remain

To act in disregard of the AfD by unilaterally changing the page's title and preempting an RfC procedure is a blatant abuse of due process, esp. by the editor in question. Whoever can undo it, -I don't know how to - should do so immediately.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have requested the reversion of @11Fox11: disruptive page move at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves.Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I've reverted the move. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As pointed out by numerous editors, this article has blatant POV problems and had a non-neutral title. I moved the article to a neutral descriptive title which is more commonly used when referring to Palestinian ruled areas of the West Bank. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Several socks or ring-ins participated in that discussion. The article does not refer to areas of the Westr Bank under Palestinian rule since it covers a lengthy period when the whole of the West bank was under Israeli rule, and still largely is. You are redefining the article to refer what might be a future outcome per Trump, not according to its content, which concerns the way its territory has been carved up, while largely being administered by Israel. So the title is a blatant POV push, aside from the fact that the closure suggested a name-change might be possible, on conditions of an RfC. You are trying to strongarm a result which overturns the non-consensus on the AfD page.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A couple sources

Jamil Hilal, ed. (4 July 2013). Where Now for Palestine?: The Demise of the Two-State Solution. Zed Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84813-801-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

6.The economics of an independent Palestine, Sufyan Alisa p 128 and couple other places inside.

I had some other material somewhere, I will try to find it, it is I think worth stressing as in the sources that all this is part of a grand design, in other words, the conception is not just ad hoc over the years, it is/was planned this way, with the Trump plan being simply the latest incarnation.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Might as well keep putting them here while we wait."Israel's annexation plan: the 'existential threat' to Palestinian dreams". FT. June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020. 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. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

.Selfstudier By the way do the 2 FT sources you cite have authors? I cannot access either.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nishidani:The 2013 one is Philip Stephens (did I cite that, I forgot) and the 2020 (The Big Read) is Mehul Srivastava (FT's Jerusalem correspondent).Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Netanyahu's Blueprint for a Palestinian Bantustan". Haaretz. June 6, 2017. Retrieved November 14, 2020. Netanyahu thus envisages not only that Palestinians in the West Bank will need Israeli permission to enter and exit their "homeland," which was also the case for the Bantustans, but that the IDF will be allowed to continue setting up roadblocks, arresting suspects and invading Palestinian homes, all in the name of "security needs.

Anne Le More (31 March 2008). International Assistance to the Palestinians after Oslo: Political guilt, wasted money. Routledge. pp. 278–. ISBN 978-1-134-05232-5. The conclusions, "Continuity amidst fragmentation", covers 67 on, Allon plan, Sharon (his not-so-private admission that he thought a bantustan model was the right one) Rabin's Palestinian self rule, Olmert's Convergence plan, and describes the essential Israeli continuity of thought in all these plans, the book is 2008 so no Trump plan but we have independent sourcing for that linking it to all the other bantustan plans.Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That is an excellent source. Thanks. A number of the key elements of that are also in her International Affairs paper from 2005 at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3569071
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Re the Trump Plan, see Michael Link, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the oPt: “This Potemkin state – lacking most of the commonly understood attributes of sovereignty beyond the right to fly its flag and issue stamps – would become an entirely new entity in the annals of modern political science. This is not a recipe for a just and durable peace but rather endorses the creation of a 21st century Bantustan in the Middle East. The Palestinian statelet envisioned by the American plan would be scattered archipelagos of non-contiguous territory completely surrounded by Israel, with no external borders, no control over its airspace, no right to a military to defend its security, no geographic basis for a viable economy, no freedom of movement and with no ability to complain to international judicial forums against Israel or the United States.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

South African response to the comparison

I cannot help but feel that this is not germane to the article, at the very least it seems undue to give so much space to it. The article is about a process of bantustanization but not specifically about Apartheid, the Apartheid analogy or the South African version other than incidentally. And it's definitely not about South African hostility to Israel. If we start doing this, then we need to bring up all the differences as well as the parts that are the same and so on. Nor is the South African context the only Bantustan context if it comes to that. If we must mention this I think it ought to be reduced to a sentence or so in some appropriate place.Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I agree with you. I think we need to agree the focus of the article and stick to it consistently. For example, I don't think we need to use the word bantustan throughout - in the literature multiple words are used for the place (bantustans / islands / cantons / enclaves) and for the process (bantustanization / fragmentation / encystation / exclavation). Your comment is also consistent with this comment from Chipmunkdavis which I agree with. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Something like this, perhaps?-

Allister Sparks, framing his perceptions of the conflict through a South African prism, [admitted that Israelis find the comparison (of what?) repugnant] said his personal experience of the West Bank impressed him with the sense that 'the whole matrix was vividly reminiscent of South Africa's Bantustan dispensation'.[1]

Moved from article while discussion is continuing

==South African responses to the comparison== In an analysis of hostility to Israel in South Africa, where just over a quarter of the population express sympathy for the country, Milton Shain interprets this as arising from four factors:(1)the growth of radicalism among the 2% of the population that is Muslim.(2) a third-worldist outlook sympathizing with Palestinians emerging from the heritage of the ANC's struggle against apartheid (3) a tendency among the black and white intelligentsia to frame their perceptions of the conflict through a South African prism, and (4) antisemitism.[2] Allister Sparks was an example of the third category: he admitted that Israelis find the comparison repugnant and yet his personal experience of the West Bank impressed him with the sense that 'the whole matrix was vividly reminiscent of South Africa's Bantustan dispensation'. In theory, separation, if fair and viable, looked good, but, he concluded, demographic realities mean such a system cannot work, and he asked why Jews and Palestinians could not imitate South Africa's success in pulling itself back from the chasm of a racial conflagration.[1]

Move end

References

  1. ^ a b Shain 2019, pp. 403–404.
  2. ^ Shain 2019, p. 397.

You know those 4 maps the Palestinians like to show, it's a bit of propaganda but I get it and that is the way I look at this, it is those maps or similar from Allon through Trump. As I said before I am not that hung up on using the word Bantustan, it's a convenience description used by many but it's really fragmentation that goes beyond the territorial to the political and economic spheres, that's the way I look at it.Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, agreed. I don't like fragmentation because Fragmentation of the West Bank can be interpreted to mean the creation of both Israeli and Palestinian enclaves. So can the word Cantonization. So they are ambiguous. The ones I think are unambiguous are "exclavation" (because it is specifically about Israel carving out external areas for Palestinians) and "bantustanization" (because the word implies subordination, so it is clear only Palestinian areas are being referred to. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to eliminate, précis, and/or relocate that material under the new section elsewhere. I'm just supplying material. I've been reading about the bantustan model for three decades, and when this article came up thought: finally the analogy has a wiki page. To elide that for some euphemism, when there are a mass of sources that affirm how germinal the model was for Israeli planners, would be to gut the article and deprive it of its raison d'etre. As I said elsewhere it is a process, and therefore 'bantustanization's is the precise term for the title. By the way, Frncis Boyle, who was the Palestinians' legal advisor at Madrid, once argued that what Western imperialism had done was to create a Jewistan. He stated that in reaction to what he took to be the real purpose of American policy, a bantustan set of statelets for Palestinians. I'll look it up.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with bantustanization, there is some distance between that and bantustan used in isolation and it expresses the idea of a process over time. I'm not that fond of exclavation, I had to look it up. I just don't want to fall into the trap of writing comparisons with South African Apartheid because that road goes nowhere.Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree strongly with the last sentence. Direct comparisons with South Africa belong in the apartheid analogy article, not here. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
One also needs to ask "What is the reason for it?" eg We have the catchphrase, maximum territory, minimum Palestinians but is that the only reason? Why to control borders, customs, airtraffic, everything? I would like to to see if there are any sources on this aspect.Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I imagine there are many sources which will explain all those things with a single word: security. And I think that would be correct as the rationale. I think of it like this: if I was to lock a few people in my basement for 50 years, giving them minimum sustenance, they and their descendents would hate me so much that I could never feel safe if I unlocked the basement. That was true in South Africa and they fixed it, albeit imperfectly. The same can happen in Israel but it needs great courage; the only Israeli leader who had such a character was Rabin. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: I have been mulling this over, I think it isn't the case because in the time of the Allon/Drobes plans, Palestinians had not been locked in the basement for 50 years. Rather than fear of a future Palestinian pogrom, I think it is simpler, the objective now is to acquire the land without needing to absorb Palestinians as happened with the EJ annex.Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I haven't read everything but I think there is only one source about the (fragmenting effect of) the wall, I think we can do better than that as well.Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
United Nations Economic and Social Council Session 60 Agenda item 181103. The right to food Report by the Special Rapporteur, Jean Ziegler Addendum Mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territories E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2 pages 3. (in English). October 31,2003. Retrieved 23 November, 2020.

The Special Rapporteur is also particularly concerned by the pattern of land confiscation, which many Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals and non-governmental organizations have suggested is inspired by an underlying strategy of “Bantustanization”. The building of the security fence/apartheid wall is seen by many as a concrete manifestation of this Bantustanization as, by cutting the OPT into five barely contiguous territorial units deprived of international borders, it threatens the potential of any future viable Palestinian State with a functioning economy to be able to realize the right to food of its own people.

Naming

In the dyk as well as the afd there is a fixation with an event (Oslo) when what the article is really about is a process in which Oslo is only an element. First use of Bantustanization (rather than just bantustan) is 1995 (Bishara) (Michel Warschawski as well maybe) then in 2003/4 (UN) and 2004 (Benvenisti). We have sourcing that links together Israeli plans and proposals from 1967 (Allon) to 1979/80 (Drobles) to Sharon and finally to the Trump proposal which although presented as an American plan is in fact an Israeli plan by most accounts and described as being "remarkably similar" (plagiarized) to Allon and Drobles.

In the absence of some other equally expressive word that has been often used, then bantustanization has good sourcing as a description of what is going on and we have good sourcing that describes the process over time. Some elements are missing, state/military land requisitions, demolition/displacement, outpost creation/"legalization", construction of (blocking) roads and some other bits and pieces to complete the overall picture. We seem to have somewhat overlooked Gaza, early sourcing includes it. For right up to date, post Trump plan/official annex, we revert to type, unofficial or creeping annex. Givat Hamatos, Atarot, Har Homa/E1 and the encirclement of Jerusalem (ie more bantustanization).

How about 'Palestinian bantunstanization' or the 'Bantustanization of Palestine'?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 11:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Selfstudier. I am pinging everyone involved in the AfD here for their comments. A number of participants in that discussion raised views that seemed to be more focused on the name than the contents of the article, so clarification of views here would be very helpful.
@Jr8825, Nishidani, Selfstudier, Levivich, Shrike, AlmostFrancis, Tritomex, ProcrastinatingReader, Doug Weller, TimothyBlue, Yair rand, Chefallen, Bearian, Sakiv, Sir Joseph, Lee Vilenski, ImTheIP, Black Kite, Buidhe, NSH001, Free1Soul, Bondegezou, Tayi Arajakate, Hippeus, Nemo bis, Stefka Bulgaria, Johnpacklambert, Challenger.rebecca, Mehrajmir13, Vici Vidi, *Treker, Bolter21, Île flottante, GizzyCatBella, Huldra, and 11Fox11:
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The article as it stands currently is not remediable. Since the discussion is NC, I think our next step is deciding what the content of the article should be, and from there a title. Can you clarify where you see this article going, in that sense? Do you want to see this being an article like Area C (West Bank) but for areas A & B, and extend the content in that manner, as I understood from the discussion? Or are you trying to expand this to describe the fragmentation of the West Bank (ie, a neutral split of Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation as I suggested), or something else? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
That title would turn it into a fork, if the content was only about that. But the content is not only about that it is about a process over time (and I think it should include Gaza).Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Respond to ping (thank you): I agree with PR above, the article needs a full restart. Folks who decide to take this on should be bold and rethink the article from the ground up. This doesn't mean you can't use some of the content, but don't be constrained by the current article structure or content. The article needs a lead that is concise and as clearly as possible tells the reader what the subject is and how it relates to other close topics. Once this is done you can determine the best title for the article based on what the consenus of RS use to refer to the subject.   // Timothy :: talk  14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should explicit reference to South African Apartheid be made in the article. The contexts are wholly unrelated and there is simply no way that using such vocabulary could be considered anything short of egregiously POV. Something like "proposed division of the West Bank" would be much more appropriate. Île flottante (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The current title "West Bank bantustans" as I think is missing a prefix "proposed". Apart from that it's perfectly ok. It summarizes the article and is used and called so more frequently by most of the sources, there seems no reason to rename it. Mehrajmir13 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I know you are still stuck on the idea of a fork but there is no fork here (Gaza is not in the WB for a start). Same problem as the other one, bits of Palestine disappear with alarming frequency, whether by way of demolition for settlement expansion, in order to build an industrial park, parks, nature reserves, antiquities sites or whatever other imaginative excuses can be dreamed up.Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You don't know. The phenomena you are describing, where over time "bits of Palestine disappear" is called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". The "Fragmentation" section of that article talks about Palestine losing its geographical contiguousness. Alternative names for "areas of the West Bank controlled by Palestinians" include "enclaves", "canons", and yes, among a minority, "bantustans". Choosing that last one doesn't comply with NPOV. "West Bank bantustan" or "Bantustanization of the West Bank" (or similar) is no more neutral than "Areas of the West Bank given to the Palestinians by Israel" or "West Bank land grants from Israel to Palestine" or "Israeli modernization of the West Bank". Let's move past the word "bantustan" and stop trying to convince everyone that it's some neutral, not-totally-value-laden word for the thing it purports to describe. Consensus will not develop for Wikipedia to adopt the apartheid analogy in Wikivoice. Levivich harass/hound 18:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe I have stated at several points that I am not hung up on the word per se but that does not mean I am going to endorse some half baked Israel MoFA position. Israeli acquisition by force of Palestinian territory 1967-2020 and beyond How about that?Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"Israeli acquisition by force of Palestinian territory 1967-2020 and beyond" is called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". WTF? Levivich harass/hound 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You just saying it is doesn't make it so. And it obviously isn't. (See, I can just say it as well).Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The word that summarizes the history of, and relationship between, Israel and Palestine, is "occupation". What Israel did and is doing to Palestine is called "occupation". It's not "conquest", "annexation", "acquisition", "expansion", "administration", "modernization", "ghettoization", "rape", "genocide", "apartheid", or "bantustanization". Although all of those words have been used by some serious scholars in some serious works, none of those words will be used to describe the situation in wikivoice; instead, the word is "occupation". This is the word that is most commonly used, and it is the word that has consensus. That's why the article is called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". Levivich harass/hound 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the technical term in international law is not 'occupation' but Belligerent occupation, which was achieved by conquest, and followed by Knesset measure for annexation, with acts of acquisition in those cases where people whose property was occupied were indemnified, while settlement expansion took place under a territory governed by a military administration which oversaw the ghettoization of Palestinian communities, along lines which the chief architect, Sharon, explicitly likened to the bantustanization pursued by an apartheid South Africa. All of that terminology is standard in sources and the exercise above which tries to make the terminology on a pare with terms embodying hyperbolic smears (genocide/rape) is simply a piece of sand-in-the-eyes rhetoric to cast terminological guilt by association. This is true also of your throw-away insinuation that 'bantustan' is a minority view, in the face, if you have read the article, of the historical evidence that the Bantustan model had a seminal role in informing Israeli planners' notions of what to do in that territory. A minority view presupposes a majority view that most authorities do not consider these enclaves similar to bantustans. Where is the evidence for that? We have repeatedly asked for such evidence, and none is forthcoming. To the contrary, the overwhelming evidence is that it was a major consideration of policy planners, and therefore an article on it simply adopts the name no one in Israel's governing circles seemed to have problems with.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, except that's not the article we are talking about and you seem to have totally forgotten about the "displaced Palestinians" I mentioned in my initial remarks. Not to mention "process", after all Israel didn't occupy a bit, then another bit and so on, did it?Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what bits are you talking about the land that Israel acquired was the whole area from the Jordan during six day war Shrike (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
When I don't say "fork", you say I'm "stuck on the idea of a fork". When I don't say "displaced", you say I "seem to have totally forgotten about the 'displaced Palestinians'". I'm amazed at your ability to read my mind; to know what I've forgotten or can't forget, even when I don't say anything about it. Palestinians are displaced because of the occupation. Their displacement in or from the West Bank is discussed at... you know where. If we want to have a spin-off article about Palestinian migration in the West Bank, that title seems OK to me. If we want to have an article about Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian control, that title seems OK, too. If we want to have an article about both, it's called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". That's the parent article. If we want to have an article about that, plus Gaza, it's called "Israeli–Palestinian conflict". The one thing I know is that we should not have an article title "West Bank bantustans" or "Bantustanization of the West Bank", because those are not neutral words. I think the best neutral alternative for "bantustan" is "area", even better than "ghetto", "enclave", or "canton". Levivich harass/hound 19:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic, from my point of view, Israel displaces some Palestinians (inside land it has already occupied) and takes a bit, calls it a park, rinse, repeat (settlement, firing zone, whatever).Oh this has all the maps/plans up through 2013. 67 and after starts on p.7.Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Since we are just going in circles, I suggest we call a halt at this point.Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply: I think individuals that have made their thinking clear should step back and wait a while; this thread is less than a day old, there is plenty of time to give other editors a chance to contribute. New input can help break the loop.   // Timothy :: talk  19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Israel did not 'give the Palestinians some of the land', Shrike. Under international law, you cannot 'give' foreign territory back to the occupied people. The land is supposed to revert to them after the occupation ends. There are far too many erratic assertions here that show total unfamiliarity with the history of the area, and indeed with the article under discussion. Has anyone read it beyond the title? Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You can take that to your favorite forum, Shrike, I'm sure they will appreciate it there.Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Here are some ideas (most are probably bad): Proposals for discontiguous Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank (too long), Plans for disconnected Palestinian autonomy, Disconnected Palestinian autonomy plans, Swiss cheese Palestinian autonomy, West Bank leftover autonomy, Israeli-supported West Bank enclaves, Swiss cheese West Bank maps. I don't like the "Bantustan" word (which, for the record, is not pov) because most Wikipedia readers aren't familiar with the South African Bantustans. Article titles should not contain technical lingo that most readers don't understand. ImTheIP (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Bantustan is not a technical, but a historical term. No one raised from the 1960s on would not recognize it. Of course if we are writing for younger post 1990 generations, the same would apply. We have articles about 'Mandatory' Palestine, where the meaning of an idea of a government under mandate would be wholly unfamiliar. Encyclopedias only instruct if they do not dumbdown.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe not "technical" but it is an analogy; attempt to transfer insight from one context (South African Bantustans) to another (West Bank fragmentation). "West Bank archipelago" is also an analogy (the West Bank isn't islands in a sea) but better because more people know what an archipelago is than what a Bantustan is. ImTheIP (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a long-running programme on national television on Sunday here which has a small segment devoted to common phrases or expressions or words in Italian. It is prefaced by street interviews, where a journalist questions passers-by about the meaning of words everyone uses or hears. The norm is that the m ajority cannot give an accurate or even vaguely accurate definition of the words. Linguists know this is generally true. Recognizability does not translate into understanding. I asked my neighbor this morning about archipelago and he said it was a long thin stretch of land surrounded by a sea. He thought it implied territorial contiguity. I'm reading the 20 volume novel series by Patrick O'Brian. Now that is a world bestseller, and even for someone like myself with philological interests, it contains more than two words every page for several thousand pages. I look each up, but I doubt whether the millions who have enjoyed those novels do so with the 20 vol. OED at their elbow. Since Bantustan is linked in line one, a click and two seconds clarifies it instantly, and since it was the standard term for the model consciously adopted by Israeli planners, conserving it is a matter of textual fidelity.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

1RR

@AlmostFrancis: this edit broke the 1RR restriction. Will you self revert? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, You link talk page edit , so please clarify what edit is revert and to what version he was reverting Shrike (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This really belongs on a user talk page, but can you please identify the two edits I reverted. If I have stepped over the line of course I will revert.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, edit 1, edit 2. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell your second diff is an edit not a revert. Is there a specific edit you believe that was a revert of, sorry for the trouble but I couldn't find one.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible disruption

Disruption might show up here soon: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-on-wikipedia-israel-is-losing-the-battle-against-the-word-apartheid-1.9330590 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it is an important topic not appropriately covered elsewhere. This is not solely focused on the Palestinian areas of the Oslo II Accords, but if it was, then this article would be the sister article to Area C (West Bank). This article is ultimately about the fragmentation of the Palestinian West Bank, both past, present and future. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I should add - both here and in the article body - that it is not just fragmentation. Lack of meaningful sovereignty is just as important. An "independent" Palestinian statelet might be completely contiguous - see the case of Gaza Strip - and still lack the main aspects of true independence and sovereignty. As a minimum, this includes free exit/entry of people; free import/export of goods; ability to use all feasible means of movement to the outside world (in Gaza that would be land, air and sea); control over one's sources of money, power, water, communications, etc. That was one original means of control by South Africa over the original Bantustans. Obviously Occupied Palestinians lack all these, and would still lack them under the current Israeli and the outgoing US Administration plans. AforBaheer (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Which is right?

In the lede, the first sentence says

The West Bank bantustans...are the proposed noncontiguous enclaves for the Palestinians"

but the last sentence in the lede says

Debate has continued as to whether the existing or proposed arrangements are contiguous or noncontiguous.

Moriori (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence's wording is definitely a bit WP:CRYSTAL, given that the article is mostly about the various historical and current peace proposals. Jr8825 • Talk 02:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I removed it, the contiguity business will be discussed in the article body in due course as there are different issues involved with that besides mere physical contiguity of the terrain.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert Regarding Quote

Said editor @Levivich: has just reverted with false edit summary that the quote refers only to one plan when the quote, which is given in full at note e clearly states "all foresaw...". Looking forward to a rapid reversion. An apology would be good too.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The source that was quoted doesn't say "many". I should have written in the edit summary "The quote refers to particular plans" (plural instead of singular), and I made a dummy edit to correct that, but it still doesn't support saying "many" in wikivoice. An entirely separate objection is that the quote was not attributed. Yet another separate objection is that quoting one writer is undue for the lead; same point as #NPOV concerns #1. Levivich harass/hound 17:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The source says "all", that covers many (which is not quoted, it's prose) more than adequately. Revert please (you may add attribution, I don't care about that). And don't make up reasons post fact in order to cover up your mistakes.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The source says "all" but it's still referring to all of the particular, listed plans, not to all plans, and not to "many" plans. (Damnit now you're going to make me type it out.)
What the source says p. 347

The Allon plan, the WZO plan, the Begin plan, Netanyahu's "Allon Plus" plan, Barak's "generous offer," and Sharon's vision of a Palestinian state all foresaw Israeli control of significant West Bank territory, a Palestinian existence on minimal territory surrounded, divided, and, ultimately, controlled by Israel, and a Palestinian or Arab entity that would assume responsibility for internal policing and civil matters.

What Selfstudier wrote in the lead Special:Diff/990978874

Many Israeli proposals for the conflict contemplate "a Palestinian existence on minimal territory surrounded, divided, and, ultimately, controlled by Israel," including the Allon Plan, the Drobles World Zionist Organization plan, Menachem Begin's plan, Benjamin Netanyahu's "Allon Plus" plan, the 2000 Camp David Summit, Ariel Sharon's proposals,[e] and most recently, the Trump peace plan.

"Many Israeli proposals" is not what the source says. That's why I reverted that edit, and I stand by it. Levivich harass/hound 18:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I have tagged your edit as requiring a quote for verification, what you wrote there is not in the source, afaics.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I was actually just about to revert that edit myself, but Levivich did so before me. The explanation I was going to give for a revert was that the author of the quote was not attributed in the text (MOS:QUOTE: the source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion) and opinion quotes don't belong in the lead, which should be a neutral summary in wikivoice (opening with a pithy quote relevant to the argument suits an academic paper, but not a non-judgemental encyclopedic overview). The statement that Israeli proposals are designed to produce a Palestinian state "ultimately controlled by Israel" is a view/analysis, not an undisputed fact. It would also be unsuitable for wikivoice per WP:CRYSTAL. Jr8825 • Talk 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor has by way of reversion, (re)inserted material apparently not in the source, this having been previously discussed above. Essentially, this is disruptive editing and needs to stop.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
So then you must think that whomever added this content in the first place is also engaged in disruptive editing, by inserting material not in the source? Levivich harass/hound 18:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am talking to you.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier restoring the pre-existing text when you think a new change violates policy isn't disruptive. It doesn't indicate support for the existing text, just opposition to the change. Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am persuaded by Selfstudier's arguments that the paragraph fails verification. It appears there is unanimous consensus on that point here, and I wouldn't want one of my edits to be seen as re-inserting false material, so I have removed the paragraph. Levivich harass/hound 18:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Noted that your response to a request for verification of a sentence added by you, which you now accept fails verification, is to remove an entire paragraph and three rs, thus continuing the pattern of disruptive editing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The sentence wasn't added by me. I reverted your edit. Who added it in the first place? What did it say originally? What changes did you make to that paragraph since it was added? When I reinstated it by reverting your most recent edit, whose version did I reinstate? These questions have interesting answers.
Anyway, I'm just trying to satisfy your concerns. You said that when I reinstated the content, I was reinstating content that failed verification. So I removed the content. You think that was an error, also? Why don't you just propose what you think the paragraph should say instead of continuously accusing me of various misdeeds? Surely it's better to have the failed-verification content out of the article while we discuss it? Or what do you think should be restored to the article?
I make one revert and this is how much of a big deal you make about it? Damn. I think you could be a bit more tolerant of people reverting your edits. Levivich harass/hound 19:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am tolerant of people reverting my edits, check for yourself and see how many times I revert anyone. Disruptive editing is not my forte. In any case, it is not I who is at fault here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Good removal. The lead is for summarizing the body and not for plopping in our favoried POV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Many Israeli proposals for the conflict contemplate "a Palestinian existence on minimal territory surrounded, divided, and, ultimately, controlled by Israel," including the Allon Plan, the Drobles World Zionist Organization plan, Menachem Begin's plan, Benjamin Netanyahu's "Allon Plus" plan, the 2000 Camp David Summit, Ariel Sharon's proposals,[a] and most recently, the Trump peace plan.[1][2]

  1. ^ Srivastava 2020.
  2. ^ UNHRC 2020.
  • (1) The equivocations are in source fidelity in the paraphrase.
  • (2) The further objection is that this shouldn't be in the lead
  • (3) So it was cancelled from the article.

Proper procedure is to tweak to make the paraphrase consonant with the source and, if inappropriate to the lead, to place it, adjusted, lower down the page. So where is it? Or is the revert another case of making the point disappear? It should be restored to the text around note 't'.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added this in, with the bantustan piece from a the penultimate sentence before the main quote, which is linked concretely by the intervening which states “Though the language may have changed slightly, the same structure that has characterized past plans remains.”
With respect to the suggestion of including this in the main body, all of these plans are already referenced in the main body of the article in the context that we have it here. If we were to create a separate subsection called “The concept in Israeli peace plans” it would be entirely duplicative. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: the text you've re-added still doesn't follow MOS:QUOTE because the author isn't named in the article text. My concerns about the statement still aren't addressed – the lead should summarise the rest of the article (the development of fragmentation and its impact) in wikivoice. The view that proposals were designed to create a Palestinian state "ultimately controlled by Israel" isn't a unanimous interpretation, so should be kept in the article body. Jr8825 • Talk 03:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Jr8825: the sentence is not about the motives or why they were designed like this. It is simply saying that these features (irrespective of motive) have been consistent through a long series of Israeli proposals. And those facts ARE in the body of the article. Please could you help me to understand exactly what part of this you think is not in the main body? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I put this back in the article body for now so it doesn't "disappear". We can return to the question of what goes in the lead at an appropriate time.Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The only reason there is a quote in the text is because the original text, which there was actually nothing wrong with and did not need attribution was queried and so the quote was put in as proof. I am quite happy to go back to the way it was originally before the spurious complaint was made.Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There was no reason that content should be in the lead and not the body. Please try and add it to the body and which point we can build a lead that follows the body.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, except that's not what you said to begin with so I am having some difficulty accepting good faith on your part.Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason we are giving so much space to this one citation. It was published in a now defunct magazine, so is not peer reviewed, and seems to be used entirely for the authors views, therefore primary. If the authors first party views were that memorable you think a secondary source would have mentioned them.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Your inference that since Legal Affairs is a journal no longer published all of its content, ipso facto must not have been peer-reviewed? is a non-sequitur. She was a participant mapmaker in the negotiations, an IDF insider, before becoming a professor of law in one of the foremost schools of law in the United States. Secondary sources do mention her paper (Caplan 2010). As to the rest, read Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD,WP:PRIMARYCARE. Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
No my point was that it was a general interest magazine and not a journal so was not peer reviewed, "A magazine of Yale Law School" was the masthead. I could be wrong but I looked and did not find any evidence of peer review, but the magazine did win journalism awards. Richmond is in the mid 50's for Law so not foremost at all. I am not sure what (Caplan 2010) is supposed to be about but if it is secondary source then we should use that. Unless it is Lincoln Caplan and then maybe not :).AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It is listed under Legal Publications by the Faculty of Law of the University of Richmond (b) The authoress has two pertinent qualifications, being an IDF insider witness and designer of the maps used in the Oslo negotiations, a professor of law and expert in her field and well published, bookwise and with articles for the mainstream press.(c) you are guessing from the anecdotal reconstruction of what happened re the said map that, since it does not have the appearance of a standard legal article, the venue must be classified as a 'general interest magazine', which implies a broad public would be reading the technical reports of a rarified law faculty. That is a caricature. A memoir of a crucial moment in a key historical process does not need peer review: all that is required is attribution. Lastly, this is an Israel ex-IDF officer's account of what happened, devoid of polemics, criticism of the parties, but simply putting the record straight. In that sense, there is no controversy about it, and indeed it incidentally buries some hostile perceptions about Israeli duplicity in that process, and therefore is above the usual polemical elements. This is the third time I have noticed a desire to rid the page of material that tells to Israel's account, bizarrely on the grounds that the details tell against Israel - another indication of how confusedly people unfamiliar with the topic read sources. We were asked to balance the putative POV imbalance in favour of the Palestinians, and when I for one scoured sources to find balance, it is rejected by those who complain of putative pro-Palestinian partisanship. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I called it a general interest magazine because that is what it called itself diff. Do you have some reason to doubt them or for that matter Motro herself? She freely admits in the source that she merely traced lines and had no understanding of what she was doing, so "designer" is clearly false "I know, because I had a hand in producing the official Oslo II map, and I had no idea what I was doing." As far as I can tell, she was a sectratary during the negotiations and helped with translations not terms, so was not an officer and would not have any insider information on the negotiations.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
How helpful of you to confirm that the source is widely cited. Another one is here: Antrim, Zayde (15 April 2018). Mapping the Middle East. Reaktion Books. p. 367. ISBN 978-1-78023-954-5.
I am confused about which sources you consider acceptable. You don't like Israeli army sources, you don't like Palestinian sources, so what is acceptable? I haven't seen you bring any sources so far. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: technical closure, not moved -- there is an ongoing RM up a few sections on this page. If necessary, feel free to restart this one after that one has closed. (non-admin closure) JBL (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


West Bank bantustans → West Bank Palestinian enclaves – "Enclave" is a neutral term already used in this context. P.S., my fisrt thhought was to suggest the etrm Palestinian enclave, but googel pointd out tha Gaza Strip is often described as "Palestinian enclave" as well. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Lembit Staan (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose I suggest we convert this rm into an informal rfc discussion which can if necessary be converted into a formal rfc at some point. Editors could, if agreeable, suggest 3 alternative names in a preferred order plus a sentence or two:
Palestinian + one of 1) bantustanization 2) ghettoization 3) enclavization and if not 1) then 1) to be aka'd in line 1 of the lead as is the custom for common alternatives. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You have already had an informal discussion for over a week, which clearly had led to nowhere due to entrenchedness. My suggestion, unlike "bantustans" and "ghettos", is neutral. You are free to oppose, but it would be helpful if you present your reasons. Lembit Staan (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The entrenched parties have been discussing this for far longer than that, there was an Afd discussion prior which I assume you also didn't notice. Anyway we can't have two rm at the same time whereas we can have an informal rfc at the same time as the rm while waiting for it to close. You never know, we might agree and if we can't we can go formal with an rfc, as was suggested by the afd closer, by then someone will have closed the existing rm. Meantime you should really knock this rm on the head as you were asked to. If you don't feel able to do that, I will go ask an admin to do it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
we can't have two rm at the same - please point me to the guideline which says so, and I will knock this rm on my head. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
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.

Sharon in 1981

From Raja Shehadeh: "Israel’s Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon appointed in 1981 by Prime Minister Menahim Begin had other thoughts, and a very different attitude to settlements than Rabin. He was not worried about the presence of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and was planning to deal with us similarly to how the Apartheid regime dealt with the black majority. Indeed, that year Sharon secretly visited South Africa. While he was being briefed about the country, he told his aide that what he most wanted to know about was the Bantustans, how they are structured and administered. He was obviously planning for a similar fate for the Palestinians, those of us who were living in the West Bank and Gaza."[1] It would be interesting to find the original source for this. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability in lead

MOS:LEAD is very clear that the lead should establish the notability of a subject. That commentators have described a topic as one of the most notable in the last 25 years is obviously relevant and a helpful contextualization for readers. Relative notability is inherently subjective so we usually attribute it rather than state in wikivoice that a subject is highly notable. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

West Bank bantustans → Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule – A neutral name that discuss the area in question there were rough consensus at AFD that the current name is not adequate. Shrike (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

See ongoing #Naming discussion above (discussion began two hours prior to this RfC) Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Reply To editor Shrike:: the discussion is less than a day old; there is plenty of time to let others join. There may need to be an RfC, which is one reason I proposed discussing the lead and how this fits in as distinct from the existing articles.   // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely not the proposed title. I don't completely rule out some other title, but not this one. The key point is the smaller and smaller territory being allowed to the Palestinians, and the impossible conditions being imposed on them. This RM should be closed until a better title emerges from the discussion above. As others have said, no rush. --NSH001 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - seems to be a pretty straightforward title for an article describing the parts of the West Bank that are under Palestinian rather than Israeli control. I would be on board with "slow down" but this group of editors has been discussing this for weeks already 11 days already (though it's felt like weeks) here and at the AFD that closed with no consensus, and really IFAICS no other viable title alternatives have been proposed. I don't think there's much to be gained by further "pre-discussion". Levivich harass/hound 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Levivich, "but this group of editors has been discussing this for weeks already"?! Would you care to check when the article was created? "Weeks" is a literal impossibility, as I don’t see anyone here with time machines. Even for the few days this article has been around, there has been limited real discussion from the delete voters (I remember your stonewalling comment at the AfD in particular). We need to build consensus, and rushing will not get us there. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Fixed. Levivich harass/hound 19:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I must remark that the frantic urgency of editors who, dissatisfied with the outcome of the deletion process, now rush to change the wording is disconcerting. The proposal is unacceptable because the article does not deal with 'Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule'. It deals with (a) the development of the concept of a Bantustan solution from the 1960s to the present day, and over that period for almost three decades the Palestinians did not have a squidgeon of rule over any of that territory. (b)As a descriptive term this would mean that the article refers to Area A AFTER 1995 where (limited) Palestinian self rule might be said to exist. But the article in no way refers to Area A. It refers to all of the fragmented Palestinian areas of the West Bank, including Areas B and C, where Palestinian communities, despite ethnic cleansing, are still the object of Israeli management processes of fragmenting village from village. (c) It is a violation of WP:Crystal because it assumes an outcome of some final peace negotiation (dragging on now for some thirty years) which will allow Palestinians to 'rule' themselves. This article does not deal with an outcome, but an ongoing process, and the various kinds of proposals advanced by Israel to (re)locate Palestinians in restricted, disconnected sections of the West Bank. (d) Since it is an evolving process based on an explicit model for comparison, South African Bantustans, the proper title must refer to 'bantustanization', for even if we accept the analogy, bantustans do not exist in the correct apprehension of that term so far.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    ... but I must remark that the frantic urgency of editors ... No, actually, you didn't have to remark on other editors at all; you could have, and should have, commented on edits instead of editors, instead. Levivich harass/hound 18:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
If you read both the article itself and the gravamen of my objections with the minute sensitivity to form you devote to niggling at my opening sentence, perhaps you might have come up with something conducive to an intelligent discussion of the issue. In the AfD and, in this overture to a name change, I see no informed reasons given for the name change, just specious lockstep flag-waving and concerns about image damage. So be kind enough to focus on the core fact that the article uses 50 high quality sources discussing the idea of bantustanization among Israeli policy makers. None of them write of Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian Rule. See WP:COMMON NAME for clarification why the former fits our custom, and the latter not only fails source wise, but is misleading in referring to quite a different reality than the general one covered here.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unlike the current title it is not an obvious POVNAME. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    False. The proposed title has little or nothing to do with the topic of the article (reason in itself for rejecting the proposed title). It's POV because its function is to hide and obfuscate the reality on the ground. Reality is often unpleasant, but that's no reason for hiding it, especially when we have more than 50 top-quality sources, most of which talk about bantustans and the long process of bantustanization. We go with what sources say, not the feelings of individual editors. --NSH001 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    Bearian, I consider that an unacceptable attack. Please retract it or explain yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The use of "Bantustan" conflates racism, Anti-Zionism, and Anti-Semitism; it smacks of Apartheid and is disrespectful to everybody involved. More specifically, it's redolent of an archaic racist theory that Palestinians are descended from Africans. It's an epithet, like using the N-word or calling Elizabeth Warren "faux" in my book. I'm sure that's not the motive, and I'm sure you haven't read up all on that, but it is how it's communicated. I have 13+ years of editing on Wikipedia that has consistently been free of bias and, except as disclosed, free of any POV. As I stated in the original AfD, I have a long record of being neutral on Palestinian/Israeli issues. If anyone has to apologize, it is you, for attaching my good reputation. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I share Bearian's concerns and didn't see his comment as an attack of the motives of the article writers. Jr8825 • Talk 02:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Bearian, you made an unsupported accusation of racism, which is unacceptable. I have read a huge number of sources on this terminology and not one, not a single one, has implied what you have stated in your first sentence. Surely if there was any merit to your smears above, we would be able to find a reputable source which makes the same claim.
PS - are you seriously implying that one cannot be a strong Zionist whilst having a negative view on penning Palestinians into tiny enclaves. What on earth do you think Zionism means? The implications are mind-boggling. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825 the problem is that your concerns are unsourced. So they might be wrong. Why do you think it is that you can't find any reliable source which supports your concern here?
No, the concern about anti-Semitism is not unsourced. 1 2. It's quite frustrating when every time a point is made that editors disagree with, they feel the need to attack it and suggest that it is invalid. Jr8825 • Talk 11:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825, I have read those articles, and neither of them directly criticize the use of the word bantustan. You are making an unfounded extrapolation to apartheid, which is obviously a much wider concept; this is known as a fallacy of division. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: I'm taken aback by your suggestion that it's an "unfounded extrapolation" that 'bantustan' isn't part of the apartheid analogy - this is self-evident! It's a term that directly comes from the aspect of apartheid South Africa seen as being closest to the West Bank, which is why it's used. I would love to dig in and do more research so I can contribute directly to the article itself, but unfortunately I have a number of high pressure deadlines approaching in my politics degree. However, I did found these relevant quotes from what initially strikes me as an very good article (Peteet, J. (2016). The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid. Anthropological Quarterly, 89(1), 247-281.):
"It is imperative to tease out the elements of comparison and highlight similarities as well as differences. The term apartheid carries enormous moral weight and fairly automatic condemnation, leaving negligible moral or intellectual space for argument or debate. Indeed, concerns about "balance" and "objectivity" were not as apparent in the South African case. Here is an area where the power of comparison crystallizes."
"With the enclaves, a new spatial device has emerged. The enclaves contain a population expelled but still within the territory of the state; they are neither camps, detention centers, nor Bantustans. Although certainly lodged in the same analytical field of other spatial devices of containment, they are unique spatial formation that we have yet to develop tools to conceptualize"
"comparisons between enclaves and Bantustans confront and illuminate demographic and economic difference: the former are designed to separate, control and immiserate, so as to create the conditions of voluntary migration; the purpose of the latter was to segregate society along racial lines and contain a labor force. In effect, both spatial devices contained the surplus humanity generated by nationalist settler colonial movements." Jr8825 • Talk 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jr8825, thanks for that, it is a good article. To clarify my view, the "unfounded extrapolation" is that criticism of the apartheid analogy is the same as criticism of use of the term bantustan. The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car. The same is true here. You provided two sources where people criticized the apartheid analogy with respect to Israel and the Palestinian territories. That is not the same as providing a source where someone has criticized the use of the term bantustan with respect to the West Bank. The conclusion, again, is that no reliable sources appear to exist supporting any of the supposed claims of POV when using this commonly used term in relation to the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: the article does effectively say that unambiguous use of the term Bantustan is insufficient. It's an article about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the apartheid analogy, which is why it's discussing bantustans in the first place. It's not criticising the analogy or the term 'bantustan' by saying that it's incorrect or wrong. It's notes that they have valuable analytical strength, but also the weakness of leaving "negligible moral or intellectual space for argument or debate", preventing more nuanced, accurate analysis. It refers to the areas as "enclaves" (the correct, neutral terminology) and points out that it is far too simplistic to call the areas simply bantusans, (so yes, 'bantustan' is a point-of-view framework, not an unambiguous fact). Our article calls the areas bantustans in wikivoice and doesn't "tease out" the strengths and weaknesses of the comparison. And, as Bearian pointed out, the "enormous moral weight and fairly automatic condemnation" needs to be handled with care and accuracy, as it does open to door to overly simplistic attacks that end up in anti-Semitisim. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825, I have read the article (by Professor Julie Peteet), which I think is excellent. She writes "Indeed, the enclaves are a default space – the land left to the Palestinians – whose intent and effects are commensurate in some respects to Bantustans. The terms "enclaves," "cantons," "Bantustans," and "open-air prisons" are used by Palestinians and outside observers to describe these spaces." She then goes on to point out the similarities and the differences, and says that the Palestinian arrangements are unique. But at no point does she claim there is anything POV about the comparison; in fact her tone is that it is entirely reasonable comparison, albeit like every analogy, the Palestinian situation has some unique differences. So this confirms, again, that no reliable sources appear to exist supporting any of the supposed claims of POV when using this commonly used term in relation to the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Onceinawhile I agree, it's a very good article. The whole problem here is that it's a big jump from saying the "intent and effects are commensurate in some respects to Bantustans" to saying that the West Bank is a Bantustan and framing (and entitiling) an encyclopedic discussion of the enclaves as a history of the development of bantustans. Note that I didn't say it was an unreasonable comparison, I've said all along I personally sympathise with the points that are made. I've been saying that we shouldn't call an article 'West Bank bantustans' and our treatment of the topic should cover the way in which it is not like a bantustan as well as the ways in which it is like one, as well as other comparisons that have been used and a treatment of the factual development, separate from the analytical lens of 'bantustans'. Any analytical lens is a POV, inherently. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Jr8825, I think we are agreeing here. As to what we should call the article, I would caution against getting too focused on the analytical precision. The Venetian Ghetto, the archetype of all ghettos, has differences with every other place commonly called a ghetto. The Pogroms in the Russian Empire, the archetypal pogroms, have many differences with every other event commonly called a pogrom. Our policy here is WP:COMMONNAME and that is the framework which we should use to conclude on the right title here. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
True, all sources (analytical lenses) have a POV, NPOV requires a balance of sources. The balance of sources we have so far says that bantustan and bantustanization are perfectly reasonable terms to use although I don't think it is necessary to use them at every turn. I don't see that there is anything preventing you from adding sourced commentary about what bantustans are not if you think that's useful or anything else for that matter, that's just normal editing. In the matter of an alternative title, we are currently in the middle of an rm waiting for it to finish in the absence of an agreement outside of procedure.Selfstudier (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This article has nothing directly to do with the Apartheid analogy, it is about disappearing land and displaced Palestinians and the way that is achieved. The fact that you seem to think that that is Apartheid is of interest but not germane.Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course the term "Bantustan" is directly connected with the apartheid analogy. Jr8825 • Talk 16:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Bantustan#Usage in non-South African contexts is straightforward evidence that it is not necessarily the case. It is true that some commentators may make that connection but that is not specifically what this article is about.Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
What that unsourced, POV tagged section says is its connection with apartheid has meant that the term is now generally used in a pejorative sense as a form of criticism. This correlates with my understanding of the term's use - and it certainly doesn't back up your suggestion that term is used in a way that's separate form the connotations of apartheid. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I just did a quick JSTOR search and have added a source to support the statement in that article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I have also made it plain in several places that I prefer the word "bantustanization" as it not only has authoritative high level sourcing to back it up it is the simplest way to express what this article is about. If there is another word that does the job I will quite happily use it. That is yet a step further from bantustan alone which appears to suffer not from the alleged association with apartheid (the crime does not require bantustans and South African apartheid is only an instance of the crime as defined) but from the association with geography instead of a process (as in enclave versus enclavization).Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Personally I would consider it antisemitic to propose changing the title Nazi ghettos to Areas of Eastern Europe under Jewish rule. Wouldn't you?
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Those sources deal with the concept of an apartheid situation in Israel but we are discussing an apartheid situation in the West Bank, which is legally not Israel. The 2 article is a strawman argument since it argues against the comparison within the state boundaries and ignores the West Bank. Also, it's published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who supports total control of 'Judea and Samaria', largely funded by Sheldon Adelson, who supports West Bank settlements and it's mission is to actively combat and delegitimize BDS; making it a propaganda vehicle. Alatari (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it's an Israeli academic counterview and I'm not endorsing it, just pointing out it exists. Robbie Sabel is a professor of international law at the Hebrew University Jerusalem. Many of those who unambiguously describe the West Bank as a Bantustan will similarly have openly pro-Palestinian positions. I thought the article J. Peteet on the comparative study of Israel/apartheid was a much better article. Jr8825 • Talk 16:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
All humans ultimately descend from Africans and of course the term 'smacks of Apartheid' because that's where Sharon lifted the idea and the situation is that of shrinking ethnic enclaves. Bantustan is nothing close to being called the F-word or the N-word. Alatari (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Many of those who unambiguously describe the West Bank as a Bantustan will similarly have openly pro-Palestinian positions.

Jr8825How can you assert that when Ariel Sharon, the major architect of much of the present system, told Massimo d'Alema, Italy's Foreign Minister, and several others, as we document, that his plan was modeled on South African Bantustans? This is the essential sticking point for those who rebuff the use of the term as 'pro-Palestinians'. It is historically very much a product of the 'anti-Palestinian' Israeli political class.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • strong oppose, that title implies that the Palestinians actually are "top dog" in Area A, when we all know that the Israeli army enter whenever they want. The Israeli army are "calling the shots" (I think that is the expression?); the Palestinian "rule" is only as much as the Israelis want them to, Huldra (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: to all of you who say that we cannot use the term, as it is only used by one side in the conflict: well, if I recall correctly: Bantustan was never used by the white South African government/rulers; they used the name "Homelands". So....... are you now going to change the name of the Bantustan-article, as it, to paraphrase: "only reflect one side of the view"? Huldra (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am surprised at all who voted "support" with the justification that present name "is taking sides", as the Israelis spokespeople never use the word Bantustan; well, neither did spokespersons for the white South Africa: they all called them "homelands". (Yes, I'm old, and I remember it well). They removed all things called "Bantu", even Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970 was changed to Black States Citizenship Act, 1970. (Sounds prettier, doesn't it?) Should we mv the wikipedia article to it's "prettified", or "laundered" new name? Or change Bantustans into South African Areas under Black rule (to imitate what you want this article moved to)? Nope, I don't think so, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Fails all five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: (1) Recognizability the proposed title has zero google hits; (2) Naturalness: the least natural of all the options that have been proposed in the discussion above; (3) Precision: "Palestinian rule" is unclear as to whether this is de facto rule (Area A, possibly with Area B which is mixed control) or de jure (all of the West Bank) and whether it includes the Palestinian localities in Area C which have their own local governance structures; (4) Conciseness: many options above have just three words; (5) Consistency: no other articles in the encyclopedia with this title structure. Many better options than this rushed proposal have been raised in the discussion above. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a change of title - I agree with 11Fox11's view that the current title is disruptive and neither encyclopedic nor neutral (and also not obvious for readers). I don't particularly like this specific suggestion; my preference (which I discussed in the AfD) would be for Areas A and B (West Bank), matching our article on Area C (West Bank), with a rewrite of the content to match this title and make it more neutral and comprehensive as it's written like an argument right now. Failing this, the neutral title that probably most closely fits the current content would be Fragmentation of the West Bank, which, if neutrally written, could potentially be a worthy split from the main occupation article. I think any change is an improvement over the current term, which belongs in Israel and the apartheid analogy, so support Shrike's suggestion too. Perhaps it was for the better that the AfD was closed in a way I disagree with, as there is obviously a valuable topic to be covered here, but I don't think that changes the fact that this article needs a rewrite. Jr8825 • Talk 02:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Views or suggestions assume importance if they are buttressed by argument and facts. They have little significance as mere assertions of an impressionistic personal opinion. You ought to familiarize yourself with the topic. Area C is administratively totally different from area Area B. In the former Palestinians have no authority or rights whatsoever. In area B, the Palestinian authority does not 'rule'. It is obliged to coordinate any proposed decision of significance with the Israeli military, and if it proceeds unilaterally, its decisions can be revoked, cancelled, and the measures implemented rolled back. It is pointless to conflate in an article the descriptions of two systems whose legal and, administrative mechanisms differ radically. The result would be a structurally split content, two articles tossed into the one bin higgly-piggly, in which some editors (very very few editors in this area actually write significant article content) would then have to fix over the next few years.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't need the West Bank explained to me. We disagree on the correct approach to covering the content. I'm getting tired of the constant suggestion by supporters of the current article that anyone who disagrees with them is misinformed, an Israel apologist, or basing the argument on "impressionistic personal opinion" etc. I don't feel the need to characterise your knowledge as wrong or insufficient. Jr8825 • Talk 11:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A 'rewrite of the content??! So, an open admission that, whatever the sources state - and no switch-name supporter has challenged the obviously high quality sources as unreliable, or that the paraphrases are inaccurate, or that the historical content is false - we have to overwrite them, or ignore them because it is inadmissible for Wikipedia to document that the concept of bantustanization of the West Bank figured prominently in Israeli planning after 1967, and indeed was the explicit model approved by Ariel Sharon when he disengaged and caged the Gaza Strip, and then created a Separation Wall with separationist colonies in the remaining West Bank. In short, this topic has now a negationist cast. So welcome to the I/P version of Historical negationism The documented facts are not acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop mischaracterising my views, this is also what happened at the AfD. Whatever the sources state - and no switch-name supporter has challenged the obviously high quality sources as unreliable, or that the paraphrases are inaccurate, or that the historical content is false - we have to overwrite them, or ignore them. I clearly said nothing of the sort. Jr8825 • Talk 11:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not 'mischaracterize' your views. I quoted your statement, and then made an inference as to what the advocated rewriting of the content would mean if implemented. This is a fair inference in context because the text you insist must be rewritten has been written by a careful paraphrase (with notes showing for readers the source originals) of academic articles and books and a few mainstream quality items. Since no one is questioning the WP:RS highbar quality of the material, nor the historical facts they relate, your proposal assumes that there is something defective in the way those source sentences are construed. But you don't explain precisely what has gone wrong, just as you don't explain who is to take on the task of rewriting. Most editors commenting negatively here have no record, as far as I can see, of writing in-depth articles on the basis of the scholarly documentation, and the I/P area requires a deep familiarity with the topic I can't see here among the negationists. So, your insistence of a rewrite begs more questions than it answers.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course, since Levivich opines that the correct neutral title for the content would be the fragmentation section of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and User:Jr8825 concurs, the simplest solution would be to shift the whole article to the relevant section of that article, under the heading 'bantustanization'. I would have no objections to that. What I do object to is the practice of censorship of history which is evidenced in the present and preceding moves to chuck a scrupulously documented analysis down Orwell's memory hole, sheerly out of distaste for a word that Israeli planners have constantly commended as appropriate for the model they envisage for the West Bank and Gaza.-Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose current option - "West Bank bantustan" is common, used in WP:RS, initially used by Arial Sharon in planning stages, and is allowed under WP:POVNAME. "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" is not notable and it violates WP:naming principles of:
1) it is short
3) distinguishable and recognizable.
I'll suggest an alternative of West Bank enclaves. From internet searches that name's first hit is to this very article and has many hits to WP:RS uses. Although the usage of that term has also been applied to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and thus will cause issues in the focus and design of this article. As for the current usage, it is indeed obvious for any reader who lived through and took part in anti-Apartheid protests. It is what I've heard since 2012 when Noam Chomsky mentioned Ariel Sharon's usage of the term in an interview on Democracy Now! and what Allister Sparks called them during his travels through the West Bank in 2013. Alatari (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
If you actually read the article, it is not so far primarily about future hypothetical borders. It is about the historical process of Israeli planning suggestions for fragmenting Palestinian c ommunities, with some of the suggestions eventually in part enacted. We simply do not have, save for this article, any in-depth coverage of this topic, which as the bibliography shows, is of intense interest to analysts. The WP:Crystallball issue emerges only with the suggested name change -Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule. It cannot be conflated with Palestinian territories, because that article refers to the whole of the West Bank (and Gaza), not to those parts Sharon and others have roped and fenced off for Palestinian use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)
Afd was nocon so it's not that one. A's and B's are Oslo irrelevancies so not them either. Try again, see if you can include Bantustanization in it (or an equivalent, Balkanization doesn't quite work).Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Alternative - merging into Geography of the State of Palestine, probably ideal.GreyShark (dibra) 16:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Very amusing. At least that contains a reference to the area claimed (Gaza, West Bank inclusive EJ). This article is about Israeli accumulation by disposession of said (occupied) area.Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that, aside from some legal leeway and recognition, a properly constituted State of Palestine won't exist until Israel permits it, and the Palestinians accept the conditions Israel would impose for its establishment. The geography of that 'state' therefore is, as things stands, indeterminate and provisory.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support If this article is going to remain unmerged, we need to address some of the concerns brought up in the deletion discussion. Over 60% thought that this article was so unsalvageable that it would have to be deleted entirely. For starters, we are required to have a title that is at least an attempt at neutrality. The proposed change reflects more scholarship, instead of drilling in one specific POV. It would be a first step towards making this an actual article instead of a personal essay promoting a specific extreme bias. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No reasons were ever given as to why the article was, as you put, unsalvageable. And perhaps it was for that reason that the closing administrator chose not to delete according to the 60%'s wishes. On Wikipedia, consensus is based not on numbers but cogency of argument (at least in theory). (2) Names are chosen per WP:Common name, which is widely supported in RS, as opposed to 'Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule,' which has zero RS support, apart from its inaccuracy. What 'more scholarship' are you referring to? The POV in Bantustan is that of its architect Ariel Sharon, as much as it is of scholars and analysts who criticize it. When opposite sides concur as here in terminology, you get neutrality, per wiki practice. The slur that this is a personal essay is gratuitous. It is an impersonal summary and paraphrase of high quality sources. And this descriptive name for a process no more promotes bias than Nazi gas chambers promotes a holocaust. Why do so many support arguments fail to confront the evidence, or snub logical analysis of the article's evidence? Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The requirement for a title is NPOV within a range dependent on whether the title is "descriptive" or is a "name derived from reliable sources" and here it is self evidently the latter while the proposed title is obviously the former. Not even a choice. If the article contains "specific extreme bias" you should edit it out or at least point it out so that something might be done about it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Striking per 500/30. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not a fan of the current name, but this RM is premature (and kind of poor form to initiate an RM right after the AfD vote concluded) as discussion is ongoing. The point of the article, aiui, is to describe "minus-state, autonomy-plus" proposals for the West Bank. Thus, the title "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" is a misnomer because it only addresses the current de facto situation. ImTheIP (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose dislike the current name, RM is premature, article scope unclear, proposed name does not even remotely reflect the content of the article. Per my comments above, first step is to decide what the article should be. Since the answer to that is unclear, it's difficult to decide on a neutral title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That is a fair comment. Oncenawhile started the article so (s)he can elucidate the originative intent and their follow-up edits. Several other contributors so far should discuss their perspectives in adding material. As for my contributions, I've always been interested in the genealogy of concepts (and not in the Israel =Apartheid argument, which is nonsense), that is why I added the bit from the great Toynbee who, as the world's foremost comparative historian, noted as early as 1931 that the process of Zionist practice would, under the British mandate, demand in terms of structural logic a corresponding segregation model for the Palestinians not too different from the one the English permitted in South Africa. That is where my interest lies as a contributor to this page.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Elements of this article are covered in WP but spread over multiple articles as random disconnected things and so not a fork. They are brought together under the well sourced conception that they are part of a plan whose intent and purpose is best demonstrated by proposals of Israeli governments that although never signed off on, nevertheless have been pursued in practice and provide the direction of travel even now. If you take a look at this article it speaks of a (leaked) post-Trump plan scheme that...well read it, that's the best thing. So what name should be given to the process itself (dispossession, displacement, compartmentalization), as well as the result? The well sourced bantustanization works for me, as does territorial, political and economic fragmentation, Balkanization doesn't quite work, enclavization, I don't know, I cannot readily see easy alternatives. Even if there is a title not including the word bantustan or bantustanization, those words will still appear in the article because they are integral to it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the Palestinian areas of the West Bank are bantustans means that Wikipedia is in effect taking a side in the Israel and the apartheid analogy debate. If there is no consensus on what the ultimate outcome should be just yet I think the proposed change should be made as an interim solution pending final consensus. Personally I'd prefer that this article become a section in the Israel and the apartheid analogy article but in any case, this article's name means that Wikipedia is now openly taking a side in a contentious political issue.--RM (Be my friend) 18:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
A question. As documented, Sharon designed a good part of the emerging system, and sources state his plan was further implemented by Peres, Olmert and Netanyahu. Sharon said the model he put in place (the first move being the evacuation of settlements from the Gazs Strip and complete military control over all entries and exists) was modeled on SA's Bantustan. Why then is it violating Wikipedia's neutrality to use the preferred term of the architect for this fragmentation, i.e. bantustans? Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
First of all, the source on Sharon saying that seems a 2003 Haaretz article which says that Sharon told Massimo D'Alema something of that nature about 3-4 years prior, so 2000-1999. Sharon is very well-known in Israel as having flip-flopped in his views on the viability of the settlement movement after he became Prime Minister (he once said that the fate of Gush Katif is the fate of Tel Aviv). He actually admitted it and said "what you see from up here you don't see from down there" ("up here" referring to the Premiership). Notably when Sharon disengaged from the Gaza Strip he also ordered that the IDF withdraw from the Gaza-Egypt border, which firmly proves he had no intention of controlling all entries and exits. He even openly criticized Israel militarily ruling another population and said it was unviable long-term as Prime Minister. In any event, Sharon, Peres, Olmert, and Netanyahu all have had pretty different ideas, there is no set policy that they all followed.--RM (Be my friend) 19:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I have just come across "geo-political ghettoization" Alina Korn compares the terms ghettoization and bantustanization. Ronit Lentin (18 July 2013). Thinking Palestine. Zed Books Ltd. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-1-84813-789-9. Might work, although bantustanization has far better sourcing and I don't really agree that WP is taking sides, it is the sources that are taking sides (if that's what they actually are doing).Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The source you cited is very clearly slanted in favor of one side. The author you cited, Ronit Lentin, is known for her highly pro-Palestinian views, including supporting a one state solution and right of return. Some sources, those pushing a point of view favorable toward the Palestinians, talk about bantustanization, but I could just as easily dig up a pro-Israel source denying the things that these sources say. You can say "this source says that there is bantustanization going on" within an article but to put it up as the title is very clearly taking sides in Wikipedia's voice on the matter.--RM (Be my friend) 19:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Lentin is not the author, she is the editor. Alina Korn is the author I cited, you may look her up. Every source has a POV and I think virtually every source we have has been described as anti-Israel and POV as is the custom hereabouts. I am still waiting for the POV of the "other side" to appear, assuming that it exists, since it is by no means clear how the facts outlined in the article can be effectively denied. But if you can easily dig one up, let's see it (or several, preferably).Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's a source explicitly denying that bantustans exist. From a right-wing Israeli publication, so in other words from the opposite end of the spectrum. Though they do outline some common arguments. For a more balanced take on it, see Shaul Arieli's pieces in Haaretz, he's a fierce critic of the settlement policy but insists that the settlements have failed to create the conditions for the annexation of territories deep in the West Bank, that relatively few settlers live deep in the West Bank, and a withdrawal would still be a fairly easy affair - Shaul Arieli - Haaretz. His writings contradict a lot of what the sources that push the idea of there being bantustans in the West Bank insist. Then here's Anshel Pfeffer, who argued that Netanyahu never intended to annex anything - There will be lots of annexation talk from Netanyahu but no action and Netanyahu himself arguing that settlement activity slowed under his watch - Netanyahu: settlement construction slowed on my watch - which contradict important parts of the bantustanization narrative. In any event, you're missing my main point. The use of such a highly loaded term as "bantustan" in the title of an article is taking sides in this debate.--RM (Be my friend) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, some of that is useful (Israel Hayom is not RS) and will be added. You, like every support editor I have queried, refuse to reply as to why, if Ariel Sharon who really kickstarted this process called it the creation of bantustans,we cannot use his term. Why did Ariel Sharon explicitly use the analogy, the model and act decisively on it? It's a bit like wanting to change Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater to 'Cascade-above' because the Kaufmann family wanted the house beneath the cascade. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
See my reply to you above.--RM (Be my friend) 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I did and you didn't answer my question. You cited articles about Netanyahu and settlements. This is not about settlements for Israelis, but about territorially discontinuous areas marked out for Palestinians. One could write an article on Netanyahu and settlements. They expanded substantially under his watch from 2009-2014, and have increased incrementally ever since, whatever one article by Pfeffer states. So could you please tell me why the word chosen by Sharon for his model, which was implemented, i.e. Bantustan, is not neutral?Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Not that response, right below where you initially asked me your question. I answered you there.--RM (Be my friend) 20:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Apologies. reread. But I didn't take this as a clear reply. Like most politicians, there is an egregious record for Netanyahu doing so, Sharon could veer. However your comment is not based on what sources say but on your impression of the period and the political actors. The sources in our article are by esperts who disagree with you. I disagree with much of what I read but I can't allow my perceptions of source inadequacy or oversights to influence my selection of material. It's RS therefore I quote it (as the Matthew Levitt book on Hamas), and if I can't find other sources that challenge his views, too bad. The Hamas article must carry that reliably sourced (dis)information until some authoritative source balances it or challenges it. So here. Jands on content editors have this problem every other day.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
My comment is based on things I've read about Sharon, not to mention a video of him where I clearly remember him talking about how unviable rule over millions of Palestinians is. Then there is the fact that he took an action contrary to the idea of bantustanization when he ordered a withdrawal from the boundary between Egypt and Gaza, as a key part of bantustanization as described is control of entry and exit points. What Sharon thought in circa 1999 or 2000 is simply irrelevant to what he did in the mid-2000s.--RM (Be my friend) 20:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for those, I am going to study them and see where we go from there, I appreciate you think it is "loaded" and you are entitled to your opinion, I don't agree. Speaking only for myself, I have indicated that I could live with that, or with "territorial, political and economic fragmentation" or even with "geo-political ghettoization" which is sort of growing on me. Got a problem with those as well?Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
So long as you present it as "this or that person says it's fragmentation/ghettoization" as opposed to firmly stating in Wikipedia's voice that it is fragmentation/ghettoization, no problem. In any event, my main beef is with the title, though the entire article is hopelessly slanted and really could use alternative POVs.--RM (Be my friend) 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, the problem we have is that noone has been able to provide alternative point of views. I really want to add them. But where are these sources? The David M Weinberg column you linked to is obviously not WP:RS given he is government PR, but even if it was it does not take issue with the term bantustan. It mentions it once in passing and moves on. Later, when he addresses the key components, he confirms they are all true. "Critics push back against this, arguing that the envisioned Palestinian state nevertheless constitutes structured discrimination against Palestinians because their territory will not be maximal or fully contiguous. Nor will it be sovereign in the fullest meaning of the term because Israel will maintain security control of the total territory and of the borders between the entire envelope and surrounding Arab countries. Well, yes, that is true, and always will be... As for "enclaves" of residential settlement and agricultural lands that will be "isolated bubbles" inside the other sides' territory, well yes, there will be several dozen enclaves, both Israeli and Palestinian."
So we have an official Israeli propagandist agreeing with all of this, and not once claiming that the term bantustan is unacceptable.
On a separate point, I will repeat something i said above: objections and concerns with the word "apartheid" cannot be extrapolated to equivalent concerns with the term bantustan. The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car. The same is true here.
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't link the Weinberg column because I thought it'd be a good source, I did it to prove a point. It was in the context of a debate where someone else had linked a blatantly biased pro-Palestinian book. I didn't expect anyone to take it seriously. Though Weinberg goes on to point out key differences as compared to the apartheid system of South Africa, illustrating the right's point of view. I do think you should check out some of the other sources, particularly the writings of Shaul Arieli. In any event, in this case "bantustans" is almost universally used when comparing Israel to an apartheid state. The link between bantustans and apartheid is so fundamentally ingrained that in this case I don't see how it's possible to separate the two. Bantustans were historically one of the main foundations of the apartheid system in South Africa. The vast majority of people reading this and seeing the word "bantustan" will automatically link that to apartheid. And let's be clear, there are significant differences to the current autonomy setup in the West Bank as compared to the bantustans of South Africa. In any event why not use a less loaded term? Why not try to think up a more appropriate term? Why use such provocative language?--RM (Be my friend) 22:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried to suggest alternative titles and your response was that I had to attribute them and then you said the whole article is slanted so I think we have nothing further to discuss. I will read your sources though.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
My main argument is that you should not present a contentious political argument in Wikipedia's voice. By all means, post all the sources calling these places bantustans, but don't just flat out say "these are bantustans", say "this source says they are bantustans" and then present an alternative point of view. And above all don't use such a provocative title.--RM (Be my friend) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
One more time, is the title "Geo-political ghettoization of Palestine" acceptable? Yes or no?Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No, but "Alleged geo-political ghettoization of Palestine" might be, though that's an extremely convoluted title. The point is, presenting the idea that Israel is "ghettoizing" Palestine in Wikipedia's voice is abandoning the neutrality that is supposed to characterize Wikipedia. Putting something like "bantustans" or "ghettoization" in the title is taking a side in the debate.--RM (Be my friend) 23:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that "bantustanization" and alleged aparthied inferences is actually not really the problem here. You just don't like the thrust of the article at all, whatever words are used, that's about the size of it. Well, it's all properly sourced and policy compliant except for possibly lacking some alternative viewpoints which we will remedy.Selfstudier (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No matter how well it's sourced, the title is absolutely unacceptable. And yes the POV needs to be substantially changed. I'd be happy if the name was changed and substantial modifications were made regarding that issue, though I question why this article even needs to exist in the first place when we have Israel and the apartheid analogy and Israeli occupation of the West Bank, in which this can fit in as a section.--RM (Be my friend) 00:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
You can question it if you like, it was questioned ad nauseum at the afd, the material is distinctive and more than substantive enough to warrant it's own article and there are other reasons why it should exist. Doubtless we will have the usual series of afd nominations and all the rest. Far be it from me to advise you on what to do, if there is such concern about the title, do an RFC instead of messing about with an rm proposing an entirely pointless name unconnected with the material, like in no time at all after an afd and in the middle of a discussion as well.Selfstudier (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Reenem: I just read your reply to me above; thank you. It seems you acknowledge that no source says the term is POV or non-neutral, and you seem to acknowledge that your extrapolation from criticism of the apartheid analogy is a fallacy of division. So it seems that your view is founded solely upon a feeling. A feeling that bantustan is contentious and pretentious, despite no reliable source saying it is. You know well that that is not how this place is supposed to work. So I find your argument disappointing.

As to your suggested alternatives, I am open to them. We should follow the policy, which is wp:commonname, but noone has been willing to discuss that so far. Perhaps because the title proposed in this discussion contravenes all five of our naming policies? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support as per nom, or to the alternative, West Bank enclaves; "enclaves" being a non-prejudicial term for territories enclosed by another. An article title including "bantustans" fails WP:NPOV by using a one-sided and highly dubious and contentious term, used almost exclusively to promote an accusation by one side in this conflict to slander the other by association with apartheid.
As the noted scholar of history and antisemitism, Robert S. Wistrich has observed:[1]

"In apartheid South Africa, it needs to be said, 90 percent of the black population was disenfranchised and lacked fundamental civil rights—a situation of minority rule with some parallels in the Arab world but certainly none in Israel. Apartheid was a form of draconian discrimination enshrined in harsh race laws that were strictly applied—including the banning of sexual relations between whites and nonwhites. Nothing remotely similar has ever existed in Israel. Nor is there any analogy between the poverty-stricken Bantustans reserved as separate "homelands" for blacks under apartheid and Israel's temporary control of Palestinian areas for security reasons pending negotiations to resolve the conflict."

"Foolish statements by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, by certain UN officials, and some Arab spokesmen deliberately ignore the huge differences in history, context, and democratic ethos between Israel and apartheid South Africa. They strengthen the feeling that the term "apartheid" is simply being utilized (as it was in Soviet propaganda) in a purely pejorative and abusive sense in order to defame the Jewish state."

-Chefallen (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wistrich, Robert S. (2010). A Lethal Obsession: anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (1st ed.). New York: Random House. pp. 152–153. ISBN 9781400060979.
Add a sig, there's a dear chap. Let me see, do I go with a former US Prez and UN people or Wistrich. Wow, tough one.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Great question! Who is more reliable? A bunch of politicians and sundry representatives of despots and tyrannies, or a renowned scholar? --Chefallen (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Have a look at this RFC for reasons why I don't have a lot of time for Wistrich.Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You aren't supposed to "go with" anyone. You are supposed to present both cases in a neutral and encyclopedic tone.--RM (Be my friend) 23:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That's wrong, NPOV requires a balance of sources, we're running at about 25 to 1 something like that, right now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it's the quality, not quantity of the sources that carries the most weight and numbers count for little if there is a good scholarly reference (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), such as Wistrich, that says the opposite.
And the fact that the sources using the term "Bantustan" in this article are overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian is exactly the point -- this is a biased term developed by and used almost exclusively by one side of a territorial dispute to demonize the other for political advantage. That there are few other sources who use it is precisely the point -- it is not generally used outside of anti-Israel circles, except for the instance, as in Wistrich, to note it as a propaganda term. It is therefore unsuitable for the article title per WP:POVNAMING. --Chefallen (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Chefallen, your statement about the sources which use the term is wrong. The term is used widely by neutral scholarly sources; the citations are there in the article for everyone to see. Anti-Palestinian sources don’t use the term, just as antisemitic sources don’t use the term pogrom. But even the anti-Palestinian sources do not claim that it is a non-neutral term. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Wistrich on one of his predictable rants is not scholarly. What foolish statements? Oh, here's one, "temporary control"?? Since 1967, right? Now I think of it, maybe that ought to be in the article as well. You will need to do better than that, I'm afraid. And as I already evidenced above, this apartheid diversion (I actually agree with Wistrich there is no comparison with South African case) is not going to cut it either, this is all about the focus of the article itself which bears repeating, dispossession, displacement and bantustanization (or ghettoization if you prefer) in general since 1967 and continuing as we speak.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Support WP:NPOV. Zoozaz1 talk 02:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Summary of discussion so far: This is an attempt to summarize the discussion so far, for the benefit of any subsequent debates. Since I am “involved” in the discussion, please could other editors confirm if I am missing or misrepresenting any points.
Although the proposed title has been claimed to fail the five WP:CRITERIA, such policy matters have not yet been discussed as the strength of feeling in the discussion has centered around claims of POV on both sides:
  1. Current title concern with the word “bantustan”. Some editors have stated a feeling that the term is POV. No sources describing use of the term in the West Bank context as non-neutral have yet been found, and the word has been shown to have been used widely including by protagonists on all sides of the conflict.
  2. Current title concern that using the term bantustan in the West Bank is akin to saying there is apartheid in Israel (which there is not). Said to fail two fallacies: the fallacy of division and the “noncentral fallacy”.
  3. Move from current title concern of double standards. WP:POVNAME (“Non-neutral but common names”) says that WP:COMMONNAME trumps claims of POV; we do not replace names like “X ghetto” or the “X pogrom” with alternate long-winded and obfuscating titles, if they are the common name. No counterargument given.
  4. Proposed title concern that “under Palestinian rule” is POV as inaccurately hides the Israeli occupation. No counterargument given.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, more and less thus. The key problem is that people are voting to support a proposed name which, in the discussion, is widely recognized to be misleading (and therefore inadequate). Those who 'oppose' are not supporting the title as given, but saying the erratic one suggested as an alternative is inaccurate. Proper process would require a discussion of what title best fits the material in the article. I think 'West Bank Bantustans' is equally unacceptable, since it implies such SA entities exist in that area, confusing a process for a possible future geopolitical structure with an achieved reality on the ground. Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The Afd closer suggested an RFC re the naming. Although I am not entirely clear how such an RFC would be worded, it might lead to a more productive discussion than this one. I would have thought it obvious that the proposed title is insufficient in nearly every respect, the idea seems to be essentially to try and turn this article into some other already existing article thereby demonstrating that the objectors Afd arguments were right all along and that this article is a fork, which it is not. I don't like the current title that much but not because of the reasons being given by the objectors above. I would prefer something with Palestine in the title as Gaza is just as much a bantustan/ghetto as any other place, the West Bank allusion is merely due to the fact that the only proposal officially implemented and only very partially at that, is Oslo but the article is clearly showing that the rationale both pre and post Oslo can be found in the earlier Allon and Drobles unofficial proposals that have been consistently pursued by successive Israeli governments. The process of displacement, dispossession and fragmentation/control predates Oslo and continues to the present day. The number of commentators across the spectrum that point to all this is notable.Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd ask you three to post less on this page; I feel you've been posting so much that it crowds out others' ability to engage in discussion. As of this writing, text added to this page: Nishidani 33.1k, Selfstudier 30.5k, Onceinawhile 23.9k, Jr8825 12k, me 11.7k, everyone else less. It was the same pattern at the AFD: Onceinawhile 23.7k, Nishidani 17.5, Selfstudier 11.5, Jr8825 10.7, me 8.7, everyone else less. Combined, that's: Nishidani 50.6k, Onceinawhile 47.6k, Selfstudier 42k, Jr8825 22.7k, me 20.4k, everyone else less. Three editors on one side of the debate are writing more than everyone else combined. This summary was unnecessary, and of course, as a support !voter, I disagree with these three oppose voters' summary of the support voters' arguments; that's why an uninvolved editor does the close. Levivich harass/hound 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, what matters is the content of the posts. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, that is an extraordinary piece of sleight-of-hand rhetoric! I eagerly await your editions of some of the Socratic dialogues (to compare the sublime to the ridiculousness of our forums), the Euthyphro to begin with. The ratio between the volume of Socrates' arguments and the laconic ripostes and judgements of his thoroughly self-convinced interlocutor(s) makes even my verbosity here look positively Carthusian/Trappist, compared to others. Congratulations. You have invented a novel voice in logic and rhetoric: we have an argumentum ex silentio in the canon, and you have now come up with its opposite, an argumentum ex amplificatione or should that be argumentum ex adiectione?. Whatever, it is barrel-scraping in lieu of cogently addressing the gravamen of the issue. Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I hope that this is only a formalization of what you argued earlier

Under no circumstances should explicit reference to South African Apartheid be made in the article. The contexts are wholly unreliable.

and not a double vote. Please read the article, because it documents that the SA analogy has been repeatedly made by Israeli policy planners. There is something profoundly perverse in calling a plan one is drawing up and implementing a 'bantustan' model, and then having hysterics when historians, the press, and even wiki editors write it up according to WP:Common name, as if the bias were not in the thinking of those who invented the analogy, but in those who accurately report their thinking.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Please present evidence aside from what Ariel Sharon allegedly said in private years before he became PM and carried out his famous policy change with regard to the Palestinians that Israel has called this a bantustan model. Especially since there's no great plan and different Israeli PM's have followed different policies. Also, historians and the press are far from unified, it's typically only those who have a pretty clear slant toward the Palestinians who use this. The "bantustan" argument is nearly universally used as an attempt by people who support the Palestinians to draw comparisons with apartheid.
Although I've already cast my vote I'd like to make one more comment. People here arguing that the proposed change is inaccurate due to the entire West Bank being under Israeli occupation seem to not get that there are different degrees of rule. I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say they are under Palestinian rule. The Palestinian Authority exercises civil and security jurisdiction over Area A. There are Israeli arrest raids but overall the Palestinian Authority exercises a vast degree of rule over them. These particular areas of the West Bank are under Palestinian rule far more than Israeli rule, even if Israel retains the power to arrest people in them. It's Israel's control of the areas surrounding them that is the main issue. In any case, I view the term "bantustan" as far more inaccurate, as the sole purpose of the use of that term is to draw up comparisons with South Africa, even if the comparison isn't explicitly stated in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 11:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As to people using the term bantustan on the US-Israeli side, three good examples are Ariel Sharon, Colin Powell and Martin Indyk. They are all considered "pro-Israeli".
Ariel Sharon allegedly used that term once and it was a vision of a plan he later turned his back on, not something he actually did. And what do you mean by US-Israeli side? You're acting as if the US and Israel are both a party to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no unified US-Israel front in this conflict. There is an Israeli side, period. The US is an ally of Israel and also a major giver of aid to the PA, and has at times pressured Israel into concessions to the Palestinians, depending on which administration is in the White House. I believe Powell and Indyk used that term in describing a potential noncontiguous Palestinian state, IE a possibility. Did they ever outright say that?--RM (Be my friend) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Much of this article is about the "potential noncontiguous Palestinian state", so exactly what they were commenting on. I don't know if your comments on the US-Israeli alliance are a joke or not, but they are ridiculous. US aid to Palestinians under Israeli occupation is well known to function as indirect support to Israel (if the US weren't providing those funds to sustain Israel's captive Palestinian population, Israel would have to under international law). And as to the concessions that the US has so successfully extracted, if you could point to a single one that would be fascinating news - we should probably alert the media. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Key word being "potential", proposed by some people, not "is." Maybe the US just provides aid to the PA because the existence of the PA is a key step toward a Palestinian state. Please provide proof that it's aid to the PA is only in the context of aiding Israel. And please refrain from hyperbole such as "captive Palestinian population", this is an encyclopedia. As for concessions, settlement freezes, both the official one early in Obama's term and the unannounced de facto freezes that have taken place since, are a good starting point. Or go back to the 90s when Israel handed some places over to the PA when Clinton pressed Netanyahu into doing it.--RM (Be my friend) 12:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, settlement freezes? That is your idea of a concession? OK, since I have clearly lost this debate I will now concede to you that I will stop breathing.... .... .... I have decided to start again. What a fantastic concession I have made. It should go down in history as a concession that Onceinawhile has made to Reneem.
Here is a chart of the settlement growth, if you could kindly point out where these freezes have made an impact that would be very insightful. By the way, I froze my breathing a number of additional times between this comment and my previous one; I do hope you appreciate these concessions I am making. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The US pressed Israel into not taking certain actions that the Palestinians see as negative. My central point still stands, that there is no "US-Israeli side" to this conflict.--RM (Be my friend) 12:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, this makes you a believer in fringe theories, which is entirely your prerogative. The mainstream view is crystal clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As to the nature of "rule" in the Palestinian West Bank, Israel controls the Paletinians' airspace, airwaves, internet, power, borders, population register, freedom of movement. The list goes on. Israel controls what matters, the Palestinians collect the garbage and other local level stuff; this was exactly how it worked in Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, and Ciskei. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
First of all Israel is actually handing over control of power generation to the Palestinians. It controls freedom of movement outside Area A, aka the subject of this article, not within it. Borders, also outside Area A, irrelevant. We are talking about Area A, not the entire West Bank, and a title which blatantly tries to compare the autonomy setup in Area A with the bantustans of South Africa. In any event no, it isn't just garbage collection, it's total civil control. The Palestinian authority has full civil jurisdiction, it controls the police and courts, infrastructure plans, healthcare system, etc.--RM (Be my friend) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, power requires fuel. Even if the Palestinians are finally allowed to build their own power plant, the supply of fuel will remain entirely under the control of the Israelis. So there is no scenario under which Palestinians get real control of their power. Even wind farms or solar panels are impossible, because Israel controls ALL of the West Bank land where such things would be feasible. On freedom of movement outside area A, do you have any idea how small some of these Area A islands are? On police, who controls what kind of weapons they are allowed? Who controls the building of new police stations? What happens when they want to move from one tiny Area A island to another? On infrastructure plans, major infrastructure (pipes, roads, electricity lines, internet etc) all needs Israeli approval. On the healthcare system, hospitals need supplies, all of which require Israeli approval.
The building of new police stations is entirely under Palestinian control in Area A, as infrastructure permits are under Palestinian Authority control there. Pretty sure solar panels and wind farms can be built in Area B. As for moving between Area A, there is Area B which is joint Israeli-Palestinian control (as well as full PA civil control) and Area C, which is under Israeli control, though in practice there are currently few checkpoints deep in the West Bank. In any event Israel controls the surroundings but the comparison to South Africa, which is what is intended by the inflammatory term bantustans, is lacking.--RM (Be my friend) 12:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, I ran out of time earlier and lost my half-drafted response. I find your continued attempt to minimize the occupation with your personal unsourced musings to be deeply distasteful, and wholly anti-Palestinian in effect (I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent). Again, ignorance is not an excuse for obfuscating the suffering of others.
On solar and wind in Palestine, dozens of scholarly articles have been published; it is clear that the land needed to make it economic (both large expanses of unbuilt space and ideal wind and solar conditions) exist only in Area C, and together with the import restrictions mean these technologies cannot solve the Palestinian energy dependence on Israel.
I wonder what “few checkpoints” means to you? An abstract concept, easy to type from your keyboard? Doesn’t matter does it? I have not heard the number 59 being described as “few” before, nor do I think it is appropriate to ignore the flying checkpoints not included in that figure.
Perhaps to follow your logic we should rename the article prison cell to Areas of a prison under prisoner rule. Prisoners have no control over their borders, airspace or communication either, but they can dish out their own justice, they have to clean up their own garbage, there are "few" "internal" checks, and there are plans to let them generate their own electricity one day with Peleton bikes. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Onceinawhile No matter how strongly you feel on the matter, people will disagree. And I'm not going to stray too far into a debate on this issue as I want to keep this debate focused on the core issue and I don't want to clutter up this page with endless debate about the occupation, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. But my central point is that the name "bantustan" is absolutely unacceptable and most users seem to think so. To be clear I don't think the proposed name change is perfect, it's just far better than what it is now. I personally would rather this article just become sections of the occupation of the West Bank and Israel and the apartheid analogy article but if we are going to have it, we need a new name. Very few people seem to like it. How about a compromise if you're unsatisfied? Perhaps "enclaves" as someone else suggested, or areas under Palestinian "autonomy" instead of Palestinian rule? Personally I like "autonomy" the best. We can go back and forth on whose right and wrong but the key point is that the proposal isn't perfect, it's simply better than current name in our view.--RM (Be my friend) 02:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, I agree, we should stick to the point. I have said right from the start I am open to a compromise, hence this. I am considering Lembit's proposal.
PS, it has not gone unnoticed that you have made no attempt to deny the consistent anti-Palestinianism that has been pointed out.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, denial of the occupation is anti-Palestinian racism. Please do some research before making these unfounded claims which undermine the dignity of these people. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Nobody denies the occupation, we just deny that it's proper to use the term "bantustan" here. And please argue substance rather than descend into accusations of "racism" and "undermining dignity".--RM (Be my friend) 12:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, misrepresenting the situation of the Palestinians is absolutely anti-Palestinian racism - the perpetuation of apologist propaganda for human rights abuses is a key part of what allows them to continue. Ignorance is not an excuse - we carry a responsibility not to harm other people's lives with our words.
If you would only focus on supporting your comments with reliable sources, we could avoid this. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Onceinawhile I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. You clearly have extremely strong opinions on this matter. However, it is your opinion, and you don't discuss things by calling differing opinions "racist" or "apologist propaganda" or by accusing other editors of helping to allow human rights abuses to continue.--RM (Be my friend) 14:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Take care, if your wordcount keeps rising, Levivich will be after you.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If by "will be after you", you mean "will ask you to post less", then yes, that's true. But RM is nowhere near 40k, whereas the editors who are over that and who I asked to post less have declined my request. Levivich harass/hound 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A couple of editors have already pointed out that Palestine is occupied, if it is not how then to describe the condition of the Palestinians? The occupier rules, not the occupied.Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Denial of the occupation is pure anti-Palestinian racism. Ignorance is NOT an excuse. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Being occupied and having a large amount of autonomous rule over your territory even if under military occupation is not mutually exclusive. Military occupation exists. And the Palestinians also have a wide degree of autonomy in Area A and somewhat less in Area B. These territories are occupied and they are also to a large extent under Palestinian rule. In any event it's a far better way of describing it than with the apartheid connotations "bantustan" generates.--RM (Be my friend) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, a more elegant solution than this wishy-washy bullshit would have been an apology. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I stand by everything I said. How about you actually argue the points rather than dismiss things you don't like as "wishy-washy bullshit?"--RM (Be my friend) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, yes I was referring to the fact that you already moved your position by not repeating the offensive claim of "under Palestinian rule far more than Israeli rule". I have just provided you further information above. I strongly suggest you stop making these unfounded racist assertions; a little research would go a long way. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I was going to suggest editing the article, preferably with suitable sourcing, to back up what appear to be mostly personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment I suggest the entrenched sides step back and consider another move proposal below I made because I did not see this one. I see some people here suggested something similar. IMO my suggestion is more acceptable to both parties, because it is neutral and more natural that the one suggested here. If a quick !vote shows viability of my proposal, we can close this one (7 days passed), otherwise you may kill mine and continue the dispute here, which, seems to me, is strongly stuck is a "no-consensus" zone. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok so the second RM has just been closed as there cannot be two such conversations at once. Should we continue this discussion or agree to close this and reopen the second one? RM (Be my friend) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion will hopefully be closed soon; after that point, if there is still interest in discussing the other one, anyone should feel free to reopen it. --JBL (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Although it's jumping the gun a bit, I still think that we should consider following the Afd closer's recommendation that we do an RFC, a potential problem with controversial renames is they end up with nocon, nocon and no resolution. If we follow the closer's recommendation explicitly, which we need not if we don't want to, then the simplest way of proceeding is to ask the relevant questions directly "Should the title be changed?" and "If yes, suggest a title" or something like that. Admittedly an RFC takes longer but usually produces a result in the end. If we go directly to RFC we can treat the Afd and this rm as WP:RFCBEFORE so that outside participants understand what the rfc is actually about. As for closing this discussion, the usual thing with IP discussions is we need an uninvolved third party to do that and since this whole thing falls into the controversial category, probably ought to be an admin or at the very least a very experienced closer. Unless most of us agree to close it, then we need not wait.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This RM has been vitiated from the outset by jumping the gun.

  • It should have started as a request for readers to examine the article and find a title appropriate to its content, perhaps with a list of possible titles including the present one.
  • The proposed move has been shown to be a misnaming. 'Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule' cannot fit the article as we have it since (a) what is meant by 'Palestinian rule' is unclear (/Peteet 2016) states that full self-rule doesn't exist in any of the areas where some Palestinian jurisdiction exists. (b) a large part of the content concerns a process, not an achieved reality as implied by both the present title and the alternative one being voted on.
  • In the meantime the majority of votes of support are concerned not with the content, but the ostensible breech of NPOV in the title, with a clear claim that as it stands the 'Bantustan' is, well, libellous of Israel (WP:BLP almost being applied to a state) because it implies an analogy with features of Apartheid, and such analogies are taboo because false.
  • There has been very little discussion of the content of the article. Indeed we have suggestions that the page be renamed in a way that the new name will then dictate a rewriting of the article, not in terms of what we have here, but in terms of putative 'Palestinian rule'. No one has explained how one is supposed to do that. Whether the idea has any precedent.
  • As I understand it, editors should address directly the basic issue here which is:

How are we to name an article that documents in good part Israeli thinking about a Bantustan model for the West BankNishidani (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Simple. We should name it with something completely neutral, such as enclaves or my favorite, areas under Palestinian autonomy. We should then put forward both sides in the article itself. So the claims of people claiming that they are bantustans and those who deny it should be equally represented. Actually the side arguing that these are bantustans is already well-represented and we need more alternate viewpoints (the current article almost reads like something out of Electronic Intifada). As for bantustans in Israeli thinking, pretty much nobody uses that term (what Ariel Sharon allegedly said in private notwisthanding) except for some people on the Israeli left when it comes to criticizing the right's proposals (which the right itself doesn't describe as bantustans).--RM (Be my friend) 11:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately, you are not the sole arbiter of neutrality. I take it you want to wait for the rm to be closed, right? Meantime, if you want to do something useful bring your sources forward and edit the article.Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It is fortunate because RM’s post is replete with misrepresentation.
  • “We should then put forward both sides in the article itself. So the claims of people claiming that they are bantustans and those who deny it should be equally represented. Actually the side arguing that these are bantustans is already well-represented and we need more alternate viewpoints” => RM has ignored all requests to bring references in which people claim that bantustan is a non-neutral term. Noone is objecting to having such references in the article, if they exist. I have been looking for weeks and have not found any.
  • “As for bantustans in Israeli thinking, pretty much nobody uses that term... except for some people on the Israeli left” => Colin Powell and Martin Indyk are nobodies then? Daniel Levy, Gershom Gorenberg, Avi Primor, Ze'ev Schiff, Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar are nobodies too? Many words and phrases are not used by the far-right, including “Palestinians are a real people”, “Human rights”, and “the occupation”; but they are used by the rest of the world and are real things.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Reneem. That is dodging the question (and this whole thread is an egregious illustration of sidestepping). The point is not balancing claims, but documenting the fact that key figures in Israel had Bantustans in mind. The current article doesn't source Electronic Intifada but a lot of peer-reviewed historical scholarship, quite a bit from Israel. Ariel Sharon was the major figure in going beyond makeshift tinkerings negotiated with Palestinians to the unilateral implementation of a policy he thought was bantustanization. If Israeli leaders had no qualms about calling a spade a spade, neither should we. Whatever title is to be adopted, wikipedians should not have foremost in mind euphemisms designed to bury history out of respect for a taboo insisted on by official Israeli public discourse, which regards (this has multiple dopcumentation precisely re this point) any analogy that might resonate with the SA nexus unacceptable and, irony of ironies, 'racist' if not indeed anti-SemiticNishidani (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Except that there's no evidence that Israel is pursuing a policy of bantustanization. Sharon allegedly said something years before he became PM in private and you take it as if that must mean his entire policy, years later when he noticeably flipped his views, was bantustanization, when he withdrew from Gaza, including the Egyptian border, and was planning something similar in the West Bank called the Realignment plan. Israeli leaders have never outright publicly stated that they intended to create bantustans. There is no official public discourse that openly refers to bantustans.--RM (Be my friend) 13:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Bit like the "official public discourse" on occupied East Jerusalem, occupied WB, occupied Gaza and occupied Golan, then ie non existent. So what?Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move Current title fails WP:POVTITLE and is anti-semitic to boot. I prefer the the name "West Bank Palestinian Enclaves" as it is shorter and more to the point, but anything that does not use the word "Bantustans" is a tremendous improvement.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule - Is it exciting? No. Invoke a lot of passion? No. Is it accurate? Yes. I say go with the descriptive title for now, we can devote a whole paragraph to how the areas are viewed by a lot of commentators as bantustans. That said, I see nothing inherently anti-Semetic in criticising the Israeli state for a policy decision, which is essentially what the "bantustan" label is. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Indy beetle, “...under Palestine rule” is denial of the occupation, which is anti-Palestinian. If the proposed title has been written accurately there might be less passionate opposition here. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Onceinawhile Citing a pro-Palestinian blog on Medium rather than an actual source and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of racism is not proper debating.--RM (Be my friend) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
A quote from Saint Augustine for you. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I do wonder whether those supporting the proposed title have read the article West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. The "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" per that article are exactly Area A (B is shared, C is Israeli control). So the proposed title covers Palestinian Area A. But it is self-evident by inspection that Area A is neither the subject nor the focus of this article. So not only is the proposed title "descriptive", undesirable in and of itself, it is not accurate either. It is quite simply, wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I do wonder whether some editors have read the support comments along the lines of, "Well, the proposed title isn't perfect, but it's better than the current." I also do wonder if it is going to take an noticeboard report to get certain editors to stop bludgeoning every support !voter, and stop making accusations of "anti-Palestinian", racism, etc., at those who disagree with them. Levivich harass/hound 19:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Equally I wonder whether some editors have read the oppose comments which show clearly that the proposed title is non-neutral and fails all five policy criteria for article titles. Those comments also show that whilst the current title has faced claims of non-neutrality, zero sources supporting this claim have been provided. I am shocked at the one sidedness of your last sentence; you didn’t notice the multiple baseless aspersions of antisemitism being thrown around? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The proposed title is less non-neutral than the current: that's my opinion and the opinion of some other support !voters here. It's another way of saying the proposed title is more neutral than the current. That the proposed title isn't perfectly neutral is, in my opinion, no reason to oppose, so long as it's more neutral. We can always move it again. I don't actually see any aspersions of antisemitism being thrown around. That is, I don't see anyone accusing an editor of antisemitism. Some editors think the title is antisemitic, as do some sources; I disagree. I don't think criticism of Israel, even criticism that calls Israel an apartheid state, is antisemitic. (It's not NPOV and we shouldn't say it wikivoice, just to be clear, but anti-Israel is not always or necessarily antisemitism. There are Jews who call Israel an apartheid state.) Levivich harass/hound 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it? Which is closer to the truth, that the Palestinian “islands” in the West Bank function like the original South African bantustans, or implying there is no Israeli occupation in these areas. The first is question of the degree of similarity, the second is an outright lie. Just like your statement above about what “some sources” think of the title of this article - an outright lie. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Finding sources stating this isn't hard. BBC reporting on US considering groups using apartheid rhetoric as being antisemitc. This academic expert book on antisemitism describes the aparheid rhetoric as an antisemitic canard, and notes the viewpoint of: "The singling-out of Israel as an “apartheid state,” therefore, is a form of incitement and in itself may be an expression of racism". The title of this article is manifestly not neutral, to the point that it utilizes rhetoric considered to be a canard by some experts, and should be changed. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@11Fox11: Your extrapolation fails two fallacies.
  • The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car.
  • The noncentral fallacy is the mistaken argument that "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member." Characterizing Martin Luther King as a "criminal" is an example of this, since he technically broke a law against peaceful anti-segregation protest.
I am still waiting for a source which states that the use of the term bantustan for these areas in the West Bank is non-neutral. Perhaps someone should should mention this news to Colin Powell, Martin Indyk, Daniel Levy, Gershom Gorenberg, Avi Primor, Ze'ev Schiff, Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar.... Onceinawhile (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Funny how you argue the fallacy of division when right above you were comparing the situation in the West Bank to the bantustans of South Africa, implying that they were similar to what is going on in the West Bank. Anyway, Powell and Indyk are not Israelis, thus irrelevant. Moving on, Wikipedia's job is to be neutral. Politicians express their opinions but many will disagree just as strongly. It's Wikipedia's job to present both in a neutral term. I could just as easily bring up a bunch of right-wing Israeli politicians as a source to argue that we should rename the West Bank article "Judea and Samaria". Would that be acceptable? The people you've brought up mostly have one point of view, being on the Israeli left (Benvenisti in particular was in cuckoo land by the standards of most Israeli Jews due to his advocacy of a binational state), and they should have their views quoted in the article, but Wikipedia should not back up their views with it's own voice.--RM (Be my friend) 08:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
It is not the editors who are comparing the West Bank situation to SA's bantustans: it is the literature. And you should read up who Meron Benvenisti, for example, was: a brilliant geographer, deputy major of Jerusalem, and a scholar of distinction. His views about a binational state compared to what most Israelis might think are irrelevant. (b)As to your point that Israel does not explicitly compare the enclaves to Bantustans, that is ridiculous. Were it to do so, it would incur immediate legal problems and be subject to international sanctions (c) it refers rather to this institution as hafrada which is as literal a translation of 'apartheid' as one can get. (c) The 'trick' consists in saying, almost comically,, that the Hebrew term means 'separation' (civic, geographical and 'racial') whereas apartheid means, um, . .apartheid (in Afrikaans), 'separation'(civic, geographical and 'racial'). (d) Every one rushing in here to scream POV! appears to be concerned that Israel might have its reputation tainted by the implications. Well, the Palestinians in their 'pens' would probably been equally put out or off by the fact that NPOV is always raised re descriptions of Israeli actions, but very rarely when their realities are described on Wikipedia. (e) Just as we distinguish 'developing nations' from 'developed nations', meaning the former make plans or strive to take the road towards, but are not yet, 'developed' (industrialized) nations, so one should distinguish between 'bantustanization' (a process with a goal, not yet achieved) from bantustans, an achieved reality. The flaw in the title lies here: it should be 'Bantustanization/enclavization' of the West Bank'. One decisive difference is that bantustans were underwritten by the leaders of those pseudo-states, whereas Palestinian leaders have yet to endorses the creation of these satrapies (f) 'It's' in the last sentence should be written 'its'.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Some literature, not the literature. Usually it's literature pushing a particular point of view. The bantustan argument is nearly always invoked to compare Israel to an apartheid state. I could just as easily argue that "West Bank" should be renamed "Judea and Samaria", cite some right-wing sources, and claim the literature is saying the same thing to. And for the record, I actually speak Hebrew, "Hafrada" means "separation", it means the need to divorce the Palestinians. Nothing about keeping the Palestinians in enclaves since it could just as easily mean a unilateral withdrawal from most of the West Bank as Sharon was planning with his Realignment plan. Basically the need to disentangle the populations. And no it should not be "bantustanization/enclavization", it should be a totally neutral term with the allegations of bantustanization included in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 11:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
You must be reading a different set of sources given that you wrote "... is nearly always invoked to compare Israel to an apartheid state"; that is simply not true. Of course some sources do that, but not most, and definitely not "nearly always". I understand how those with a defensive mindset could assume that, but most of the sources in this article are not focused on that at all. To use my fallacy of division analogy of a car and its wheels, most commentators who use the term are writing about these islands / fragments (so the wheels) and are not passing judgement on Israel itself (so the car). This is why I have found this conversation so frustrating - too many editors so focused on ensuring the brand of the car is not damaged, when the article is not about that at all.
And as for the statement that you "could just as easily argue that "West Bank" should be renamed "Judea and Samaria"" based on right wing sources, that is again incorrect. West Bank is the WP:COMMONNAME. What do you think is the WP:COMMONNAME here?
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem. I suspect you, like many here, have not read some of the literature, let alone all of it bearing on this topic. Now, the delete nominator of the original AfD actually took the trouble to do so, and singled out Julie Peteet's 2016 article (Julie Peteet, The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid, jstor=43955521 in Anthropological Quarterly Winter 2016, volume 89,1 pp. 247–281) as the most impressive and cogent contribution to the debate. Since apparently no one other than the editors constructing the article read it, I'll do their homework. Peteet concludes that the term enclave is to be preferred to Bantustan (and we are discussing this on my page, to avoid noise overload). In that text, before disowning Sharon's term, she makes these comparisons

  • (1) Both Israel and South Africa are colonial states in terms of historical origins
  • (2) Both were originally supported by Great Britain
  • (3) foundationally, both colonizing populations had an ideology of separation and exclusivism.
  • (4)Both crafted discontinuous territorial margins with limited sovereignty to the indigenous populations
  • (5)Both states crystallized after wars which cleared off the dispersed communities throughout the nations and herded them into confined spaces
  • (6) the ethnically cleansed territory, 87% of the land in both cases, was defined for the exclusive use of the incoming ethnic migrants.
  • (7) Access to resources like land was determined by racial and ethno-religious affiliation
  • (8) violence and laws legislated by the dominant minority took place to restrict indigenous rights.
  • (9) Territorially, a division arose between white/Jewish areas and black/Palestinian areas
  • (10) Indigenous mobility was monitored, with bureaucratic rules, a pass system, hampering movement. In Israel permits and checkpoints functioned in addition to the colour-coded passw permit system.
  • (11) Both indigenous populations suffered forcible relocation
  • (12) In both the dislocation was in part related to the need to exploit the cheap laboural reservoir in the native populations
  • (13) Legislation played a key role in the mechanisms of dispossession
  • (14) Violence, physical abuse and torture were commonplace
  • (15) Israel alone recognized SA and the two enjoyed close diplomatic and trade relationships, extending to outlawed nuclear technology
  • (16) In both cases, the success of the colonizers gave rise to militant resistance groups, the ANC and the PLO (both branded as terroristic) ( a point of difference: the ANC succeeded, the PLO has failed)

There is nothing controversial in these analogies. The distinction between the two 'bantustans' is that, she argues, of (a) demographic proportions and (b) labour arrangements. Palestinians have population parity with Israeli Jews, whereas the blacks had an overwhelming majority over whites. Secondly, blacks were cheap service labour in the SA economy, whereas Palestinian labour is excluded from Israel's economy.

In short, the refrain here that any form of analogizing, or hint of an analogy between the Palestinian enclaves and South African apartheid is horrendously NPOV can only be honestly pushed by those who refuse to familiarize themselves with the literature. In 16 points of comparison, 14 (one could add to the list) underwrite an analogy, and only two can be read as failing to bear comparison (and even they are disputed: Israel does use Palestinian labourers from their enclaves). Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Can this please be closed?!

This is never going to end at this rate. And it's useless to be arguing this here, I think we can all agree that "areas under Palestinian rule" is not an optimal title, sure me and other support voters think it's better than the current title but it's not great. Some people who hate the bantustans title voted oppose just because they don't like this particular suggestion. In my opinion Shrike had the right intentions in getting rid of this blatantly POV title but really jumped the gun when picking a name. Nobody thinks this name is good, the only debate now is whether or not this name is better than "bantustans". We already had an ongoing discussion over "enclaves", I prefer "enclaves" or "areas under Palestinian autonomy". I think everyone knows by now that this discussion will ultimately be closed without result and we will just move to discussing a new name so why continue to go back and forth here when we can just close this and consider a more productive replacement name instead? Let's close this and reopen the other discussion.--RM (Be my friend) 11:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you be comfortable with (after this closure) a one week RfC where everyone is asked to state their preferred names, ideally with explanatory justification and supporting citations. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes that sounds good to me.--RM (Be my friend) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that in principle although I am not exactly clear as to how we get from here to there? I don't think we three are enough to close this, we need more agreement, don't we? I don't think you can specify an end date for an RFC, there needs to be a resolution ie a consensus in order to close it, you keep going till you get one or everybody gets bored and someone shows up or is asked to come close it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Onceinawhile Let's ask someone to close this. It's gone on long enough and I want a speedy resolution to the naming dispute.--RM (Be my friend) 13:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Reenem, OK. I think WP:RFCL is the best place. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

* Oppose These areas are only nominally under Palestinian rule. Just like ghettos were under Jewish rule.AhmadNN (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Struck, not eligible to vote. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak support. The proposed title is not ideal, in my opinion, but it is far better than the current title. If this passes, I'd recommend further discussion after the move on figuring out a better title. --Yair rand (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
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.

Bantustans in the Encyclopedia of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Does anyone have access to the Encyclopedia of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict (edited by Cheryl Rubenberg and published by Lynne Rienner Publishers)?

The index of articles is here.

Crucially, the encyclopedia's index has three references covering the topic of this article:

  • Bantustans
  • Cantons (See Bantustans)
  • Enclaves (See Bantustans)

This strikes me as very strong proof that we have got the title correct here. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

All I see here is an editor clutching at straws and dredging up every source that uses the term and stuffing it into the article. A relative small proportion of sources use this highly POV language, as can be see in this NGRAM. However this is drowned out by Areas A and B, and even more drowned out by Palestinian autonomy. Sources using "Bantustans" are so few and far between that it shows up on the graph as a flat line in comparison to anything else. Another suggested, more neutral title, of Palestinian enclaves, is also much more popular than "bantustans", though still much less popular than "Areas A and B" or "Palestinian autonomy". 11Fox11 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Aha. Due to the strength of this new source I see we are finally discussing the topic we should have been focused on for these last two weeks: WP:COMMONNAME. Excellent.
We have some work to do though. Before using Ngrams results it is advisable to put the terms directly into google books, inside inverted commas. Searching in googlebooks for "Areas A and B" brings up mostly mathematics textbooks, and searching for "Palestinian autonomy" brings up mostly discussions about the legal form of statehood. (Also note that even if Areas A and B did produce precise hits for the West Bank areas, it refers to only a small section of the topic of this article). Unfortunately very few of the hits for those two ngrams reference the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Once, maybe you would like to "stuff" this that I "dredged up" into the article (and please pass a straw for me to clutch at):
Baroness Tonge, The Lord Rudd and The Lord Oates had no difficulty in using the word Bantustan(s) in a House of Lords debate re Trump peace plan. The Marquess of Lothian was more circumspect, "The proposed illegal land grab and the quasi-Bantustan configuration of what would be left would hardly meet the concept of a genuine Palestinian state." Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
If you are dredging up The right honourable Baroness Tonge who quit her party after being suspended for comments deemed as antisemitic and has since faced calls for her removal due to more comments deemed antisemitic, then you truly are grasping at straws. The biased POV language here is obvious. It is also pejorative. I think that an appropriate proposal here would be to merge the article to Palestinian Autonomy, as it describes exactly the same thing. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
She is in good company. There should be an RFC soon, I look forward to your contribution.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
No, she isn't. Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@11Fox11: I thought for a minute you were going to start having a sensible discussion here. But instead of continuing to discuss COMMONNAME, you now pivot to suggesting we should merge an article about a government with an article about a place. Merging all government articles with all place articles would be a major departure from Wikipedia norms, so I suggest you propose your novel idea at a broader forum like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography.
Seriously though, let's move on from the AfD question already. An article on "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century" is not going to be deleted.
If you and others of like mind can focus on the question of what is the best name for this article, we might be able to find a consensus position. But if you keep flailing around with ever more bizarre proposals we will not get anywhere. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a fine article in Haaretz today about how extreme measures, amounting to virtual witchhunts, are taken if even the slightest comparison is made to some similarities between Israeli policies in the West Bank and the South African case. Whole careers can be ruined. Achille Mbembe was invited to speak in Germany. A blogger in the Cameroons tipped off the fact that in his 9 volumes, there is some scant passing reference to the analogy. He was blocked from attending, the woman who organized the cultural event lost her job, the politician who endorsed the censure knew nothing of the evidence, and Josef Schuster put his seal of approval on the measures. Note that facts played no role in the furore, nor cogency of arguments. More or less as in these threads. But it is a sign that some minimal resistance to this vigorous and politically motivated silencing of the historical record still obtains on Wikipedia, even if, as was predictable from the outset, the suppressio veri cause would ring in superior numbers. See Itay Mashiach, 'In Germany, a witch hunt is raging against critics of Israel. Cultural leaders have had enough,' Haaretz 10 December 2020.Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Npr don't mind asking the question or at least reporting on a discussion of it: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/944332160/do-palestinians-in-israeli-occupied-west-bank-live-under-apartheid Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

I've placed an NPOV tag on the article, for the following reasons: 1.It has attributed statements in the lead. For this subject, no single person is so important that their attributed statement should be in the lead. The lead should be entirely in wikivoice, leaving attributed statements for the body.

 removed Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

2.The "Background" section consists entirely of what one person "prophesied" in 1931. The word itself is not neutral and should not be used in wikivoice, but also there is much more to "background" than the opinion of one person in 1931.

 rephrased Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

3.It omits large time periods that basically no RS about Israel/Palestine omits:

    1. Pre-1931
    2. 1931-1948
    3. The 1948 war
    4. 1948-1967
 This concept began in 1967 with the Israeli takeover of the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

4.The 1967-1995 section gives undue weight to:

    1. What a small group of officers advocated for in 1967
    2. The attributed opinions of two ministers (out of dozens and dozens of ministers who served during this period)
    3. The attributed opinion of Avi Primor
    4. The 1984 Ariel/Peres thing
 This has been significantly expanded to be broader in scope Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

5.It omits intifadas in the body.

I have not found sources which connect the this to the topic of this article; if you have them please do share. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

6.It presents "bantustanization" as the primary motivation for Israel's actions in all of its time periods; it doesn't address shifts in Israeli motivations; it doesn't address security as a motivation, but seems to treat security as a pretext.

 This has been significantly expanded to be broader in scope Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

7.It gives undue weight to Sharon's plan as compared to other plans, such as Camp David II.

 This has been significantly expanded to be broader in scope Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

8.The "Land confiscation" section shouldn't use the word "confiscation", and gives undue weight to the opinion of a single UN official, via a blockquote.

Which word should we use instead? It will need to be sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

9.It gives undue weight to the Trump peace plan compared with other plans. I think this is an example of WP:RECENTISM. I don't think anyone took the "Trump peace plan" seriously.

 This has been significantly expanded to be broader in scope Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

10."Names" section should be at the top, not the bottom, of the article.

 Moved as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not an exhaustive list (please feel free to list other issues if they exist), but it's long enough (for one editor) already. Many of these are details that I suggest would be resolved by resolving the larger question about the article title and scope. However, our readers should be alerted to these NPOV concerns, and so I'm listing these here and placing the tag now. Looking forward to everyone's thoughts. Levivich harass/hound 19:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Some comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The {{done}} template is used to indicate that an issue is resolved but not all the items marked done are resolved. In think we should hear from more editors before marking anything done or not done, etc. This is not an edit request, it's a discussion, after all. Levivich harass/hound 18:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Look. At few of us don't hang round forums and articles. We read the historical literature for hours every day. This is, so far. about the concept of Bantustan and bantustanization in Israeli thinking and outsider impressions of interim measures. Most of the above is specious nitpicking that, to illustrate, reveals you have little practical grasp on what writing historical articles involves. If you have an Israeli historian, now teaching at Oxford, like Avi Raz, writing in a book about a subject he is a peer-reviewed expert on, what a small group of officers thought about bantustans in the 1960s, to suggest citing this is WP:Undue is frankly puerile. What's your premise, we need to legitimize the item's presence by multi-sourcing? No. Given the scholar's expertise, his workplace, the peer-reviewed book he wrote for, you accept it, because it directly addresses the topic of the article. Nearly every point you mucked up above shows unfamiliarity with hands on construction of complex articles.
If as the above article is not to your likes, take some time off, as most content editors here do, research the material covering the points you wish to be mentioned, and write an article that meets all of the criteria you mention above.If you don't want to do the background reading to create an article, then read all of the sources used so far, over 60, and give us the version of the article you would write on that basis. We did this at the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Three people undertook to give their different drafts to the community so admins could decide between the two. It went on to be an FA article.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried to balance this POV but the sources were removed see Talk:West_Bank_bantustans#Recent_addition-Shrike (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Tried and failed, for the reasons given in that section. If you think talking about bantustans is an extreme left wing clique's anti-Semitic hangup symptom. Ariel Sharon will be turning in his grave. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Its the sources that thinks so. --Shrike (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Sources don't think. Is that polemical stuff indeed supposed to reflect back on the editors like myself who contributed to this article. When you started The Jew Among Thorns I reformatted it and doubled its content Was there some fiendishly clever motivation in my doing that? rather than the simple fact that I wasn't following you but noticed it and have a large shelf of books on children's literature and on anti-Semitism and follow those topics?Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I see now AlmostFrancis and Shrike are now teaming to revert stuff out. When you can't argue a point, that's the violent option, create an edit-warring atmosphere and then shout WP:Battleground. It's what socks do, and several are on this page.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Shrike. Arnold Toynbee was one of the greatest historians of the last century. He wrote a long review article for Chatham House in 1931. It is not a primary source, it is a secondary source, and is self-evidently germane because he foresaw that something like South African segregation would inevitably arise in Mandatory Palestine. He was wrong in timing. Something like a Bantustan, a later development of segregation, arose after 1967 beyond Israel's armistice borders. That is interesting as background. It does not reflect on Israel, it reflects on what he thought Great Britain should do to guarantee Palestinian rights! One of history's ironies. The objection that this is primary means you and the other editor don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. The only objection would be that it does not mention specifically 'bantustans' but their embryonic predecessors in the SA system. Whatever, cancelling it impoverishes the article, and investing huge amounts of time creating a silly unfocused ruckus of objections that don't stand up to a minute's scrutiny is disruptive. How this place expects to retain competent content editors with so much superficial politicking frigging around with talkpage pettifoggery is beyond me.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Please support teaming up and any socking accusations. I have never worked with Shrike as far as I know and am not a sock puppet of anyone. If you can't support I ask you to strike your comments.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Whoever you may be, to judge by [this edit] you shouldn't be editing here. Editors who rewrite text without reading the source are on extremely dangerous ground. You rewrote to 'Many Israeli proposals for the conflict have involved noncontiguous areas of Palestinian control. The source quoted states: 'all foresaw Israeli control of significant West Bank territory, a Palestinian existence on minimal territory surrounded, divided, and, ultimately, controlled by Israel.' Deliberate source falsification is extremely disruptive because it causes editors undue extra work if caught, and is something which, if reported, gets sanctioned. You're lucky I don't report people. Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That is the second time you have implied I am a sock of someone. The next time I will report you to AE. I would prefer however you just strike out your accusations and we mover forward on content.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The lead should follow the body and does not need citations. The body makes note of multiple Israeli peace plans involving areas of control by Palestinians. Three of the plans in the list, Allon plus, Camp David, and Ariel Sharon's, all called for Palestinian control is some areas. If I had written "sovreinity" or "statehood" you would have a point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Nishidani, And when someone readd your edit then they teaming up with you? Please drop you WP:BATTLE mode Shrike (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Please take some time to reread what you write. The above remark is incomprehensible.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that edit does not at all reflect the source and is verging on tendentious editing. We'll get back to it I guess, it's not that critical right now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, it has to be reverted. For the moment, one only notes that, notified here of his distortion of the source, the offending editor hasn't stepped back in to correct the mess they created. That is one index of the problem with this editor.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I might be alone in this, but I don't think we should be using non-academic sources in this article. The reason is because there is such a huge quantity of top-shelf academic RSes about Palestine that we don't need newspapers, periodicals, websites, and other media organizations, which are always going to be of a lower quality than books by university publishers and peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals. I don't think it's really DUE to include what The Guardian or Haaretz or Financial Times or Al Jazeera or Vox publishes about this topic. That's just popular press; we should stick with academic. Levivich harass/hound 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting of the RFC

As well as discussing the title, an @Drsmoo:editor appears to have strong views on how the table given in the RFC should be presented. Better to discuss that here first rather than just inserting this or that version without any discussion. Otherwise we will end up having an edit war over what the RFC should "look like". Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, don't list names that were never suggested and claim they were. Also, don't have duplicate names. The point of any table in this context should be to list the names that are under consideration, with the goal of moving towards consensus. It should not be to create a muddled, incoherent mess with close to half the names listed never having been suggested, duplicate names, etc. Drsmoo (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
That's your opinion, the fact remains we now have an RFC with 2 tables? Should we allow other editors to insert their versions as well? Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not my opinion that close to half the names on the first table were never suggested, that's a statement of fact. I initially simply struck through the names that were never actually suggested. That was reverted, which I believe is against wikipolicy. I then created a more concise table that lays out actually suggested names and their popularity. This wouldn't actually cause confusion, but any suggestion for a better method is welcome. Drsmoo (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the objection at all. Firstly, why? I hereby suggest all the other names. So they can be added now, as it is supposed to be a dynamic table, covering new suggestions as well as old. Secondly, you have missed a whole bunch of names which were suggested, presumably because you are only including names where the commenter spelt out every word in a searchable format rather than provided rationale for the names which are then formed here. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It is also possible to do without a table entirely and let participants plough their way through the entire mess of discussions and there are doubtless other possibilities as well. I am fairly sure that Once was only trying to be helpful to participants when he created the first table not create a fuss over what ought to be in the table. The RFC cannot really go on until this is resolved.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course it can Drsmoo (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
No, it can't, the RFC itself cannot be the subject of a dispute. If you had added your table as a comment in response to the RFC rather than making it a part of the RFC then we could have continued.Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'll modify it to a comment. Drsmoo (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The RFC has a ridiculous number of choices (almost 40!). That would have been good to lay out for a pre-RFC discussion. I'm rolling my eyes a bit, after people were saying "The first RM was launched too soon! The second RM was launched too soon!" that we're now launching the RFC without any pre-discussion about RFC formatting (the discussion was started after the RFC was launched). So my suggestion would be to cull that list of almost 40 down to like the most popular 3-4 options, as Drsmoo has done. Levivich harass/hound 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This idea of this is literally a "request for comments". Comments, not voting. I know how people love to "vote". The idea is that we listen to each other first, then we can vote in a subsequent discussion. Is a little patience really too much to ask? I guess you must be worried that people reading about the West Bank bantustans might see what Moshe Dayan had in mind when he proposed it half a century ago - we better hide it quickly, huh. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I have corrected the misleading impression created by Drsmoo.Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Please let's try to get through this leg without the personal attacks and ABF, Onceinawhile. Levivich harass/hound 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This RfC is absolutely impossible to navigate as formatted, and I doubt it has any reasonable likelihood of producing a consensus around a single option. A good RfC requires discretion and presenting a narrow, focused topic for discussion, not a throw it all at the wall and see what sticks approach. Is there a reason that this can't be trimmed? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, this is a two-stage aproach. We are not trying to get an outcome in this round, but rather looking to listen to editors’ unconstrained views. The two prior discussions have been binary in nature and did not get us anywhere, so it is time for an open discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: There some room between a binary proposal (2 options) and a proposal containing 40 options. If you want to start a discussion that's likely to go somewhere productive, narrowing down the list seems likely to help in that direction. And frankly, some of the options included are just ridiculous and can clearly be omitted, as they will almost certainly gather no support. You might want to be concerned about the list coming off as WP:POINTY. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
In this topic area it is impossible to please everyone. There is so little trust between editors. I remember this dynamic from a discussion earlier this year, and of course with Drsmoo who has built strong feelings over many years.
If I had put a small number of names, someone would have suggested that I was trying to skew the outcome. If I had put no names at all people would have complained that we were just going to rehash the last two no consensus outcomes. There is no scenario is which an assumption of bad faith was not possible. You can take the discussion in any direction you like, so let's just get on with it rather than second guessing each other ad nauseam. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. I would still suggest narrowing the list slightly with strikethroughs for names that seem to violate policy. "Swiss cheese" or names mentioning "ghettos" for territories not yet established seems to violate naming conventions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey! "Swiss cheese state" results in 30k hits on Google. That more than what most other proposed names get. "Swiss cheese Palestinian state" is a perfectly cromulent title for this article. Also, swiss cheese is tasty so clearly not offensive as those anti-Israel "bantustan" and "ghetto" names. ImTheIP (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: What is the best name for this article?

Please comment on your preferred name(s) for this article, justify your comment with sources, and add any new proposals into the table below so we can keep track. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

List of names proposed by participants in the discussion so far

List of names proposed by participants in the discussion so far
1. West Bank only 2. All Palestine-related (i.e. incl Gaza and EJ)
1a. Place names 1b. Ongoing-process names 2a. Place names 2b. Ongoing-process names
  • West Bank bantustans
  • West Bank enclaves
  • West Bank Palestinian enclaves
  • West Bank cantons
  • West Bank archipelago
  • West Bank ghettos
  • West Bank Palestinian islands
  • Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule
  • Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian partial autonomy
  • Israeli-supported West Bank enclaves
  • Swiss cheese West Bank maps
  • Proposed West Bank bantustans
  • Proposed division of the West Bank
  • Fragmentation of the West Bank
  • Proposals for discontiguous Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank
  • Plans for disconnected Palestinian autonomy
  • West Bank leftover autonomy plans
  • Geo-political ghettoization of Palestine
  • Alleged geo-political ghettoization of Palestine
  • Potential noncontiguous Palestinian state
  • Palestine archipelago
  • Palestinian bantustans
  • Palestinian enclaves
  • Palestinian cantons
  • Palestinian ghettos
  • Areas of Palestinian partial autonomy
  • Swiss cheese Palestine
  • Proposed Palestinian Territory
  • Proposed State of Palestine
  • Palestinian bantunstanization
  • Palestinian ghettoization
  • Palestinian enclavization
  • Bantustanization of Palestine
  • Disconnected Palestinian autonomy plans
  • Swiss cheese Palestinian autonomy plans
  • Proposed partition of Palestine

Participants may wish to read the discussions leading up to this RFC: No consensus Deletion proposal of 14 November and No consensus Rename proposal of 24 November

RfC Comments:

The following proposed names are the ones that have already been suggested by multiple editors across this talk page/RfCs/AfD, in the context of serving as possible replacements for "West Bank bantustans" or "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" both of which failed to gain consensus:
  • West Bank enclaves
  • West Bank Palestinian enclaves
  • Palestine archipelago
  • Palestinian enclaves
Drsmoo (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the name proposed most often is the one it has now ie West Bank Bantustans which had way more votes than all the others except possibly the nonsense one proposed in the RM. SO not the ones that Drsmoo says. Since people think it is OK to slant the discussion according to our personal POV, I'll add that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
which had way more votes than all the others except possibly the nonsense one proposed in the RM If it had more votes, then maybe it wasn't nonsense? Levivich harass/hound 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Is that a comment or an amendment to the RFC?Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Palestinian enclaves Short, neutral and to the point. Also wouldn't mind Proposed Palestinian Territory or evenProposed Areas of Palestinian Autonomy. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Palestinian enclaves Most natural title, though I'll also support any neutral title, as the current title is non-neutral, and has been described as such in reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Palestinian enclaves best complies with WP:AT (recognizable, natural, precise, and concise) and other policies (V, NPOV, etc.). I guess its better than "West Bank enclaves" because it's broader; "Palestinian enclaves" would be a parent article of "West Bank enclaves". "Enclavization" is an awkward af word for our readers, it's not a common word, and the history of how the enclaves became enclaves can be adequately covered in an article called "Palestinian enclaves". "Enclaves" is broader than "enclavization" and thus better. None of the other titles hit AT and NPOV as well as this one, IMO. Levivich harass/hound 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, I noticed NGrams puts "Palestinian enclaves" well ahead of "Palestinian bantustans" ("West Bank bantustans" doesn't even register on NGrams) [3]. "Palestinian enclave(s)" also polls ahead of "West Bank enclave(s)" on Ngrams [4]. Levivich harass/hound 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
See below re WP:PRECISION. Unfortunately these ngrams results for enclaves include a large number of out-of-scope hits. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Proposed Palestinian enclaves" This is not a currently recognized set of land or aspect of any peace proposal. Loaded terms like "bantustans" and "ghettos" should be avoided, as should "Swiss cheese." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Neither Bantustans nor enclaves adequately describes the situation of areas in the West Bank Israel has assigned, ostensibly provisionally, to Palestinians. We have so far spoken of Bantustans because that is (a) the model Israeli planners had in mind in penning in Palestinians to restricted areas and (b) the usage is solidly attested by numerous academic sources, suiting WP:Common name. Both ‘Bantustan’ and ‘enclave’ imply an implemented reality, which is not strictly speaking the case here. As has been repeatedly noted, since we are dealing with a long-drawn out historical process, the minimal requirement here must describe this as a process by adding the suffix –ization (bantustanization/enclavization).
The objection to the former is that Bantustan(ization) is not 'neutral', whereas ‘enclave’ is, therefore the rote suggestion that we change it to Palestinian enclaves
Is enclave ‘neutral’ or even accurate?
The West Bank is, in international law, unequivocably all Palestinian land. To speak of tiny fragments in it as ‘enclaves’ is to insinuate unambiguously an Israeli POV reading of the situation.
An enclave is, according to the 1989 2nd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary

‘A portion of territory entirely surrounded by foreign dominions.’ OED 1989 vol.5 p.211 col.3

According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, an enclave is:

'an area of a country or city where the people have a different religion, culture or nationality from those who live in the country or city that surrounds it.'

Both definitions, in terms of international legal terminology, imply that rather than Israeli settlements being ‘enclaves’ (areas where Jews, differing from the surrounding Palestinian majority throughout the West Bank, have established themselves) it is the Palestinians themselves who are surrounded by foreign dominions (Jordan, Syria, Israel). This, and the second definition, makes the suggested alternative of ‘Palestinian enclaves’ quite a masterstroke of linguistic sleight-of-hand. For these ‘neutral’ (m)alternatives define the indigenous traditional majority of a territory international law describes as theirs, as ‘living in a country . .that surrounds them’. The genius of this insidiously astute name-gaming is to invert the reality by ascribing to Palestinian villages the technical status of enclaves which, per definition, would properly apply to Israeli settlements. So defining the Palestinian areas as enclaves is not neutral, for it suggests to readers that Israel, as constituted by its enclave-like settlements, is actually the country where the Palestinians happen to reside, as some small minority, despite their being both the demographic majority and the traditional inhabitants whose title to the territory has been consistently affirmed in all international and impartial legal rulings. ‘Enclave’ implies Israeli settlements are normative parts of Israel, as opposed to the irregular traditional Palestinian villages, which are somehow anomalous 'cysts' in greater Israel ’s body politic. Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That's an interesting perspective, that it's biased by being neutral, or, that not being biased is biased. Wikipedia, however, goes for what is neutral, not what conforms to a POV. I'd be interested in reading your proposed name. Drsmoo (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly right. Imagine an article entitled Warsaw enclave. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If that were the neutral common name I would have literally zero objection to that. Drsmoo (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, so we are aligned. Enclave is not the neutral common name for either the Warsaw Ghetto or the West Bank Bantustans. Both the words ghetto and bantustan convey extra meaning without which it would be whitewashing. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Lol, you replied "exactly right" when I commented that enclave was neutral and not biased. Drsmoo (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I find the notion that a neutral term like "enclave" represents "POV" based on very abstract reasoning but bantustans supposedly does not to be pretty unconvincing.
Nishidani's entire argument is that Israeli is not a legitimate state, therefore the Palestinian enclaves cannot be "enclaves" because it would somehow offer an implicit recognition that Israel either controls or has authority over the space in between what can only be described as the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank. In other words, this is an argument that a neutral term is "POV-pushing" resting entirely on assumptions that constitute POV pushing. Amazing.
This article is honestly an embarrassment. It doesn't even satisfy WP:POVNAME. When one searches for "West Bank Banutstans," the content that comes up is almost exclusively sourced to Wikipedia. A search of scholarly sources does not show this term in any sort of widespread use. But here is an example of "enclaves" being used in an argument against Israeli policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I see you've managed, with a few others, to try and change arguments concerned with how Palestinian areas are defined, into an ad hominem attack implying that this is all about Israel, and therefore the 'whole argument' basically boils down to anti-Semitism and negationism about Israel's right to exist. This cheap witless rote-rhetorical garbage should have no place here. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You have it backwards, Nishidani. What needs to stop is the endless POV hammering you are engaging in on anything that relates to Israel, and the constant accusations against other editors. It is not "POV" to use the term enclaves. This is a term used by sources that are both neutral and critical of Israel on the subject in question. If you are knowledgeable about the subject, that's a wonderful thing, but your supposed expertise does not exempt you the requirement that you need sources to back up your points. Dominating discussions with your own analysis is not going to contribute to anything productive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop this boring chatback. It disturbs the clarity of our focus on substance.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, your first sentence contains a basic misunderstanding. Nishidani's point is that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegitimate. He made no comment on Israel as a state, which is entirely irrelevant here. The view that "Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegitimate" represents the clear mainstream position. Saying that such a statement is POV pushing is no different from saying that the statement "vaccinations are safe" or "climate change is real" represents POV pushing. It shows that you do not understand what NPOV means in Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't, and your point is the same as his. The two of you want to waste time with ideological arguments instead of discussing content but feel it's appropriate to toss around POV accusations with no relevance to what that policy actual means. Here, we are to rely on what the sources say. I provided a scholarly source above that offers a critical view of Israeli policy in the relevant area but still refers to the areas under discussion here as "enclaves," and the process of their formation as "enclivization." "West Bank Bantustans," on the other hand, is a contrived term that I cannot find anywhere else in a reliable source, except for here on Wikipedia. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, nice pivot. We are 100% agreed that we should not "toss around POV accusations with no relevance to what that policy actual[ly] means." Good progress, thanks. The source you have brought is already in the article; in fact I think I personally added it a couple of weeks ago. So I agree with you. This is why the article has a section called "names", discussing all the alternative names which have been used. Your argument seems to be "we should use what my one chosen source says", which is not what policy states. These areas are referred to as bantustans by thousands of sources on all sides of the political spectrum. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Where are these "thousands of sources" that use the term "West Bank Bantustans?" This is nonsense. I have looked and not found that term in use in a single source outside Wikipedia.
The source I cited is worth pointing out because it definitively disproves the argument that "enclave" is an "Israeli POV term" by some abstract reasoning. As I said, I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to present a list of names, but it should be shorter and exclude names that aren't widely used if they contain any potentially loaded language. The fact that the article's current name fails that test is why we need to have that discussion in the first place. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Note to self, propose RM, changing Warsaw ghetto to Area of Warsaw under Jewish control for neutrality reasons and to avoid loaded terminology.Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: I think a better idea is to avoid the provocative, and inaccurate, analogies to the Holocaust to make a point. Warsaw ghetto is easily satisfied by WP:POVNAME. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Good point Wikieditor19920, these Holocaust comparisons are totally unnecessary, inflammatory, and unsupported by source. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor has very helpfully brought up WP:POVNAME, which is exactly the point. I am glad you see it now. This is exactly why policy supports the use of the term bantustan here. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: This is my concern about the article, and I mean this sincerely. If you showed me a wealth of sources that used the term "West Bank Bantustans," I would be inclined to agree with you that WP:POVNAME is satisfied. I cannot find it, except for this Wikipedia page. I suppose there's a possibility that the term gets picked up eventually if we leave this page up long enough, but that's not how things should work. There's a blue page for that kind of circularity that's slipping my mind right now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, if you search in google books or google scholar for "West Bank" and bantustans, there are tens of thousands of hits. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This can't possibly be the search method that this article is named off of? Have you read WP:GHITS? The term "West Bank" alone is enough to generate tens of thousands of hits. We are looking for articles using the specific phrase "West Bank bantustans" and writing on that specific topic. I have found no such sources in Google Scholar or academic sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You do realize, I suppose, that your suggested title garners precisely 8 hits in Google? This is symptomatic of the problem here, we have an eminent rs making the argument that a suitable single word to describe events does not exist and sources using all sorts of descriptions, none of which are exactly right or common. We can say "Palestine enclaves" is the most common of them all but it is also common to describe Gaza as an enclave (because it actually is an enclave) so if you google Palestine enclaves minus Gaza that still only comes up 5,380 which is a pretty low number. All in all, common name is something of a red herring in this case. It's not really what this is about.Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost every one of the GHITS numbers have been pulled out of thin air or are the result of a bad search. "Enclaves" is frequently used in reliable sources. I've provided one already, and there are numerous others. Even as far as consistency, you'll see "enclaves" used more often. "Bantustans" is not. common name is something of a red herring in this case. It's not really what this is about. Nah, this is the problem, editors trying to make it about something other than the applicable policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
This is very thought-provoking, thank you. I have been mulling over what names I would find acceptable. Ideally the word should be specific enough to communicate the nature of these entities. Bantustan communicates both non-contiguity and subjugation, whereas enclaves only communicates the former. I hadn't considered that, as you say, enclaves also communicates a POV position about the "Israeliness" of the rest of the West Bank. I also can't help but think that it is POV to hide the subjugated nature of this arrangement.
More conceptually, it is important to remember what "POV" means. Whitewashing is the most insidious form of POV, and that is undoubtedly what many editors here are doing, whether or not there is intent. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. You've lost me slightly here. This article deals with proposed enclaves in the context of proposals to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, right? Give or take the status quo situation of Oslo. So, in one of these hypothetical proposals (were they to actually pass), the agreed upon land partition wouldn't be illegal. It is entirely possible for an enclaved sovereign state to exist (eg the Vatican City). Looking at the map in the lead, with the border cut from Jordan, I would describe that as an enclave, no? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Not really, if the only way you can get from place to place is via roads controlled by Israeli forces, then there is no real contiguity and thus no (single) enclave. The Trump plan does contemplate one or two enclaves, Gaza and some pieces of the Negev, the tunnel from Gaza to WB is once more a military control situation.Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oslo is immaterial since in the following several years, very few if any of its provisions on returning land etc were implemented. Of course any agreement on partition automatically would establish the legality of the arrangements agreed to. The problem of enclaves is that since the West Bank is, in law, Palestinian land under belligerent occupation, one cannot define those areas where Palestinians live now as enclaves of their own territory. An enclave means the non-Palestinian areas belong by sovereignty to a foreign state or power, which is, sure, Israel's position, but not endorsed in law, or by negotiated agreements. One cannot be an enclave of oneself.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Right, so it's not an enclave currently, but in the proposals this article discusses it would be [many enclaves]? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The proposal would have to be accepted. Of course, it hasn't and yet more new facts on the ground have been established since. Let me make it a bit clearer in general terms not specific to the Trump plan, every time there is a plan (of any description, including Oslo), it never gets implemented and each time more new facts on the ground are established. Rinse, Repeat. So where does that process finally end?Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
We should but I rather suspect that we won't. Reason is because you first have to stipulate the what? In this case , the what is more a likely outcome based on historical and other evidence suggesting a direction of travel, as opposed to an existing state of affairs. So Oslo produced an outcome at the time but has already overtaken by events and new facts on the ground and you can't point at any specific agreement about it because no one has agreed to it. It's just happening, on a daily basis. What is? Dispossession, displacement, seizure, settlement activity, new firing zones, "nature reserves", "parks", road networks for settlers, a big wall, and on and on...so what would you call that?Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, given that the opening sentence of the article states the subject to be "proposed enclaves for Palestinians under a variety of US and Israeli-led proposals to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." it sounds like the name should be some variant of either enclaves or proposed enclaves. Drsmoo (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
You can read the opening sentence as "Bantustans are....enclaves" or "enclaves are...Bantustans" with Archipelago/canton in the middle somewhere. I'll let Once comment on on why he phrased it in just that way, the question (in my mind) is whether Bantustan = enclave? (imagery aside). I would be less concerned with the title perhaps if the content were just so and I don't think it is..yet.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's get concrete (literally), what do we call Qalqiliya?
2018 United Nations Qalqiliya Access
Qalqilya wa

Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Palestinian enclaves is OK though personally I prefer "Areas under Palestinian autonomy".--RM (Be my friend) 19:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
What areas are those? The ones in the RM turned out to be Area A. That what you mean?Selfstudier (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Autonomous Palestinian areas, Areas under Palestinian autonomy, or failing those Palestinian Enclaves. Google NGRAM shows "Bantustans" is used by very few and perusal of them shows highly POV sources. Enclaves or autonomy outrank Bantustans, though sources prefer autonomy. This article should probably be merged to Palestinian Autonomy as it is just a collection of criticisms against autonomy. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, describing the areas as "autonomous" in the title would be a gross misrepresentation. Accuracy would require "partially autonomous" or "limited autonomy". Onceinawhile (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Re ngrams below re WP:PRECISION. Unfortunately these ngrams results for enclaves include a large number of out-of-scope hits. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
"Bantu autonomy" (for South African Bantustans) or "Jewish autonomy" for (Warsaw Ghetto) would be whitewashing. Why do you wish to whitewash here? It is anti-Palestinian double standards; double standards being a key element of identifying racism. The bantustan terminology is common usage and has been used by people across the political spectrum, including numerous Israeli and American luminaries such as Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, Colin Powell, Martin Indyk, Daniel Levy, Amos Elon, Gershom Gorenberg, Avi Primor, Ze'ev Schiff, Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You are posting the same arguments over and over. I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." As pointed out to you several times, "Bantustans" is A. pejorative, and B. used by a very small minority of sources which are hyperpartisan. Your list above is inaccurate, selective, and cherry picked. The Palestinian National Authority is described by a preponderous amount of sources as an autonomy. Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy and accusations of whitewashing and racism are inappropriate. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Look at the UN map above. It does not say "autonomy", it says "extensive delegation of powers... partial delegation of powers".
Thank you for bringing IHRA; you are correct. I have not seen anyone here draw the parallel you seem to be suggesting. Importantly though, both the IHRA definition and the 3D test state that double standards is a sign of racism. It is important that key elements of Jewish and South African history are not whitewashed. So it is clearly anti-Palestinian double standards to try to whitewash the Palestinian situation. Note that not once have you tried to make the argument that these areas do not share the same essence as the South African bantustans. Because you know full well that they do. Your entire argument is that such a word doesn't reflect well on Israel, but I don't see you using that same argument to protect the brand of the regimes that created the South African Bantustans or the European Ghettos. Finally, you claimed that the list of those widely respected Israelis and Americans who have used the word - Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, Colin Powell, Martin Indyk, Daniel Levy, Amos Elon, Gershom Gorenberg, Avi Primor, Ze'ev Schiff, Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar - is inaccurate; these are all sourced in the article, perhaps you have not read it? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment We have mainly stayed away from opinions in constructing the article but there is no real reason why we shouldn't take them into account if the opinion giver is good for it. An example The West Bank's new Bantustans by Professor Amichai Cohen "Israel's annexation of swathes of the West Bank will lead to the territory left for the Palestinian Authority becoming the new Bantustans – small puppet enclaves whose sole existence is to legitimize Israeli control, absolving Israel of having to deal with the question of Palestinian status and ensuring the protection of Jewish majority in the region." is a reasonably good summary of the opinions of many commentators. I like the way he equates Bantustan with "puppet enclave".Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment re WP:CONSISTENT: This debate seems to be centering on the whether title should reference the subjugated/oppressed nature of the enclaves. Bantustan is simply a type of enclave, a "puppet enclave" as per Selfstudier's comment above. I don't feel strongly about the current title, but I do strongly believe that the subjugated/oppressed nature of these areas should be clear in the article title, since we consistently do this for all the other such articles. Wikipedia does not use whitewashed titles for such situations - we use the common name. Do all those editors proposing simply "enclave" believe that the Palestinians should be treated differently from other groups who have lived in subjugated/oppressed enclaves, such that the title of the article describing their living arrangements should not reference this subjugation/oppression at all? Do those editors really think it is right to single out the Palestinian people in this way? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
When we get into talking about subjugation/oppression, it's a matter of great dispute. No, we should leave a neutral title in because people's viewpoints vary. Some people think that it's equivalent to other cases you mentioned, others disagree and believe that this is merely the prelude to a Palestinian state and/or that this level of autonomy is reasonable, and would find comparisons like those to the Warsaw Ghetto which I've seen here offensive. We should talk about different viewpoints in the article but leave the title out of this. The title must be 100% neutral, we are not going to add in claims of oppression, which would blatantly take one side over the other in the debate on this conflict. You've been told this before but Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs.--RM (Be my friend) 15:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Reenem: I am glad you wrote this, because we are now getting to the point. You wrote "When we get into talking about subjugation/oppression, it's a matter of great dispute... Some people think that it's equivalent to other cases you mentioned, others disagree and believe that... this level of autonomy is reasonable". I believe this to be utterly false, and that you will be unable to provide a single source stating any of this. The only sources I have seen which compare the Palestinian bantustans against the South African Bantustans consider that the Palestinian situation is worse. Two corrections to the rest of your post: (1) "believe that this is merely the prelude to a Palestinian state" is missing the point as Bophuthatswana and the other South African bantustan enclaves were all states too; and (2) no comparison has been made to the conditions of the Warsaw Ghetto - the discussion above is entirely linguistic in nature; the Warsaw Ghetto was another type of enclave.
If you truly believe that it is a matter of dispute as to whether the Palestinians in the West Bank are subjugated/oppressed, and that the Israeli proposals for "resolution" of the conflict entail permanent subjugation/oppression, you must have avoided any research on this topic altogether. I have often wondered how highly educated and otherwise moral people could justify what is happening to the Palestinians, and now I see it. Dripping from your words. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Here we go, repetition. Boring. We are not fixing anything or righting any great wrongs, we are describing a situation, factually and according to the sources. I look forward to your source depicting the Palestinian condition as anything other than subjugation/oppression, usually referred to as occupation. An equivalent way to phrase it is denial of the right to self determination.Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You can forget about any article title that contains "bantustan" or "ghetto" or any form of those words (such as "bantustanization" or "ghettoization") since they are blatantly non-neutral. Note that I'm not saying that we can't mention in the article that Palestinians and their supporters have referred to these territories as "bantustans" or "ghettos" with appropriate citations. I am saying that, per WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVTITLE, Wikipedia can't take the position in the article title that these territories are or will be "bantustans" or "ghettos". If we remove the most blatantly non-neutral proposed titles, we will have a better chance of finding an appropriate title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, "bantustans" is blatantly non-neutral and essentially exclusively used in opinion pieces. As opposed to "enclaves", which is more widely used in every respect, and can also be found in official usage. For example, the most recent US peace plan. Drsmoo (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90: then why do we allow any articles with the name bantustan or ghetto? These are not official terms; in fact they are used to highlight the subjugation of the places, so have a negative connotation. Is Wikipedia taking a position that the Warsaw Ghetto was a ghetto? Or that Bophuthatswana was a bantustan? No it is not, it is simply following WP:COMMONNAME per WP:POVNAME. Why should the Palestinians be treated any differently?
PS - One correction on your post above. "Palestinians and their supporters" is incorrect. This is a widely used term on all sides of the political spectrum. Note that these West Bank areas have been referred to as bantustans by Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, Colin Powell, Martin Indyk, Daniel Levy, Amos Elon, Gershom Gorenberg, Avi Primor, Ze'ev Schiff, Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar, amongst other notable Israelis and Americans.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It is not partisan to call a spade a spade, as the majority of sources historically, and then analytically, use that term. The only real objection I can see here is political: i.e. the view that no term which reflects negatively on Israel (the POalestinians don't exist as a party to this kind of view) is acceptable, esp. because 'Bantustan' evokes an analogy with apartheid which the Israeli government, while privately thinking in terms of that model, publicly disowns. Editors should not take sides in this image-war. And the only way to stay neutral is to adopt some title that reflects historic usage, as the article documents in great detail. Wikipedia has titles that range from Uyghur genocide (tendentious unless you are aware that 'genocide' can include the programmed destruction of an indigenous people's culture and society) to the euphemistic Comfort women, the euphemism official Japanese sources use for women inducted en masse to serve as sexual slaves for the Japanese army in WW2 (This euphemism is accepted because it is Japan's utterly distasteful official preference, and so patently ugly -what were the victims who were raped hundreds of times a day, 'discomforted' women?). This is a process, again, and requires -ization (cf.Sinicization of Tibet, where however there is a distinction: because whereas China's politicidal transformation of Tibetans into Chinese differs from Israel's, which so far has no intention to convert Palestinians beyond its historic borders into Israelis. Reality is ugly: face it, and you are neutral. Frig about for 'soft' words, and you are wittingly or otherwise, calling a shithouse a 'restroom', an hilarious distortion of what goes on in them.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the short, simple and entirely expressive Palestinian bantustanization. If we must suffer an anodyne descriptive title due to some editors choking on the obvious reality, then said description needs to include the phrase "occupied Palestine" so that there is at least some clarity about what is being done. And I agree that it needs -ization in it somewhere because the process is ongoing, accelerating even, and has not reached any kind of end stage.Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: due to some editors choking on the obvious reality You need to stop filling this talk page with this garbage. No reliable sources use the term you advocate. Your belief of what is WP:TRUTH, despite not being reflected in the source, has absolutely no bearing here. If i see any more of this nonsense or offensive holocaust analogies we're going to have a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
That is a vote, based on an assertion, which the discussion queries. Please try and motivate your view in terms of the evidence and arguments produced here.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow, talk about WP:ABF Drsmoo (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Or I can accuse u of same? I won't though. Nishidani comment seems perfectly reasonable to me. Pretty sure he could do much better than that if he really wanted to have a go.Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The point is not to “have a go” at people based on how they vote. Drsmoo (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Please read: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
And we have both, polling and discussion. It’s uncivil and bad faith to assume someone didn’t follow a discussion based on how they vote. Drsmoo (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
My point was that Nishidani didn't have a go, you merely asserted that he did. Anyway, Nishidani having said it once it can apply collectively, right?Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Plus, some editors have track records of voting without contributing to the discussion. In this thread, Drsmoo and Shrike have both made comments about neutrality which fail to address the policy of WP:POVNAME, which has been mentioned frequently above. Since they have are unwilling to explain their positions, in light of pre-existing information which undermines it, their votes are meaningless and can be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Your insult that anyone's opinion is "meaningless and can be ignored" does not merit any response other than that it is extremely tendentious, uncivil, and has no place on Wikipedia. The POVNAME argument has already been refuted by 11Fox11 and Wikieditor19920, both of whom have demonstrated that "Bantustans" is used very rarely in comparison to "enclaves", thus it is not a common name, and thus POVNAME can't be used. In terms of details, "enclaves" is consistently used roughly 4-6 times more frequently, across all sources, than "Bantustans" ("Bantustans" in this context being primarily found in opinion pieces and essays) and can also be found in official documents such as the recent US peace proposal. This is along with multiple reliable sources that refer to "Bantustans" in this context as a pejorative, and a term used by critics. You will not find anything of the sort for "enclaves". Drsmoo (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You forget that Israeli settlements are frequently described as enclaves and then you have things like the "Enclave law" as well, so it's not really as clear cut as you make it out to be. In any case none of the names get any meaningful number of hits such as you might get if you googled "Gaza war" for example. In effect there is no common name.Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment If we can't get a sensible title through one end of the telescope, maybe we can manage it through the other end. Instead of focusing only on what remains, why not focus on what is being taken as well. All these proposals effectively aim to partition (State of) Palestine in much the same sort of way as partition proposals of yesteryear purported to partition Mandate Palestine except that now the party doing the partitioning is also the occupier and a beneficiary of said partitioning.Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment re WP:PRECISION A separate problem with the enclave titles is they are ambiguous. Some editors have touted ngrams results to highlight the supposed higher frequency of these names vs. the usage of bantustan. The problem is that the enclave titles include a large number of non-relevant hits. Examples are below:
    • Palestinian enclave or enclaves: Google books gives numerous hits to Gaza, and East Jerusalem, neither of which are in scope of this article
    • West Bank enclave or enclaves: Google books gives numerous hits to Israeli settlements and a variety of enclaves set up on the West Bank of the Mekong River in South East Asia.
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Basically any of the proposed options would be preferable to the current name, but I'd recommend Palestinian West Bank enclaves, West Bank Palestinian enclaves, Palestinian enclaves, or West Bank enclaves. Simple, descriptive, and not pushing a POV narrative. --Yair rand (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
So far, those arguing against the current name appear to do so out of a visceral dislike(' any of the proposed options would be preferable to the current name') of what is undoubtedly the default term used by Israeli planners and the politicians who implemented the fragmentation. No one has yet explained which state or nation surrounds any of the 150+ zones of confinement in which Palestinians are restricted. Gaza is certainly an enclave, but the West Bank realities cannot be neutrally called enclaves, because the term implies Israel is the sovereign power surrounding them. In short, 'enclaves' is indisputably misleading and a POV assertion by semantic implication that the state of Israel has legal title and authority over all of the West Bank. I can't see any way in which Nuaman, a one street ghetto with a couple of dozen beleaguered and besieged families, can be defined with precision as an enclave in the standard technical sense.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The subject of the article is proposed enclaves in peace proposals. In those proposals (at least the most recent one), Israel would be the surrounding power, and enclave is the term used. Additionally, Bantustan is described as a pejorative and a term used by critics in multiple reliable sources. There are no sources that describe usage of the term enclave negatively. Drsmoo (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Drsmoo, "ghetto" has pejorative connotations too, but we correctly use it over enclave in articles where it is the common name and using a technical name would in fact be non-neutral. Please stop with the double standards. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect analogy, "Warsaw Ghetto" is the common name, whereas Bantustans is not. Enclaves is used with dramatically greater frequency than Bantustans (enclaves is used 4-6 times more frequently), and enclaves is used in more neutral sources, including official sources. Whereas Bantustans is widely regarded in reliable sources as a pejorative and a term used by critics. Drsmoo (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Drsmoo, the word France is used with greater frequency than the word Aquitaine. As explained above, “Palestinian enclaves” includes the Gaza Strip and parts of East Jerusalem. So the name refers to a wider topic than this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Except that this article also covers Gaza and East Jerusalem. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Drsmoo, no it does not. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It factually does, and I’m not going to go in circles debating basic reality. Drsmoo (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The lead sets the scope of an article. EJ and Gaza are not mentioned, implicitly or explicitly. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
And "surrounding power" is wrong, it requires a surrounding country, not an occupier, therefore enclave is inaccurate.Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "it requires"? In the proposals, enclave is the term used, and Israel would be the surrounding country. Drsmoo (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
And Yair rand reverts my edit, - "avoid incorrectly suggesting that areas are being removed" which is nothing if not a comical denial of the situation described in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Palestinian enclaves WP:POVNAMING. To address some NPOV concerns over the name, yes, the fact that we call them enclaves means they are surrounded by Israeli territory territory controlled by Israel. Saying that any legitimization of this basic fact is a violation of NPOV in of itself constitutes a violation of NPOV. Sure, we can have plenty of arguments over whether the existence of enclaves is legitimate, or if they should be there, but that is ultimately irrelevant to the subject; our job is to neutrally and factually describe the subject, according to reliable sources, and putting in a preferred POV on the legitimate territory of a specific state is the real problem, not the fact that the proposed title describes the reality of the proposed solution. We don't follow the opinions of people/sources with often anti-semitic POVs that lead them to want to draw a comparison between the genocide of the Jews and their modern actions; we follow the opinion of the majority of NPOV sources, of which the current title has a woefully inadequate amount, at least compared to the amount of scholarship on the subject. Looking up uses on each of the terms on Google Books, by and large bantustans are used in books arguing the Palestinian side (such as "Freedom Is a Place: The Struggle for Sovereignty in Palestine") while Palestinian enclaves is much more widely used across POVs (from "Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation", something from a pretty pro-Palestine point of view, or "Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege," and "Settlements and Borders," by a former IDF and Mossad author.) Zoozaz1 talk 17:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Area C (for example) is not Israeli territory. It is occupied territory, I just explained that once already to Drsmoo, who chose to ignore it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This is getting to be voting in lockstep, or rather stepping around the obvious problem that one cannot properly call bits of property forming part of Palestinian territories, enclaves of those territories, (apart from the question of tautologies) without pushing the blatantly political POV assuming that the Palestinian territories are de jure, or even de facto parts of Israel. No amount of flag waving (per WP:POVNAMING) can get round the terminological anomaly instinct in the abuse of enclave for such a purpose. The putative 'enclaves' are themselves controlled by Israel, so the distinction made above is specious.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just another general reminder to everyone to please avoid bludgeoning the discussion. Don't argue with every !voter. Don't repeat arguments. Assume good faith. This will probably be my last reminder before escalating to notice boards. Levivich harass/hound 16:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    Levivich, please remember to highlight at the noticeboards the specific policy which supports the stifling of discussion via repeated threats against those with whom you disagree. Please also explain why you have yet to respond to the comment above which addresses your core arguments. Wikipedia is about consensus building; consensus building is not about one side “winning” over the other through numbers of votes, but about both sides listening to each other and building constructively on each other’s arguments in order to find the most reasonable outcome. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, that comment is out of place here. If I were temperamental, I would feel frustration that there is so many mechanical 'votes' here without a trace of serious reflection on the arguments raised on behalf of 'bantustan' as the historical default term. To describe 'calls to order' on editors to deal with the substance of objections rather than sidestep them is not 'bludgeoning' is itself an example of blindsiding rhetorical hyperbole (and one arguably advanced to favour a POV. We all have POVs: some are based on a careful assessment of evidence, as opposed to draughts from an echo chamber.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
If new participants to this RFC see that prior participants' !votes are followed by pages of argument (and maps and photographs of locations), nobody will want to join the discussion. It's important for us to maintain a welcoming atmosphere on this page for our ongoing and future consensus-seeking discussions. Levivich harass/hound 08:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps being faced with what looks like a group vote is discouraging participation? As for pix, it seems entirely appropriate to have a pic of a bantustan (oops, sorry, "enclave") so they can see what is being discussed concretely rather than in the abstract.Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
"what looks like a group vote" is editors agreeing aka consensus. I think we could call it and move to Palestinian enclaves and finally put the title issue to rest. Levivich harass/hound 19:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, shouldn't the counterarguments raised be addressed? We have been waiting for a while now. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a three to one consensus in favor of Palestinian enclaves, including multiple uninvolved editors and an admin, so not sure what is meant by “we”? The counter arguments were thoroughly addressed by multiple users. An interesting note, the source used for the “naming” section ([1]) concludes “they are neither camps, detention centers nor Bantustans”. In addition to all the sources pointing out that the term Bantustan is a pejorative used by critics. For example:
  • "Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"), each surrounded by Israeli territory." [2]
  • "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." [3]
  • "When I first saw this map, I assumed that its authors intentionally designed it to argue that the agreement imprisoned Palestinians in what Oslo critics have called "apartheid-style Bantustans," referring to the "cantons" that had enraged Arafat." [4]
  • "Palestinian critics of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations see the cause of national independence as so badly compromised that "Palestine" will become, or has become, not a state-in-the-making but a collection of bantustans, confining some and excluding others." https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214379014.pdf
  • "But critics of the deal signed between the Israelis and Palestinians claim that what is in fact evolving is a kind of apartheid based upon the creation of Bantustans" [5] Drsmoo (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    Drsmoo, There is classical case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Shrike (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Classic in the sense that the people wrote those pieces (I note the book is from 1999) seem blissfully unaware of what emerged after the plan Sharon began to be implemented. i.e. 2001- 2005. Namely, they did not realize that Sharon consciously redesigned the West Bank fragmentation on the SA Bantustan model. The POV in those sources is therefore one which assigns to external 'critics' a term which the Israeli planners of the occupation themselves were strongly influenced by. If it was 'pejorative' it wasn't or isn't thus because outside critics 'skew' it with an opprobrious label, but rather reflects the contempt of those who applied it to Palestinian territory. The Israeli administration itself. The process of witting sidestepping this historical fact has been repeated here, with 'Palestinian enclave' voters persistently ignoring the stumbling block that this began, and persisted, as Israeli vintage usage.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
One of the sources is from 1999, the others are from 2016, 2018, 2020, 2005, and 2001. Drsmoo (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The argument given above appears to be that all critics, especially of Israel, deserve to have their views ignored and particularly if they dare to mention the word bantustan, open air prison, or anything of that sort. How dare they! As if.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Palestinian dispossession This is a reluctant compromise which nevertheless gets 4 times as many Google hits as "Palestinian enclaves". I would rather call it bantustanization as a variety of highly placed sources across the political spectrum have done without any embarrassment, or a ghettoization, a Soweto in all but name but we must put lipstick on the pig to satisfy those calling for some perverse notion of neutrality. Day in, day out, year after year, Palestinian property is taken away from them and they are displaced and herded into ever smaller disjointed and fragmented areas by divers methods, all of them condemned by UN resolutions as illegal in international law. This "creeping annexation" occurs before, after and even during discussion of proposals for solving the issues, the so called peace process, that never ends. Creeping annexation refers to the gradual process by which Israel expands its control over the West Bank.[Since 1967]"[6] The latest in a parade of such proposals speaks of the "formal" annexation of swathes of territory including the Jordan Valley in addition to all the illegal settlements, an effective partitioning of Palestine that would in all likelihood prevent the emergence of a viable state.Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I am persuaded by Adoring Nanny, Palestinian enclaves' is neutral and to the point. Also Proposed Palestinian Territory, Proposed Areas of Palestinian Autonomy, or Palestinian Autonomy are fine. I am also of the opnion, since the AfD, that this article should be merged somewhere, maybe to several articles. All it does is string criticisms of various plans and proposals. Those plans and proposals all have articles these criticisms could go into. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Merging was discussed at the Afd, which is where one should discuss it and the consensus was keep, not merge. If there is a page for a particular proposal eg Trump plan then it already contains criticisms, this article is not about that though.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
It was determined there was “no consensus”, though there was a “60/40 numerical majority” in favor of deletion. There was certainly not a consensus to keep. Drsmoo (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, I worded that rather badly, I was trying to address the comments re merging which are not applicable here.Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Palestinian enclaves - will be neutral and to the point. "Bantustan" isn't even English - it's an afrikaner term, and is rather clickbait to apply here. (Also, Bantustan means "black land" - the only way it relates here is media attention to the term.) HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

A large number of editors cite WP:NPOV in voting to elide the title key word Bantustan.

Concretely despite requests to have this clarified, no answers have been forthcoming. So please tell us whose point of view, Israel's or the Palestinians', is violated by referring to the areas Palestinians are hemmed in to as Bantustans. My impression is that this policy is being invoked to delete the word, not out of consideration that it may be pejorative for Palestinians and therefore biased, but that it reflects poorly on Israel. But that is an impression (also based on the fact that Palestinians are on record as feeling that they are being consigned to the Bantustans Ariel Sharon, to everybody's knowledge, wittingly drew up for them). So could some editors kindly clarify. Is calling Palestinian territories 'Bantustans' not neutral with regard to Israel, the occupying power that fragments them, or is it not neutral with regard to Palestinians inhabiting those 'enclaves'? The silence on this is another disturbing elephant in the room of this talk page. Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear what it is all about. Both you and I have been adding content to the article regardless and I think that's the way to go on. If the content is good the arguments will fall by the wayside eventually. Once pointed me to Sumud, I'm going to go with that for now:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
My question wasn't quite rhetorical. Editors should be able to explain what they have in mind when flagwaving a policy like NPOV, i.e. not neutral regarding entity? So far there is a studied silence it, it's all nodnod, winkwink. So, to repeat, an explanation is required of a policy endlessly flagged, but not specified as to its contextual referent. I'm patient. Levivich? Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I know it wasn't rhetorical. Can silence be rhetorical? That's the likely response at any rate.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
If any of the editors claiming non-NPOV are willing to answer Nishidani's question, it will be even more helpful if they could bring a source. So far I have not seen a single source stating that use of the term is non-neutral. The best I have seen is a reference saying that it is often used pejoratively, although we know that this is not always the case given that Dayan and Sharon, amongst others, used the word to propose a policy. I have also seen a couple of sources stating that the word has been used by critics of Israel, but, again, we also have Israeli government and US government sources using the word.
I find it surprising that every single support vote above has referenced perceived non-neutrality as their rationale, yet no-one has a source to confirm it.
Onceinawhile (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This has already been addressed thoroughly (and multiple times) in the talk page discussions. I would be happy to continue the conversation there, though it seems unlikely that anyone is going to change their perspective. With regard to creating a new section to discuss something already discussed in the talk page, please see Proof by assertion Drsmoo (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Along with proof by denial? Silence is a better option.Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Drsmoo I respect the fact that you brought and discussed sources above,[5][6] which too many others have not made any effort to do.
If I have understood you correctly, you have brought sources which say that critics of Israel use the term bantustans, and imply that the inverse must also be true - i.e. since critics of Israel use the term, then supporters of Israel must not use the term, and therefore the term must be non-neutral. Unfortunately the inverse conclusion does not follow logically from the evidence; such extrapolation is a fallacy known as denying the antecedent. Furthermore, we have multiple sources in the article showing supporters of Israel using the term, proving that the inference you are proposing from your sources is not only logically incorrect, but demonstrably incorrect.
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Pick your favorite proof method here Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Since an impeccable source, the former (at the time) Prime Minister of Italy Massimo d'Alema, has stated that the Prime Minister of Israel privately used the word 'bantustan' in describing how he thought the 'Palestinian question' should be handled, it would be incongruous to infer that Sharon thought the term 'pejorative'. For the Prime Minister of a country would not consciously use a word for his own plan if he believed it would ring negatively in his interlocutor's ear. That would be as if a very able car salesman were to tell his potential client that he was flogging him a lemon, a self-goal. The evidence is that Israeli planners and policians, therefore, did not regard the word as injurious, whatever these 'critics' might say. This is the major sticking point, Drsmoo, in your argument, and in the approach of all of those editors who have persisted in walking past the evidence waving an NPOV banner. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
As I was one of such editors, I've added a source. Alaexis¿question? 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You added a dictionary link in the talk comments. I noticed that the first one you tried to add, collins, didn't say it was derogatory so you changed it to one that did, lexico. The fact is that not every usage of bantustan is derogatory, the usage in the article proper is generally intended as criticism, which is perfectly legitimate.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To address the NPOV issue, the allegations that Ariel Sharon used the word "bantustan" to describe his own plan seem to be second- or third-hand sources filtered through the opponents of his plan. In fact, the Israelis and Americans who are quoted as using the word "bantustan" seem to be primarily those who are using the term to negatively characterize the proposals made by others, i.e., that the offers being proposed by certain Israeli leaders would leave the Palestinians in a bantustan-like situation and that the Palestinians ought to be offered a better deal. Israeli leaders are frequently quoted in the English-language press, often speaking in English themselves. If Israeli leaders thought that "bantustans" were a good thing, you'd expect to see them openly describing their own plans that way, but the evidence that they have done so is weak. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
No. That personal reasoning holds no water, and is not an adequate reply to the query posed. This is not an 'allegation'. The details are thoroughly documented. Maurizio Molinari is an impeccable source on Italian-Israeli relations, an historian of some remarkable episodes regarding Jewish resistance to the Holocaust in that country, while d'Alema's remarks are reported on the official website of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So the suggestion this is somehow a datum in third-hand (third-rate) sources promoted by opponents simply collapses in front of the known factual record. Most damning of all is that when d'Alema was reported as stating this in Jerusalem in April 2003, and his remark was echoed in the local press, Sharon was still in the saddle and could have gone public to deny the truth of d'Alema's recollection. He never did what politicians the world over, disconcerted by how their remarks are reported, do: issue a denial. It evidently did not strike him as potentially emnbarrassing.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It is true that d'Alema came to be disliked in Israel: to Sharon he announced that Italy would, in pursuit of a peace solution, act as a neutral broker (equidistanza). So, when d’Alema, whose familiarity with the area began from the time of his first marriage, to a Jewish Italian, was appointed in 2006 Foreign Minister in Romano Prodi’s government,diplomatic sources in Jerusalem circulated stating that his presence in that government marked the end of Israel’s honeymoon with Italy, citing a number of remarks in which d’Alema expressed sympathy for the Palestinians. The Israeli ambassador to Italy hastened to note that this was not the official view of his government at the time. One more example on the record, as to how even the smallest expression of sympathy for Israel's adversary causes diplomatic uproars.
So your argument collapses, and we are still waiting for a plausible response from editors here as to why, if Sharon used the term as an 'ideal' solution for Palestinians, Wikipedia should judge it to be pejorative (in its implications, presumably, only for Israel). Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
You're referring to the guy who called Israel a "terror state" and responded to a greeting of "Welcome to Israel" with "Welcome to Palestine". Drsmoo (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Drsmoo, That the problem with this article it cherry picked partisan anti-Israeli source to present one sided biased view.Neutral article could be written on the topic but this is not it. Shrike (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Shrike and Drsmoo:, are there any sources which you are aware of that should be in the article, but currently are not? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
We could put in

All this is often referred to as ‘the status quo’. Yet there is nothing static about this reality. It is a calculated and deliberate process of slowly splitting up an entire people, fragmenting their land, and disrupting their lives: separating Gaza from the West Bank, breaking up the West Bank into small enclaves, and walling off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. Eventually, what remains are isolated bits, the easier to oppress: a family slated for "eviction" in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan; a community such as ‘Urif, south of Nablus, trying against all odds to hold on to its land and farm it in the face of Israel's long arm of unchecked settler violence[...] essentially large Bantustans, slowly but surely being hemmed in by ever more new or expanding Israeli settlements.

Hagai el Ad, Executive Director of B’tselem, Israeli human rights organization, intervention at the UN Security Council,18 October 2018 (https://www.un.org/exhibits/exhibit/writing-on-wall-annexation)Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
As I have indicated previously, I'm not bothered about using the word bantustan in the title since it is anyway going to be in the article. The quality of sourcing for bantustan is top drawer, much better than that for enclaves. The main reason being given for enclaves is that it is "more neutral" or "better than" bantustan, which is fww/4 argumentation, tbh.Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
What's "fww/4"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
:) Lol. Perhaps it is not such a well known expression, you can translate it as "weak".Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Drsmoo/Shrike
I noted elsewhere yesterday.

Has there ever being a single instance of a public discussion of Israel and its occupation where someone hasn’t tried to shut down the conversation by derailing it into an innuendo about the participants’ ulterior motives?.'

Change participants there to 'authoritative sources' and that's what both of you appear to be doing, playing this utterly trite smearing card, regardless of texts or history and their complexities. When one succumbs to that strategy, it flags the idea that one can't come up with any form or shape of a legitimate argument, ergo ad hominem.
Both of your comments illustrate the problem in participating on articles like this. Several very high quality sources testify to an historical fact, corroborated by Israeli, diaspora and independent sources. Response? For you, Drsmoo, on the strength of s subtitle in a newspaper article (Ynet) circulating semi-official gossup in Jerusalem to attack d'Alema's appointment, insinuating d'Alema thought Israel was a 'terror state', you try to undercut testimony Israeli people who know and listened to him confirm. Those 'rumours' by the way were denied, if you know the topic and don't just google for some shit to throw his way, by Ehud Gol Shortly after that, he visited Israel and Tzipi Livni said at a joint press conference

I would like to welcome to Israel Mr. D’Alema, who is a very good friend of Israel. He understands, I think, maybe more than others, the complicated situation in the region, and cares deeply. Joint press conference with FM Livni and Italian FM D'Alema Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs 5 September 2007

I suppose that was just diplomatic smarm? Do you think, with her background Livni would cosy up to anyone who thought Israel was a terror state?
Shrike. Just a note. On a talk page you should not write as if you exclude everyone else from your contribution to the conversation. By prefacing your immediate remark responding to Drsmoo's frivolous crack by calling Drsmoo, you are turning those who disagree with you, into them,-whom you will note speak to. and those whose opinions you agree with us. It sounds like cheer-leading or solidarity flag-waving and hardly appropriate to a project that demands collaboration.
Look. So far, there has been no rational response to a legitimate and core query, just vague personal dismissals or the tiresome rhetorical rise of suggesting that sources which are not pro-Israel cannot be used to write I/P articles (meaning NPOV for many here means not offensive to that country). Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, well, shooting the messenger, although a favorite tactic, typically leaves the message intact.Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I note that most voters seem to labour under the impression that any suggestion that the situation in the West Bank is similar to Bantustans under Apartheid smacks of some leftie POV mongering distortion, and fails the neutrality test. Today Hagai El-Ad, director of Israel's most authoritative human rights NGO, B'tselem, has announced that the organization considers that Israel, extending into the West Bank, is a de facto Apartheid state.(Hagai El-Ad, We are Israel's largest human rights group – and we are calling this apartheid, The Guardian 12 January 2021), with the system in the Gaza Strip actually worse than a Bantustan. Of course, this remains a point of view, but comes from an Israeli organization known for the lengths it goes to maintain a neutral voice as it documents with empirical study after study the violence, Israeli and Palestinian, that is endemic in this area. These people are not hotheads or anti-Zionist radicals or foreign critics. In their view, the facts now demand one call a spade a spade, rather than a Bantustanization process setting up enclave, a word which which is worse than bantustanization, as one keeps having to repeat, because it cannot be used without implying that the territory in the West Bank outside the Palestinian zones is de jure Israel's (precisely the POV of the Israeli government).Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I imagine the instructions have already been mailed out from disinformation central to shoot this messenger as well:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Self. Why political groups do indeed exist that consciously disinform, everywhere, the problem is somewhat more complex. A large number of honest, serious people all over the world have a mindset, or frame of values, or deep personal convictions that dispose them to disregard as biased, or rebut as unfair/untruthful/malicious any information that, if they read it, challenges their beliefs. So it's not a matter of bad faith or deliberate distortion, but the general tendency of our species to be impervious to anything that might challenge what is, for all of us, the comfort zone of a personal outlook shared by the ingroup we identify ourselves with. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, no one, other than scientists or scholars, lies under an obligation to ground it in evidence, verification, and logic.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I consider that it was all beautifully explained in 1841 in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. All that it takes for some people to ignore evidence staring them in the face is the continued existence of a crowd of people spouting the pre-conceived views that they want to stick to. That is exactly what has been happening in American politics for the last four years, and in Israel-Palestine politics for a century. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it is far more general than that (and historically longer:Plato actually theorized it . and in the early 1900s it was formulated as a political strategy through the confluence of ideas from numerous thinkers - Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel,Sergio Panunzio, Robert Michels etc and of course a notable number of the American intellectual 'liberal' elite espoused Leo Strauss's softer version), and those two countries shouldn't be singled out. That foundational text has been with me many decades, together with Lippmann's Public Opinion. I've long deferred, out of lassitude, writing a book entitled Scotoma, but it would start with a quotation from Oedipus Rex, and end with an analysis of a plot that dominates Hollywood cinema, one that reflects and in turn reconditions a certain frontier mentality which, through globalization, now informs many other cultures. It made me laugh to see Schwarzenegger complain of Trump - the latter's just a real life incarnation of a standard Hoilywood leitmotiv of the hero against all odds. Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Metropolitan90 , there is an interview that D'Alema gave to Maariv where I am pretty sure he directly claimed that Ariel Sharon used the word Bantustan, so not exactly third hand. Its note ad or (IAMF 2006). Just to warn you though it was a interview in Italien, translated to Hebrew and then back into Italien and then English so can be a little hard to parse :). If anything though the fact that Sharon only used the term in private, and never confirmed the conversation, lends more credence to the idea that it is a pejorative. That is if you put a lot of weight on a years old recolection of a not entirely friendly politician. I also don't think it would be out of character for Ariel "Don't worry I'll just invade Egypt" Sharon to be overly aggressive in a private conversation with a foreign diplomat.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is missing the point, one which it appears that James Baker was also familiar with and at the same time. The latter correctly identified the risk and the evidence subsequent demonstrates quite clearly that bantustanizing is exactly what Sharon had in mind and it really doesn't matter whether Israeli politicos avoid using the term, it's what they went on to do that counts.Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The argument, used also earlier, that since it is accepted Sharon used the term in private but not publicly, and never confirmed the conversation, it must have been pejorative doesn't stand scrutiny.
  • The conversation doesn't need confirmation. That is not subject to doubt. It took place in April 1999 (Marzano/Molinari), during Sharon's visit to Rome. At that time d'Alema was Italy's Prime minister.
  • 'Private'. Diplomacy is by its nature 'private'. One says things that are not meant for public circulation. Historical study consists in throwing light on events by examining contemporary reports in archives or elsewhere that didn't see the light of day at the time. Sharon never went public with his real intentions in invading Lebanon in 1982 - he didn't even tell Begin, the the n Prime Minister. What those intentions were is now thoroughly documented, and they had nothing to do with the public rhetoric justifying the invasion, but with a latent long-term strategic goal.
  • That Sharon did not 'confirm the conversation' holds no weight, because, as above, the conversation took place.
  • If you mean, Sharon did not 'confirm he referred to his plan as modeled on SA bantustans', and infer from this an argumentum ex silentio - that it might not be what Sharon said, that too fails.
  • For d'Alema told Israeli friends in a private conversation in March 2003 in Jerusalem that Sharon had mentioned the Bantustan model in their April 1999 talk. At that dinner, one guest challenged his recall, and d'Alema replied that the words were a precise quotation of Sharon's language, not an interpretation.
  • Was d'Alema lying, or did he have a faulty recall? Improbable, because another guest, when the Israeli press inquired about the matter when this remark was leaked, stated that Sharon never failed to ask him for details about how SA's Bantustan system worked. That acquaintance of both Sharon and d'Alema was one of the top Israeli experts on South-Africa.
  • This was made public in April 2003, 4 years after the original conversation. It aroused some disconcerting reactions in the press. What did Sharon do? He was still PM, in full possession of his mental faculties. He did not deny the authenticity of the remarks. It is fgair toi assume that public knowledge of his idea here neither damaged Israel nor himself. That would suggest, though not prove, that he never thought d'Alema's recall embarrassing or the term pejorative.
  • What you mean by 'a not entirely friendly politician' is obscure. In politics, no one serving their nation is 'entirely friendly' to anyone. Their duty is to defend the national interest, not compromise their respective realistic assessments of a situation by priorizing chumminess.
  • In historical method, the evidence mustered on the page is sufficient to show that (a) from Alon's time down to Olmert, the Bantustan model was uppermost in planners' thinking as a heuristic model for solving uh, Israel's problem.(b) that Alon specifically stated that to retain all of the West Bank would automatically give the world the impression Israel was adopting a Bantustan model (c) that Sharon let it be known to d'Alema, and to an Israeli expert on SA, that he was thinking of, or found its Bantustan, arrangements fascinating. Not to accept evidence that source historians accept after close scrutiny (when, as often, one simply refuses to read it) is called negationism. Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This is still simply a reiteration of a point you originally made 2 months ago, which was already responded to. Not actually seeing anything new in this section addressing NPOV. Drsmoo (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Diffs please, re point made and response two months ago. I ask this because, in the face of recent skepticism, I added several sources just the other day (here and here two days ago.)to make the factualness of Sharon's opinion even more solid - so that new material wasn't in the argument 'two months ago'. In any case at this point, I think a summary should be made of the points, never in my view, answered, regarding the neutrality of 'enclave' as an alternative.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think at this point one should examine the discussion in terms of the following policy statement:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

There is no doubt a large consensus of brief passing by comments stating that the title is POV and approving of another (in my view decidedly POV) is better exists. Yet I do not believe that replies to the objections to the proposed alternative 'enclave' have any merits in terms of argumentative cogency. One, re Sharon's known belief that Bantustans were the model he had uppermost in mind, and he was the primary architect of the system now consolidating itself, has been met with dismissive arguments that contradict the documentary record. The grounds for disbelieving that Sharon had this in mind are second-guessing against the strength of multiple secondary informed sources. The second sticking point is 'enclave'. It cannot but mean that Israel is the sovereign owner of the West Bank areas surrounding zones marked out for Palestinians. That is what, classically, an enclave is. But to imply that is, at least at the moment, contrafactual though it endorses Israel's POV. So if you object to Bantustan as POV, by the same token this applies to enclave. I'll provide the diffs for this point tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose this once I will go point by point, but we are all volunteers and if you will not take the time to hone your arguments I will not be replying again.
  • A general conversation doesn't need confirmation but this specific one about bantustans of course does. Its a private meeting without confirmation it is all hearsay.
  • Sharon kept secrets and was insubordinate, also. That has nothing to do with wether bantustan is a pejorative.
  • repetition of point 1.
  • That Sharon never confirmed the bantatustan conversation is a fact not an argument, I didn't infer anything about whether he said it or not.
  • Seeing as how my argument involved d'Alema being accurate I don't know where this lying comment comes from. This "Top expert" seems intersting, do you have the name? Granted I don't put a lot of trust in non-contemporous recollections of off the record conversations by politicians.
  • You know what they say about assumptions. "Neither confirm nor deny" and the "non denial denial" are so common as to be tropes for handling embarassing situations, so no I would not agree with your assumptions. It should also be pointed out that while an article about d'Alema telling a story about Sharon, which didn't name its source, came out in 2003, the earliest I can actually find d'Alema confirming the original bantatustan story was in 2006 after Sharon became an invalid. I could be wrong though as I speak neither Hebrew or Italien.
  • This has already been explained to you.
  • Your point here seems to be that calling them bantatustans is accurate, I disagree but OK. The question was whether it was a pejortive or not, so arguing accuracy doesn't really do much for you.
AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
That is answering without answering. I.e. for first position

the fact that Sharon only used the term in private, and never confirmed the conversation, lends more credence to the idea that it is a pejorative

This means you accept that in private Sharon used the term 'Bantustan'. You then go on to spin d'Alema's remark as a claim that Sharon in private used the term 'Bantustan'. That kind of internal contradiction is, well, muddling or muddled.

That Sharon never confirmed the bant(at)ustan conversation is a fact not an argument,

That is without meaning, for its corollary would be equally a 'fact'. I.e. that Sharon never denied, for three years, that he used the word 'Bantustan' when this became public.

It should also be pointed out that while an article about d'Alema telling a story about Sharon, which didn't name its source, came out in 2003, the earliest I can actually find d'Alema confirming the original bantatustan story was in 2006 after Sharon became an invalid.

This is muddling. A remark made at a dinner in 2003 with many Israeli guests was reported immediately after in April by Akiva Eldar, who went round interviewing those present to get details. His informants confirmed (a) d'Alema told them Sharon spoke of Bantustans (b) that his recall was challenged by a participant as perhaps imprecise, 'an interpretation' (c) a third party, a very high level Israeli expert on South African-Israeli relations, who was also present, confirmed that there was nothing odd about what d'Alema revealed, since in his own experience, Sharon never lost an opportunity to pump him for information about the Bantustan system whenever they met up.
That satisfies the usual criteria used by historians to establish the facts. All this 'stuff' about 'Sharon's private view' overlooks the fact that, whereas your or my private view has no relevance to history, the private views of a Prime Minister who makes history are relevant to the history he makes.
In short, one can talk around, past, above or below elementary skeletal details, or even fuss that these documented facts in 2003 were not personally reconfirmed until some obscure Maariv article translated from Italian to Hebrew, then back into Italian (not spelling) and then into English (waffle waffle) until 2006, but that is immaterial, just sand in the eyes, a derailing of analytic focus on the actual facts of 2003.
I have yet to come across any reliable source which questions (a) d'Alema's account (b) or denies that for Sharon, the architect of the fragmentation policy, Bantustans in South Africa were seminal for his model.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that we might not be working from the same sources which could in some small way explain our differing opinion. Can you please let me know what source has a "top expert" or "very high-level expert" on South Africa-Israeli relations confirming any of this. Also, can you source that Eldar went around interviewing those present and that he had multiple informants.
  • Yes, I accept that Sharon probably used the word 'Bantustan' in a private conversation with d'Alema. Which is why it was part of my argument. There is nothing contradictory about noting that when Sharon used the word it was in private.
  • Of course noting that Sharon never confirmed has meaning, it literally means that he never confirmed the conversation. The corollary is also as far as I can tell true and important. It means that Sharon neither confirmed nor denied that he used the word in that conversation, which is a common way to handle embarrassing comments.
  • Unless you consider any context that works against you muddling, I don't see how pointing out the level of sourcing present when Sharon was still able to comment isn't important. While Sharon was still actively alive this was an unconfirmed by d'Alema report of a private conversation about another private conversation. Why wouldn't Sharon just ignore this if it was embarrassing? Do we even have any confirmation he was asked about it? AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is, of course in my view, pure dilatory disingenuous pettifogging over talk page comments. The answers are in Eldar's two articles. You will say that a high level Israeli expert as I mentioned cannot be warranted by Eldar's ref. to 'An Israeli who spent many years nurturing Israeli relations with Africa was also at the dinner'. Bah. The dinner was in honour of a former Italian PM. It was attended by people of a certain level in the upper echelons, at the King David Hotel. A person who 'nurtured Israeli-South African relations' who testifies that whenever Sharon met him he asked for details, was obviously recognized by Sharon as a highly informed expert. You are wasting time as you are asking for a justification that Eldar interviewed several people. Reread his prose. It is obvious. I'm not responding to the rest. I can't read it as anything other than a failure to grasp what the methods of how historical details are normally sifted, analysed and then written are. There are limits to what anonymous amateurs like ourselves can do in second-guessing the ostensible/ possible motives behind reliable sources. Our remit is to ascertain what reliable sources say, and paraphrase, not stand over them and pick and choice what we like or dislike by inserting subjective hums and has about this and that, as much of these long threads seems to testify to.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
No matter how much you try and hide it through charmingly worded insults, the truth is you invented multiple details about a source. That the source was a "top" "very high-level" "expert on South Africa-Israeli relations" was your invention. That Eldar went around interviewing multiple sources, was again your invention. And now two more inventions one of which is directly refuted in the source. The source is clear that it was a small dinner hosted by d'Alema, not a dinner in his honor. The sources do not claim any specific level of the people involved merely saying they were "public figures and former diplomats" in 2003 and "friends" in 2007. There is nothing about them being "upper echelons" which is again an invention of yours. Also, what is your source for this dinner being at the King David's Hotel, I mean its believable but does not seem to be in the Eldar sources. AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There are many reliable sources that accept the Sharon statement as having been given and it is all duly sourced in the article. That should be an end to it, really.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Ctrl+F "Sharon" and you'll find the 72 times it's been previously brought up in this talk thread along with responses. There are multiple sources attesting to the pejorative and critical nature of the word "Bantustan" in this context, as well as in general. It would be very interesting to see any sources staying that enclaves is non neutral/non-NPOV. Drsmoo (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I asked you for the specific diffs to back your assertion about d'Alema. You don't supply them, but assert the relevant points were made 2 months before I added new in formation elaborating on d'Alema's testimony. So you have sidestepped my request.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. As with a lot of I/P stuff, this is another case of "even though the comparison is apt, there's strong NPOV issues with it". The "enclave" or "canton" formulation has no such NPOV issues. Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


West Bank bantustans → Palestinian enclaves – The most popular alternative proposal at the recent RfC, which had a reasonably small number of participants versus the previous discussions. As promised when that RfC was launched,[7] this RM is to see whether this alternative has consensus when compared to the current name. Previous discussions at: (1) Deletion proposal of 14 November, (2) Rename proposal of 24 November and (3) RfC discussion of 10 December. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging all 61 other editors involved in the discussion so far: @*Treker, 11Fox11, Adoring nanny, AforBaheer, AhmadNN, Ahrtoodeetoo, Alatari, AlmostFrancis, Bearian, Black Kite, Bolter21, Bondegezou, Buidhe, Challenger.rebecca, Chefallen, Doug Weller, Drsmoo, Free1Soul, GenQuest, GizzyCatBella, Greyshark09, HalfdanRagnarsson, Hippeus, Huldra, Île flottante, ImTheIP, Indy beetle, JayBeeEll, JJNito197, Johnpacklambert, Jr8825, Lee Vilenski, Lembit Staan, Levivich, MarnetteD, Maryam.Rosie, Mehrajmir13, Metropolitan90, Moriori, Nemo bis, Nishidani, and NSH001: @Paine Ellsworth, ProcrastinatingReader, Reenem, Sakiv, Selfstudier, Shrike, Sir Joseph, Starship.paint, Stefka Bulgaria, Supreme Deliciousness, Tayi Arajakate, TheAafi, Thepharoah17, TimothyBlue, Tritomex, Vici Vidi, Wikieditor19920, Yair rand, and Zoozaz1:
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixing multiple user ping, as per Template:Reply to, each group of 50 or less needs to be it's own edit, with it's own signature, etc.

@*Treker, 11Fox11, Adoring nanny, AforBaheer, AhmadNN, Ahrtoodeetoo, Alatari, AlmostFrancis, Bearian, Black Kite, Bolter21, Bondegezou, Buidhe, Challenger.rebecca, Chefallen, Doug Weller, Drsmoo, Free1Soul, GenQuest, GizzyCatBella, Greyshark09, HalfdanRagnarsson, Hippeus, Huldra, Île flottante, ImTheIP, Indy beetle, JayBeeEll, JJNito197, Johnpacklambert, Jr8825, Lee Vilenski, Lembit Staan, Levivich, MarnetteD, Maryam.Rosie, Mehrajmir13, Metropolitan90, Moriori, Nemo bis, Nishidani, and NSH001: Drsmoo (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth, ProcrastinatingReader, Reenem, Sakiv, Selfstudier, Shrike, Sir Joseph, Starship.paint, Stefka Bulgaria, Supreme Deliciousness, Tayi Arajakate, TheAafi, Thepharoah17, TimothyBlue, Tritomex, Vici Vidi, Wikieditor19920, Yair rand, and Zoozaz1: Drsmoo (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I expect the proposal will be affirmed. But it egregiously violates NPOV, since the word 'enclave' necessarily implies that the surrounding territory is under the sovereignty of (a) surrounding state(s) The final status of the Palestinian territories is undetermined, but in international law, they are not part of Israel, of which the Palestinian bits are said to be 'enclaves' . The proposal has consensus but is both contrafactual semantically, and improper as non-neutral. (b) The surrounding territory is constituted by what numerous sources equally claim are Israeli enclaves (authoritatively here, here and esp.'it is not surprising, therefore, that scholarly articles, as well as Israeli court decisions, have commonly referred to the Israeli settlements as "Israeli enclaves".'), though the euphemism we have adopted there is Israeli settlements. The only way to maintain a minimal gesture towards NPOV, if Once's suggestion carries, would be to rename simultaneously 'Israeli settlements' as 'Israeli enclaves'. If the change was accompanied by this condition of parity, I could approve it as a compromise that at least would uphold a semblance of neutrality, one of our fundamental pillars.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    I don't quite buy this argument. In each of these proposals (and that is what this article covers, per the first sentence of the article) the maps are enclaves, detached from any neighbouring countries. The West Bank presently is connected to Jordan via Area C, so the settlements are not enclaves. Similarly, Gaza (although not a settlement) is connected to sea, thus not an enclave. Per enclave, I don't see the big problem here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    That said, I do see some issues with the scope of the article with the new title. The current Palestine (excl Gaza) could be said to be an enclave, since the Area A/B territories are enclaves. So the title "Palestinian enclaves" creates the expectation of an article discussing the status quo rather than plan proposals. For that reason I'm not sure this is the best title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like some numbers here: a quick glance on google-search shows "West Bank" bantustans far more common than Palestinian enclaves? Huldra (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    See WP:HITS. Levivich harass/hound 04:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I will say what I said before; this proposal does not violate NPOV but affirms it. The simple recognition in a de facto sense that Israeli controlled territory would surround Palestinian controlled territory that this name gives is not a violation of NPOV but a basic statement of fact. With regards to the statement above, Israeli settlements are quite obviously an entirely different situation. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:COMMONAME. But more to the point, this is a name used by both sides that is without connotations that one side is committing apartheid (or is extremely unwieldy) and that describes this specific situation in a concise and precise way. Zoozaz1 talk 04:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. That is extremely muddled thinking, that shows no familiarity with the article's documentation. You are describing a future situation as a 'de facto' reality, for Chrissake, a contradiction in your own terminology. Read WP:CRYSTALBALL and try to get some handle on orderly rational focused analysis. The article basically described Israeli planning to create bantustans, quite designedly, with full awareness of the analogy, and deals substantially with the past history of that project, not the future. Your second point about Israeli settlements is a meaningless assertion, nonsense. The literature never describes them as 'unique' (sui generis, a meaningless descriptor) but frequently as 'enclaves', as indeed does the Trump Plan itself (here, here etc.), which distinguishes areas to be annexed, and settlements to remain enclaves. Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in this future scenario de facto Israeli territory would surround Palestinian territory. How is this muddled thinking or a contradiction? That would be the reality. Yes, in a technical sense it is not "sui generis." That doesn't change the fact that Israeli settlements are a completely different situation, where the overwhelming common name describes them as settlements, and that the naming of Israeli settlements is not relevant to naming this article. Zoozaz1 talk 15:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope. Once more you are not reading or remembering the sources, or even grasping my points. You don't understand that 'de facto Israeli territory' is laughable language in law, whether Israeli or international. A de facto situation cannot be futurative. The envisaged Trump plan will never be signed by the Palestinians - on that, the consensus is universal. Israel will probably go ahead annex without international authoroty and continue its military occupation of the rest, but even Trump and Netanyahu's division states that 'de jure Palestinian territory will surround 15 Israeli enclaves'. Alas, sigh. But this is Wikipedia, where numbers count, and an impressionable glance at chat, not familiarity with the scholarly complexities, is ultimately what calls the shots.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course de facto Israeli territory is laughable in law, because that is what de facto means; in fact, in contrast to de jure. But you are correct in one thing; I don't grasp your points. Why can't a de facto situation be in the future? If country x were to illegally invade and occupy parts of country y in the future, country x would have de facto control over that territory. It is the exact same thing here; this article is about if Israel legally or illegally annexes Palestinian territory and creates what are most neutrally and clearly described as Palestinian enclaves, which is just a statement of fact. Zoozaz1 talk 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't grasp your points. Why can't a de facto situation be in the future?

Point proven. You don't understand the terms you use, and you don't grasp that this, apart from the obtuse disregard for English usage, violates WP:Crystal.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That's literally the entire point of the article, to describe a proposed plan in the future, in this case for creating Palestinian enclaves. Outside of telling me that I don't understand English or the word de facto, you have failed to explain to me why a de facto situation cannot be in the future; since when I asked you why you failed to answer, I'll answer it myself. Of course a de facto situation can be in the future, as it can be in the present and the past. It is a specific situation; a state, de facto, controls an amount of of territory. That situation can be in the future, present and past. This article describes a specific situation; de facto Israeli territory would surround Palestinian territory, creating Palestinian enclaves, so the best title for this article is simply Palestinian enclaves. Zoozaz1 talk 15:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Outside of telling me that I don't understand English or the word de facto, you have failed to explain to me why a de facto situation cannot be in the future; since when I asked you why you failed to answer

De facto. In law and government, de facto (Latin: de facto, "in fact") describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized

I.e. you don't understand the meaning of the legal terminology you cited, and apparently didn't even bother to check it on Wikipedia itself. The future doesn't exist in reality, exception in some temporal implications of physics theories and comic books. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
creating Palestinian enclaves ie enclavization.Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The article describes the situation where "de facto Israeli territory would surround Palestinian territory," which is best described as Palestinian enclaves. That situation, in turn, would be the result of enclavization, but the point is the situation itself, which is essentially Palestinian enclaves, rather than the process of creating that situation. Zoozaz1 talk 18:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The article isn't about a situation. That would be something de facto. It's about a process that is ongoing, predicting any end point is OR (allowed in talk).Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This title is not ideal and the whole article should be WP:TNTed as it one sided POV essay by its better then original title --Shrike (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose For reasons already detailed above. ImTheIP (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the absence of a commonname, I suggested Palestinian dispossession in the RFC and can straightforwardly think of several alternatives: fragmentation, cantonization, creeping annexation (of Palestine/Palestinian). Not on the list is Palestinian enclaves, an inaccurate and insufficient description of the article content.Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per reasons stated above and in the RFC. For example, the source used in the article's naming section states: "With the enclaves, a new spatial device has emerged. The enclaves contain a population expelled but still within the territory of the state; they are neither camps, detention centers, nor Bantustans."([7]) Additionally, there are multiple reliable sources found above in the RFC stating that Bantustans in this context is a pejorative and a term used by critics. The term "Bantustans" is both non-neutral, and uncommon. While mindful of WP:HITS, "Enclaves" in this context is consistently found with 4-6 times more frequency than "Bantustans", and is used in official documentation, such as the recent U.S. Peace Plan, while "Bantustans" is used almost exclusively in opinion pieces. Drsmoo (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Peteet, Julie (2016). "The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid". Anthropological Quarterly. 89 (1): 247–281. ISSN 0003-5491.
  2. ^ Gasiorowski, Mark; Yom, Sean L. (2018-05-04). The Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-97411-3.
  3. ^ Halbfinger, David M.; Rasgon, Adam (2020-06-19). "As Annexation Looms, Israeli Experts Warn of Security Risks". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  4. ^ "Legal Affairs". www.legalaffairs.org. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  5. ^ Winter, Dave (1999). Israel Handbook: With the Palestinian Authority Areas. Footprint Handbooks. ISBN 978-1-900949-48-4.
  6. ^ Kirby, Jen (13 July 2020). "Israel's West Bank annexation plan and why it's stalled, explained by an expert". Vox.
  7. ^ Peteet, Julie (2016). "The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid". Anthropological Quarterly. 89 (1): 247–281. ISSN 0003-5491.
Once more in asserting 'Bantustans in this context is a pejorative and a term used by critics' you and the others sidestep the obvious fact that the article documents in detail that 'bantustan' was for decades the default term used by Israeli planners and politicians. Its reemergence in texts written by 'critics' is not an outside view, ergo pejorative. 'Critics' simply 'echo' the language and analogy introduced by Israeli planners. If it is 'pejorative' it is so because that is the way Ariel Sharon et al., desired the objective result of their planning to be for Palestinians. It is a 'pejorative' situation for Palestinians, but, this is wiki, we must euphemize and pretend that the word itself as used by the Israelis who designed the projected geographical outcome is verboten.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Correction, it is multiple reliable sources who assert that Bantustans in this context is a pejorative and a term used by critics. Drsmoo (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Used by critics is true, one assumes that they intend to criticize in a lot of cases and these cases outnumber your sources asserting that it is purely insulting by some distance.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
They don't outnumber "Palestinian Enclaves" Drsmoo (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Absent a commonname, one name is as good as another, provided that it describes the content of the article.Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You have that exactly backwards. Absent a commonname, we don't use a name which is a pejorative. A pejorative term can only be used if it is a Commonname, which "Bantustans" is not. And we certainly don't use a POV pejorative name that's 4-6 times less frequently used than "Enclaves". Drsmoo (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Again evading the point: Bantustan is the term used in Israeli planning for the West Bank from Levi Eshkol's time down to Ehud Olmert, and was a core principle for Ariel Sharon, who set in process the bantustanization. Thus, it is a clear-sighted infra-Israeli term for what they want to do with Palestinian territory, not a 'critic's' outside perspective. The so-called 'critics' are historians and analysts who are thoroughly conversant with the Israeli perspective, and borrow the term from them. In that sense, it is far from pejorative: it is the objective term all those not prey to politically correct attacks of the nervous Nellies have consistently used. But of course, this must be ignored. The fav nation must not be described 'publicly' in terms of the language, nod and wink, used in upper echelons in private.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
You seem to think that I am pushing the Bantustan title, I already proposed in the RFC a compromise suggestion and in here, several others that would do. Even enclavization would do, it is not I who is stuck in a rut. My RFC suggestion is used far more frequently than enclaves but none of these names is a commonname in the usual sense, none get very many hits, so we are stuck with a descriptive title, which enclaves is not.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Re enclaves, presumably you also agree with Peteet in her subsequent book?

As dystopic spaces, enclaves can be contradictory, fostering intimacy and creativity as well as isolation and despair. I use dystopia less to refer to a degenerative process and more to an exclusivist utopian project that spelled disaster for the indigenous population and transformed their terrain into dysfunctional, unsustainable places.[1]

Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Peteet, Julie (2017). Space and Mobility in Palestine. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-02511-1.
WP:NOTAFORUM, though Peteet's use of "Palestinian enclaves" lends further support for the move. Drsmoo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:CHERRYPICKING, I quite like Palestinian dystopic spaces and Palestinian exclusivist utopian project even better but they are a bit whimsical for a title.Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Current title is clearly not NPOV and this is an improvement. Number 57 14:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as bantustan describes a specific South African and Namibian historical context. - Amigao (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as much superior to current title which is full of POV and accuracy issues. I would also support a merge of this article (either to one article, or many). Vici Vidi (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: This article should IMO be deleted but this proposal is vastly more neutral than the current title. RM (Be my friend) 12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The current name is an extremely clear case of POV-pushing, the target is a much more neutral name and should be the one used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support... Well, I still think that "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" would have been a better title, but as Zoozaz1 says, this is at least a substantial improvement. Per my own previous comments, the current title is inaccurate and non-neutral. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bantustans is the most common term used to describe these entities by participants in the conflict and by the wider media and scholarship at large. The word, rightly, has negative connotations, and we have the policy of WP:NPOVNAME for exactly this reason. We don't "neutralize" the names of places labelled Ghetto or events labelled Pogrom just because those words have negative connotations - we rightly go with the common name - so any "it's not neutral" argument is applying anti-Palestinian double standards. It is also worth noting that this article, although less than two months old, is consistently seeing over 100 views a day, which suggests that the title is what interested readers are expecting. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
On aggregators of scholarship, for example, JSTOR/Google Books/Google Scholar, "Palestinian enclaves" is exponentially more widely used (4-6x more frequently) than both "West Bank bantustans" and "Palestinian bantustans". Drsmoo (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but many of those references refer to Gaza and East Jerusalem. On the topic of the West Bank entities alone, bantustans is overwhelmingly more common. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As stated above, no name is a common name and that is therefore irrelevant. We need a descriptive name for the article content, enclaves is not it, for example, Oslo areas are enclaves but only a present day subset of the spaces being discussed in the article overall, a process type name is desirable, fragmentation, cantonization, something + -ation.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The lockstep process's conclusions are obvious. None of the serious objections raised have been minimally addressed. The only way out of this quandary, a majority voting for the proposed name change on some vague assertion of NPOV while totally ignoring or failing to answer the crux - 'it is the historic usage condoned by the Israeli planners of the system being created' - and the actual editors of the page familiar with the topic's sources, and having extensive textual evidence to warrant mention of Bantustan, would be to imitate the Israel and the Apartheid analogy. I.e. the West Bank and the Bantustan analogy. The precedent exists. Consensus is not by numbers but rather by cogency of argument. When you have a conflict between numbers and argumentative cogency the way through is a compromise, not a euphemism.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Correction, all of the objections raised have been thoroughly addressed in the RFC(s). This is simply a case of WP:IDHT. You can disagree, but you can't claim your objections weren't thoroughly addressed. Drsmoo (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
So where did you or anyone else explain how it is 'pejorative' (of whom? Israel or the Palestinians?) and in violation of NPOV to use a term that first emerged among, and then has been frequently been employed by, the Israeli leaders who themselves design and have implemented the so-called 'enclave' structures? That is the elephant in the room, still intently ignored by nearly everyone here.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources sources describe it as pejorative and term used by critics. The rest was addressed throughout the RFC, there was literally a 13-part discussion about it over a month ago. Drsmoo (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
That is not the question I asked. Multiple reliable sources state that this term denotes the analogy informing the thinking of, was used directly by, the Israelis who designed the fragmentation. It is immaterial for NPOV that the term has pejorative connotations if the term was that favoured by its foremost designer, and many others. The 'pejorative' refers to, probably, their contempt for the Palestinians, but people here appear to think it is unfair to Israel. Palestinians have accepted that that is what the Israeli authorities want them to live it and accept the Israeli term as adequate to the territorial reality they are constrained to live in. So, what's the fuss about calling an Israeli spade an Israeli spade? NPOV has nothing to do with it.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Quite right. Odd that none of those voting for whitewashing are wiling to admit that it was Israeli politicians who first bestowed this title. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources? I've seen one, the marginal non specific source you dredged up and put in the article. As nothing compared to the specific list of high level sourcing given in the article demonstrating usage across the board, Israeli, American, UN, diplomats, you name it, all without a trace of embarrassment. Duh!Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
So now Mark J. Gasiorowski, The New York Times, Legal Affairs, and University of Miami Law Review are marginal. Ok. Not to mention Peteet, who explicitly states the enclaves are "not Bantustans". Drsmoo (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Drsmoo, Gasiorowski did not write that, Glenn Robinson did. The other three you mentioned - NYT, LA and UMLR - where did they explain that the term is pejorative when used in the context of the West Bank? As you know, Peteet explicitly states that the term bantustan is too positive a term for the situation in the West Bank, so she is saying the opposite of pejorative. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I stand corrected, it was edited by Gasiorowski. They stated that the term is used by "Israeli critics", "Oslo critics", and "Palestinian critics of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations". Peteet writes that they're not Bantustans, which you seemingly agree with as well. Drsmoo (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Drsmoo, every pogrom in history has some subsequent author writing about whether or not applying a Russian term with specific connotations is appropriate. No pogrom was exactly the same as the archetypes in Kiev and Kishinev, so it is open to endless debate. The word pogrom was rightly used by critics of these events; frankly it's hard to see how anyone could not be a critic of them, but if you have read about them you will know that they had their apologists. Human beings have an incredible ability to excuse themselves of terrible injustices.
Your pointing out that some sources state that the term bantustan is used by critics cannot be logically extrapolated to imply that it is only used by critics; most notably because we have an endless stream of sources where the word has been used by Israelis and their political supporters. So you literally have one source that says it is pejorative, and that source is marginal because it does not say (1) that use of the term is always pejorative, (2) in what sense it is being used as pejorative, nor (3) against whom. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
There are exponentially (4-6x) more scholarly sources using the term Enclaves than your supposed "endless stream". And I've yet to see any sources stating that they're not enclaves, that enclaves is a pejorative, or that enclaves is used by critics. That's because Enclaves is not only the most common term used, it's also the most neutral. P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing Drsmoo (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
That "what?" are not enclaves? I'm beginning to see the problem here, when you (and some others) say "neutral" you don't mean NPOV (ie by the sources) you mean neutral from your POV.Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Drsmoo: as you keep conveniently forgetting, a large number of references to Palestinian enclaves do not refer to the situation within the West Bank but to Gaza and East Jerusalem. On your second point, bantustans are a particular type of enclave - the question here is whether we should whitewash that or not. P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ha, analogy, excellent suggestion. Next cycle.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The territories being taken/~possibly to be taken need not be Palestinian administered. Obvious example, any settlementSelfstudier (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your point. No one is saying that the settlements are similar to bantustans. Alaexis¿question? 09:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I am responding to your "Proposed Palestinian-administered territories" , there are plenty examples existing now, seam zone, East Jerusalem, fragmented areas NOT under Palestinian control (there are areas like this in the Trump plan for example, so your proposed title doesn't work in these cases.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, the seam zone and East Jerusalem are integrated into Israel and do not have separate administrations so you cannot call them bantustans. If the topic of the article is all the territories inhabited or claimed by Palestinians then we should simply merge it with Palestine. Alaexis¿question? 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you click your own link? Try again.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to remind editors how really thorough POV whitewashing occurs, the (ostensibly) corresponding, sister article in Hebrew has actually zero references to the extremely well documented thinking about the Bantustan model which we have here. Great job there! Absolutely NPOV - in the sense it is being used here: never refer to the actual facts.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhe.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D :)Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
All of your wiki examples don't work: for them to work, you would have to call the Israeli settlements enclaves in Palestinian territories. The gross NPOV violation here consists in asserting the obverse, that smidgeons of territory relegated to Palestinians are enclaves within Israeli territory. The contrafactual reading has consensus, but then again, as recent events remind us, people don't focus on reality and the meaning of terms.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I understand the article's subject to be the process by which Palestinian territories are being fragmented, undermining their cohesiveness and potential for sovereignty. The lead sentence defines the subject (however we decide to label it) as "proposed areas". It's not counterfactual to use the term "enclaves" because we are not asserting that this process is de jure complete and finalised. Although my preference has always been "fragmentation" or "enclavisation", to highlight the fact this is an ongoing process, "enclaves" is justified on the basis that this is an overview not only of the historical process, but also its implications and the current repercussions of a de facto situation threatening precisely what you describe, "smidgeons of territory relegated to Palestinians are enclaves within Israeli territory". Jr8825 • Talk 10:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to see that you concur that the ideal solution would be any term inflected by -ization. The majority refusal to accept 'enclavization' however boils down to either unfamiliarity with the subject, or POV voting for a political result favourable to one of the two parties in the dispute. 'enclave' , to repeat, cannot but imply that the surrounding territory falls under Israeli sovereignty. I'm a realist. While I've been arguing 'enclave' uninflected is a gross violation of NPOV, I have been convinced nonetheless from the outset that, as so very often, political calculation of the crucial national interest will determine the outcome, as it has. Few actually edit this hotspot area, but touch the national interest of that country, and masses turn up and the serious arguments are buried. I've watched this going on for 14 years. I appreciate the effort you personally put into actually trying to address objections seriously. Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
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.

Lead section

Per the RM, we may need to look at how the lead section is written. As with a lot of I/P issues, the article does seem to have a problem with constant POV pushing; int his article's case, especially with the over-egging of the term "bantustan" where it's not strictly necessary. Even though I personally abhor the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, editorially I believe the lead section can be massively improved. However, I'm wary of just barging in and changing it willy-nilly, so I'd like to see what everyone else's thoughts are.

Speaking with that editing hat on, here's a first bash of how I would write the lead section (sans links and referencing); I'd appreciate feedback on this:

The Palestinian enclaves, also figuratively described as the Palestine archipelago, are proposed areas in the West Bank designated for Palestinians under a variety of US and Israeli-led proposals to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By way of the popular comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as the West Bank bantustans.

The "islands" first took official form as Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord, which was composed of 165 "islands" that comprised the area of the West Bank under partial or total civil control of the Palestinian National Authority. The remainder of the West Bank – Area C – was intended to be "gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; as of 2021, no such transfers have been made. The creation of this arrangement has been called "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century."

A number of Israeli-US peace plans, including the Allon Plan, the Drobles World Zionist Organization plan, Menachem Begin's plan, Benjamin Netanyahu's "Allon Plus" plan, the 2000 Camp David Summit, Sharon's vision of a Palestinian state, and most recently the Trump peace plan, have proposed enclave-type territories, i.e., a group of non-contiguous areas surrounded by Israel. These plans would most likely effectively result in a weakened Palestinian state with Israel retaining vast geopolitical control.

I'm not confident about the third paragraph, mind you, so I'd like to hear suggestions on that.

Cordially, Sceptre (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree the lead can be improved and I think this is a good start. I think the lead might have to be changed further to address proposed enclaves v. existing enclaves, and West Bank enclaves v. elsewhere. "West Bank bantustans" is a narrower scope than "Palestinian enclaves", so I think the lead should cover the broader scope following the RM. Levivich harass/hound 00:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe the usual procedure is to do the body and then the lead is a function of that. Usually. I would start with the Names section as we need to connect the new title to some sourcing since at the moment there is only indirect sourcing present for enclaves. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Which raises another question: what are the three (or however many) best sources for the topic? Levivich harass/hound 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Shlomo Ben-Ami Former Foreign Minister of Israel (6 February 2006). Scars of War, Wounds of Peace : The Israeli-Arab Tragedy: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-531347-5. Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll start a separate section about "best" sources, I have some others to suggest as well. Levivich harass/hound 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The prominence given as an alternative title 'Palestinian archipelago' and then after the definition, adding that 'Palestinian bantustans' is also mentioned, inverts the weight of RS evidence. The latter comes up far more frequently (5 times) than P.archipelago. The most frequently used alternative term, if we privilege 'enclave' is Bantustan, and that should be stated without equivocation in the lead where 'archipelago' now stands.
There is a problem with enclave of course, because, if one thinks Bantustan violates NPOV, that also applies to enclave, which, in English usage,(I donìt know how many times this has to be repeated) 'enclave' cannot avoid implying that the rest of the surrounding territory is under Israeli sovereignty.
Even then, there is extensive reference to Israeli settlements as enclaves in the West Bank. Unless that is clearly noted, the POV of the title in favour of a contrafactual insinuation remains.
Since this article has been written sifting through the numerous texts which speak of the Bantustan analogy, once can hardly alter source language consistently through the page replacing 'Bantustan' with 'enclave'. Unless the language used reflects faithfully the sources referred to, any mechanical alterations of this kind would rewrite rather than paraphrase Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Levivich. You mightn't personally consider on reflection your remark here, just removed, as unproductive. I find it insightful.
  • An article was written on the the West Bank Bantustan analogy.
  • The four editors working on it harvested a rich fund of discussions precisely on analyses of this idea, its history, development, formularization etc. That is the content of the article.
  • The various RfCs concerned changing the title from 'Bantustan' to 'enclave,' and that change won consensus, despite the fact that it violates linguistically the very principle of NPOV used to eliminate Bantustan from the title.
  • Now that we have 'Palestinian enclaves'. Fine. What happens (I predicted this by the way!) The achieved change in title is adduced as a reason to completely rewrite the article, presumably by eliminating the Bantustan references, and replacing them with sources that use only enclave.
This makes my evening. It really is a masterpiece of . . .Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ive stayed away from this article for a number of reasons, but IMO there belongs a section here on comparisons to South African bantustans, and also a section in Israel and the apartheid analogy on those comparisons. That what Wikipedia euphemistically calls enclaves are compared to Apartheid South African bantustans is a part of this topic and the name change doesnt change that. nableezy - 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Already in the article

Books/book chapters

  1. Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-019045908-6.
  2. Peteet, Julie (2017). Space and Mobility in Palestine. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-02511-1.
  3. Kamrava, Mehran (26 April 2016). The Impossibility of Palestine: History, Geography, and the Road Ahead. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-22085-8.
  4. Chaichian, Mohammed (2013). "Bantustans, Maquiladoras, and the Separation Barrier Israeli Style". Empires and Walls: Globalization, Migration, and Colonial Domination. Brill Publishers. pp. 271–319. ISBN 978-9-004-26066-5.
  5. Makdisi, Saree (2012). Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06996-9.
  6. Le More, Anne (31 March 2008). International Assistance to the Palestinians after Oslo: Political guilt, wasted money. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-05232-5.
  7. Efrat, Elisha (2006). The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-17217-7.
  8. Adam, Heribert; Moodley, Kogila (2005). Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians. UCL Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-84472-130-6.

Journal articles

  1. Kelly, Jennifer Lynn (September 2016). "Asymmetrical Itineraries: Militarism, Tourism, and Solidarity in Occupied Palestine" (PDF). American Quarterly. 68 (3): 723–745. doi:10.1353/aq.2016.0060. S2CID 151482682.
  2. Falah, Ghazi-Walid (2005). "The Geopolitics of 'Enclavisation' and the Demise of a Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Third World Quarterly. 26 (8): 1341–1372. doi:10.1080/01436590500255007. JSTOR 4017718. S2CID 154697979.
  3. Makdisi, Saree (2005). "Said, Palestine, and the Humanism of Liberation". Critical Inquiry. 31 (2): 443–461. doi:10.1086/430974. JSTOR 430974. S2CID 154951084.
  4. Roy, Sara (2004). "The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and Palestinian Socioeconomic Decline: A Place Denied". International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. 17 (3): 365–403. doi:10.1023/B:IJPS.0000019609.37719.99. JSTOR 20007687. S2CID 145653769.

Not yet in the article

Books/book chapters

  1. Abdallah, Stéphanie Latte; Parizot, Cédric, eds. (2016-03-09). Israelis and Palestinians in the Shadows of the Wall: Spaces of Separation and Occupation. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-11185-6.
  2. Ghandour-Demiri, Nada (2016-07-01). "28: Israel–Palestine: An Archipelago of (In)security". In Cavelty, Myriam Dunn; Balzacq, Thierry (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-62091-4.
  3. Tilley, Virginia (2010-02-24). The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-02616-6.
  4. Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006-02-06). Scars of War, Wounds of Peace : The Israeli-Arab Tragedy: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-531347-5.

Journal articles

  1. Baumann, Hanna (2016-11-01). "Enclaves, borders, and everyday movements: Palestinian marginal mobility in East Jerusalem". Cities. 59: 173–182. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.012. ISSN 0264-2751. (PDF)
  2. Peteet, Julie (2015-08-27). "Camps and Enclaves: Palestine in the Time of Closure". Journal of Refugee Studies. 29 (2): 208–228. doi:10.1093/jrs/fev014. ISSN 0951-6328.

Sources discussion

Please feel free to add to the lists above. I think these might be some of the top sources for this article. My search criteria was: 21st-century books from academic publishers, and journal articles from journals with an impact factor >1, that substantively discuss (not just mention in passing) Palestinian enclaves. I think that criteria is pretty loose and could be tightened, but the bottom line is there are plenty of quality works available (not that anyone doubted that). Most are already in the article, but some are not yet in the article; I've differentiated the two. Any to add/remove? Other thoughts? Levivich harass/hound 21:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, this is excellent. Thoughtful, methodical and constructive. Well done. A great shame that we wasted two months arguing before this kind of engagement, but that is water under the bridge. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, I think we should tell how the enclaves first to came to be i.e that Jordan and then Israel first controlled the territory and then as results of peace process the first time in history Palestinians received self governance and why those encalves didn't grow(failure of peace talks,violence and so on) Shrike (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. That didn't take long.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
If before, bantustan was the lead singer and enclave was in the chorus, all that has happened following the title change is that these positions are reversed. The history, which starts in 67, and the ongoing process described in the article remains the same whether one refers to it as enclavization, fragmentation or bantustanization. In the matter of sourcing it is of course desirable on first principles to use the best sources where possible but best does not mean only. Sources that use more than one of the available terms (like Peteet) are better than sources that only use one. I think we should cleave as usual to WP guidelines, NPOV, verifiable, dueness, weight and the rest. While a newspaper article from the 70s is likely not going to be due, we need different sources to cover more recent events where it is as yet too early for a sufficient availability of books and journal articles. All sources, whether for enclave, bantustan or anything else could have been added at any time in the recent past, they haven't been discovered just now because the title has changed. Because they were not added, we now have to address the question of how best to incorporate them or possibly to rewrite the prose if it is something that has already been added. Since the word bantustan is what has caused all the furore, I suggest that in addition to fixing the Names section, we first deal with that and see what overuse of the word might exist as a first step in dealing with the tag currently attached to the article.Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
In my view, the top sources already cited in the article are vastly underused. Peteet is a great example: Peteet 2017 is one of the top sources for this article (although I personally think Peteet has a strong POV, her 2017 book seems to be entirely about this topic, it's recent, she's a bona-fide scholar in the field, and it's a university publisher), yet it's cited only a few times in our article, amazingly. Another example is Sharon-related content. Peteet 2017 and the other works listed above provide details coverage of Sharon's role in Palestinian enclaves. There is no need to cite Hareetz 2007 (as our article currently does), or any newspaper, for content about Sharon... unless, as you said, it's too recent to be covered by the academic works. But that really means newspapers should only be used for content within the last year or few years. But not 10+ years, or even 5+ years, given how frequent academic works are published in this field, and not for topics that are already covered by academic works. The scholars filter the newspaper coverage; we should summarize the scholars. Levivich harass/hound 18:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The argument you make ideally is one I have repeatedly made over the years, before a yawning constituency of editors who just google stuff. if you seriously think newspapers more than a few years old should not be used, I'd be happy to see you show other editors how this is done by reworking the baker's dozen of articles on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. What you suggest is neither practical nor possible for 99% of I/P articles, regardless of their ostensible POVs, and we shouldn't suddenly insist on the principle uniquely with this one. Whether newspapers from a period are useful or not is not something can be determined by simple criteria. Scholars often screw up, as do newspapers, like the academic sources stating that d'Alema hosted a dinner for Israelis, when he was in fact the guest, etc. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure it matters a whole lot, but what is your source for d'Alema being a guest not the host. If Eldar made such a basic error in fact then I would question using his article at all.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Eldar's not the only one, several scholars state the same thing, so the discrimination between newspapers/scholarship being made to elide the former falls on those grounds. Eldar in any case also wrote of this in a book of indisputable scholarly worth, with some different emphases. He is considerable an insider with very good credentials in this field of reportage.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand that Eldar was not the only one, but since I think it is important to respect BLP, can you please share the source you are using that shows his report was false in some respects?AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to do with WP:BLP. The source is no secret. Anyone, anyone, could get it in a simple search, given my indications. I work slowly, not to a sense of urgency of someone else's bidding. I'll put it in when I get time for revising that whole section which should be over the next few days.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason you are unwilling to share this source? No one asked you to add it to the article so I don't understand why you are being so cryptic and uncollaborative.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
See you could have just said the source is "Lord of the Lands" page 423 co-authored by Eldar himself. Instead I had to waste 20 minutes trying to figure out what you meant. As to why Eldar condritics his old reporting my guess would be protecting Primor, or the story has grown in the telling. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
What's 'condritics' mean? Well, it took me only a few seconds. I'd appreciate you reading what others write rather than leaping to personal conclusions (I'm 'unwilling' etc). I'm busy offline, I don't hurry edits. I don't edit according to urgent beck and calls by anyone who should, if they are interested in an article, not treat other editors as thought they were waiters who must jump when others pass by and imagine Wikipedia is a restaurant where some must work, and others consume. I hope we can put an end to this Horatian distraction of nugae into complaints per parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
One lesson I've learned from watching Wikipedia's COVID coverage this year is that source restrictions are the best weapon against POV pushing. If editors begin by agreeing on what sourcing is to be used to source a Wikipedia article, then everything else can logically and objectively flow from that. "Source-based article building" is an evidence-based practice. Levivich harass/hound 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Wrong analogy. No one challenged the idea that Covid-19 was the topic: here, against the several dozen sources actually used, which are of high quality, objections were made that the title was not comfortable to NPOV, and that a more neutral title would be 'enclave', which, not astoundingly, assumes that the West Bank is under Israeli sovereignty in international law, and whatever bits and pieces of sewerage dumps, hillsides and hardscrabble patches Israel condescends to leave to the natives end up as 'enclaves' in that hallucination of the law. Now the second leg of this POV victory over the sources consists in trying to suggest most sources using Bantustan be gradually replaced by sources that use 'Palestinian enclave', making for essentially the kind of lobotomized nonsense we find in the Hebrew sister-article where the whole intensely documented story of bantustans disappears under a discourse of 'cantons', a term that can only be linguistically warranted in a binational state of the future.

It would be better . . to avoid the use of the word “enclave” entirely. It is a metaphor that hasd probably outlived its usefulness though it has a persistent half-life. Literally, £enclave” mean s “a portion of territory surrounded by foreign dominions.” Bruce A. Clark, Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty: The Existing Aboriginal Right of Self-government in Canada, McGill-Queen's Press 1990 ISBN 978-0-773-50946-7 p.146

As for 'enclaves', this is a fantastically absurd terminology even in Israeli law, because there, enclave is the term for the system of laws governing Israeli settlements, i.e. 'enclave law', Israeli legislation conceives of its settlements as 'enclaves'. Wikipedia has invented the idea that the only enclaves on the West Bank are areas outside of Israeli enclaves. For the moment it appears we have to put up with this pro-Israeli title, whose key term has fallen into analytic desuetude. But bowdlerizing the content, given the quality of those sources, in order to elide a kernel element in Israel's imperial designs on that territory, is dubious practice. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's do one thing at a time, see where we end up. We are not going to delete every reference to a bantustan, just reorient the article more towards the enclave terminology and I have been doing some of that. The RM closer anticipated this in his suggested lead and I think we can follow that, more or less. People chose enclave mainly in order to get bantustan out of the title and that has been done. I dislike the new title but now is not the moment to revisit it, there is still a good article to be had here and we ought to focus on getting some stability into it. If it is simple to take out a particular source because we have better, we can certainly do that as well as having discussions about the dueness of what remains.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I accept the legitimacy of the procedures that organized the new title, but do not think that a change of wording can mandate a change of content. The name is usually generated from the content, which is about Bantustan analogies in Israeli and analytical discourse. Here we have the obverse_ deciding on a speciously NPOV name switch, whose replacement term then is supposed to generate a different article from the one we have. This is bizarre in its procedural irregularity. I can't think of other examples in my experience, of rewriting out of a composed and fairly thoroughly researched article its content in favour of another. For enclaves and bantustans are not the same thing. East Jerusalem has, according to one's POV (annexed/not annexed/indeterminate 9) and sources, either Israeli enclaves or Palestinian enclaves or a mix of both. (This for example is the problem with including Hanna Baumann's "Enclaves, borders, and everyday movements: Palestinian marginal mobility in East Jerusalem,' as was mentioned as an alternative source.)
If one, by analogy, adopts Palestinian enclaves while keeping mum on Israeli enclaves you are violating NPOV but casting the topic in terms of the favoured terminology of the annexionist power. Levivich cited way back the Indian-Bangladesh enclaves. Well, I looked that up. Most (200 +) of the world's enclaves lie there, but this is what our best monograph states on those 'enclaves'.

'An enclave has been defined as an outlying portion of a country entirely or mostly surrounded by the territory of another country. The evolved geopolitical meaning of the word has currently come to mean a portion of a country separated from the mainland and surrounded by a politically alien territory.' Debdatta Chowdhury, Identity and Experience at the India-Bangladesh Border: The Crisis of Belonging, Routledge 2018 ISBN 978-1-315-29679-1

Neither definition fits the programmed divisions for Palestinians mentioned by this article. The so-called Palestinian enclaves are not (a) outlying portions of a future Palestinian Jordan, the first sense, and they are not some 'portion' separated from some 'mainland'. The new name therefore has two problems that can't be glossed over. (a) enclave in the sense being used here (as a euphemism for bantustanic, or 'Arik Sharonic cantons' (that was Reuven Rivlin's way of putting it)) is peculiar usage, since it belies the standard meaning of the word in English (b) since our name now has this semantic haze, you can't rewrite the article by pretending everything is clear.
Wiki's standard procedures often screw up, as they have here where a name-switch was determined by people who basically (few edited here) don't know the topic issues. Fine, keep the name, but until this dyscrasia is sorted out, the content should remain stable, with, of course, due additions from those sources that prefer enclave. Probably the most urgent thing is to clarify in the name section precisely this aspect.
All the vaunted namechange has done has been to cause an utter conceptual fog while achieving the implication that the non-Palestinian ruled areas of the West Bank are 'the territory of another country'. The editors who actually researched and wrote the article can't be asked to fix this mess, accomplished through otherwise standard wiki procedures. Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You are right of course. I think "rewriting" is not a thing we have to do. We do need to recognize that the "overuse" of the word has been noted by at least two "outsiders" who may or may not have auto-connected the word with SA and thence to apartheid even though we were at pains to avoid making that explicit. In that regard, since detractors are so fond of making this connection, we may as well take up Nableezy suggestion and discuss the comparison explicitly. Apart from that, I still think the article has a ways to go in making the "process" clearer, for instance the so called Palestinian autonomy talks (at which no Palestinians were present) are a bridge from Begin to Oslo. The enclaves/bantustans are symptomatic of another thread running through all this, namely the prevention of a State of Palestine/self determination and this needs developing as well.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, as I'e thought from the outset, all this kerfuffle could have been avoided by limiting the article to a survey of the Bantustan analogy, which is how it began basically. There are plenty of other articles that (could) deal with the general issues - the infinite intricacies in diplomatic history, strategic planning, ideological positions within Israeli religious/Zionist circles, about how to stop a Palestinian state from emerging etc. Personally I prefer to focus here on the core of the original design, to keep the article short and bittersweet. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
If you think that's the way to go, I won't object to that. Cutting the article back is much simpler than expanding it. The material won't be lost, it can be spread around to appropriate other articles as the original detractors wanted. I won't edit any further until we can agree on a direction for the article. Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It's too late to either cut the article back to my Bantustan analogy, or reshape it or rewrite it. Once had a different aim in creating it than the idea I gained in looking at it after a week, and their understanding of it should be respected. It is more expansive. The article hasn't been harmed by the different angles the actual drafting editors have approached it from. There's even room for some section on the enclave idea reflecting those sources. The various directions have coalesced, save regarding the latter, which, as argued above, should not be used to alter the historical facts: Israel has long thought (in so far as 'nations' think, which they don't, per the forgotten but valid arguments of Alfred Korzybski, Stuart Chase and S. I. Hayakawa) that its own settlements are the proper enclaves, (too many analysts just don't think through the impact of terminological gaming rampant in this discursive area) that some form of bantustanization is all that Palestinians are going to get, and the rest is euphemism or POV pushing. This is the thrust of what large multiples of RS state.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is it too late? Levivich harass/hound 02:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Make a subsection in the Israel and the apartheid analogy article and if it merits being spun out then make a new article out of it. nableezy - 22:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The original version of the article was not about the terminology or any particular analogy, but simply intended to describe the territorial arrangement of the current and proposed fragmented “reservations” (or whatever we choose to call them), in the context of the overall process of the hemming of the West Bank Palestinians into them.

Whilst I agree with Nish’s points, which as usual are impeccably argued, I have a different perspective. We all agree that Area C is Palestinian land under international law, and under Oslo as well, but in practice it is de facto annexed to Israel. So the question of whether Areas A+B are true enclaves falls on whether you are answering the question on a de facto or de jure basis. The same is true for whether the Israeli settlements are enclaves, but of course with the de facto and de jure reversed.

So I intended this article to focus on describing the practical reality of the territorial situation which Israel has created for the Palestinians. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine by me, except I would write 'is creating' rather than 'has created':) Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pejorative or criticism?

(breaking out from above section for ease of navigation and editing)

Certainly critical, intentionally so in most cases. Nor is there anything wrong with criticism (unless you are the Israeli government and it is you being criticized, yawn). Still good/top sourcing for bantustan (I will be interested to see you contest it in due course) and relatively typical as well as less of it, for enclaves, which is just a geographical expression that could apply in many contexts and basically meaningless in the context of the article so of course it is "neutral" (which was the whole idea of suggesting/agreeing it, probably).Selfstudier (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that enclaves is neutral and Bantustans is critical. Topic titles can't be "critical" per NPOV, unless they are a common name, which, as you've previously stated, Bantustans certainly isn't. Your claim that there is less sourcing for "enclaves" is simply factually incorrect in every sense. There are exponentially more sources using enclave, and those sources are more mainstream. Drsmoo (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
bantustan is not critical, bantustan is just a word, the people using it, an impressive array of them, are critical of the Israeli government. Maybe you should consider putting some of your exponentially greater sourcing into the article if you really want to make a case as opposed to simply making unfounded assertions.Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'm sure the analogism to apartheid is a compliment. This isn't a sourcing argument, it's a common sense one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Contributions should be based on sources. There are many good sources in the article to choose from, many of which are discussed in the source discussion below. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile What are you suggesting exactly? That we're making it up out of whole cloth when we note that the Israel "apartheid analogy" is a criticism? Do you have sources suggesting otherwise, or do you think it's worth revisiting the page itself to revise any reference to calling it a criticism? It is frivolous and disruptive to claim that it isn't, frankly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, there are no sources saying that calling the arrangement "bantustans" is making the apartheid analogy. That is an unsourced extrapolation and a logical fallacy. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
If that's an "unsourced extrapolation," it was not a problem introduced by my edit, nor was it resolved by you reverting the prior version. The current sentence reads, which you restored, "by way of the popular apartheid analogy..." they are also called "bantustans." This carries exactly the same meaning as the version I fixed, but the wording is far worse. The use of the word "popular" here is a weasel word, and the tone/passive voice is not an encyclopedic tone. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Let's talk about the opening sentence. We had a good deal of controversy over the term "bantustans," and the consensus to deal with it in the title was to remove it entirely. It can be addressed in the lead, but it needs to be done so appropriately. By way of the popular comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also often referred to as bantustans does not do so. First of all, "by way of" is the kind of tone we should be avoiding.

Second, "popular comparison" is not at all descriptive or appropriate here. Simply saying it is a "popular" comparison is right on the line of WP:WEASEL wording, if it isn't a WP:WEASEL word already. It is an analogy raised by 1) anti-Zionists and 2) critics of Israel, in literature and public commentary. To omit this and suggest it is simply "popular" is inappropriate for that reason.

Finally, this is clearly a pejorative. Onceinawhile suggests it is [[9]] synth, but the page itself for the analogy notes it is a criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. I am not particularly enamoured with the current wording, as the term "bantustan" is frequently used without making the wider apartheid analogy so I do not like the implication that it is used with that intention. It is used because those South African entities are the closest thing in modern history to this arrangement, no more no less. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you can separate the two. "Bantustan" is a word that is exclusively associated with South African apartheid, and it is used in an analogous way in all of the sources that are relevant to this article. The wording added by Nishidani is an improvement, but it needs to also be characterized as a criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Not separating the two is known as the fallacy of division (see various comments above). Re characterizing it as a criticism, the discussion and sources above have shown that it is frequently used neutrally / factually, but yes it is also often used as criticism. We have two nuances to watch in the wording: (1) ensure we do not imply that it is exclusively used as criticism; (2) ensure that we do not imply that it is any more critical than any of the other synonyms used to describe this topic. Every single term used to describe these entities is frequently used as criticism: enclaves, cantons, archipelago, islands –> see the article lipstick on a pig. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Let's just stick to what's in the article rather than naming supposed logical fallacies the other is committing:

1) A comparison is not a "neutral fact," nor is there any single scenario that has been provided where the analogy is made in a positive light (obviously). Unless you can provide a source showing that the comparison to apartheid is a favorable one, we really need to abandon this line of discussion. 2) The "bantustans" term is clearly distinct from archipelago et. al in many, many ways. As we settled in the prior article naming discussion, some terms are loaded/charged, and some are not. You are too clever to not recognize that an "apartheid analogy" is not a charged term. 3) I do not actually see a major problem with the wording right now, except that it does not note that the bantustans term is used critically. Let's be clear we're not debating whether this is a valid criticism or not, but we cannot mischaracterize the nature of the term. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bantustan" is a word that is exclusively associated with South African apartheid, and it is used in an analogous way in all of the sources that are relevant to this article

So? What's the problem? Analogies like this are standard all over historiography and sociology. You appear to be saying that there must be some veto in articles to eliminate any suggestion that scholars, diplomats, security analysts, Israeli politicians and thinkers, critics, often remark on the similarities when not indeed admitting that that SA model has influenced, not Israeli society, but its colonial territories.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to including the comparison, I'm just offering a suggestion about how to present it. Nishidani I thought your wording was a significant improvement over the prior version, I think it's just important to attribute this comparison to the people you just described. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It was the RM closer who introduced the amended lead with this "popular comparison" in the first instance, you and he could discuss together and see what you can come up with.Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
When you have 60 odd strong sources making a comparison, with numerous prominent people echoing it, then attribution is not the way to go. I introduced 'often' to resolve that crux. As to 'popular comparison', well, sigh, . . . that was just false, indeed silly.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The Israel-Palestinian conflict is one of the most studied and talked about subjects in the world, possibly in history, so when you say 60 scholars have made a comparison—frankly, even if it were five times that—by no means does it suggest that this view is either definitive or the only correct view. Attribution is absolutely required, and it is inappropriate to keep removing it and somehow suggest a criticism is "factual." WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It may not be the only view but you would be hard put to produce an equivalent array of sources saying it is something else, sources yes, but lesser lights and not so many. The quite unnecessary fuss over a word has been largely resolved with a title change, anything much beyond that and a bit of tweaking here and there will need a further discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

POV problems in the article are not resolved by fixing POV problems in the title (which we've done), and the fact that one cherrypicked viewpoint is aggressively paraded by multiple editors here does not make it the prevailing or correct viewpoint, nor does it mean we ignore NPOV. The views should be attributed, and the "bantustans" comparison should be correctly noted as a pejorative or critique. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

'The only correct view( definitive'. These are strawman arguments, surely. The editors who actually wrote the article, i.e. read extensively on the topic, rather than those who sighted the word in the title 'bantustan' and bridled yelling 'POV!', observed the persistence of that term in Israeli thinking from the 60s, and documented it. If you object to 'bantustan' as POV, automatically you are obliged to object to the POV in 'enclave', which, as endlessly noted, in English implies that not only the Israeli settlements (often called 'enclaves' in the relevant literature) but the whole of the West Bank is, apart from these Palestinian fragments, under Israeli sovereignty. That is contrafactual, and you must know that, since the Israeli high court recognizes that Israeli settlements are enclaves, and does not use that term of the fragmented Palestinian zones.
So, at the moment, you support a POV title, 'Palestinian enclaves', -yes, one decided on by consensual voting. But your criticisms about POV pushing look partisan. Your argument shows no concern for NPOV: it decidedly espouses an Israelocentric POV, and does so in the face of significant evidence that a 'bantustan' arrangement is what Israeli planners aim(ed) for. The attribution argument is silly because everywhere in the text where 'Bantustan' is used, the usage is attributed already, since the source and often the person who used the analogy is clearly referenced.
We have to respect the Rfcs, but they are a monument to muddled thinking and a bad case of disattention. We have a new title, -misleading, full of false implications - but this does not translate into rewriting history according to some misguided notion of 'politically correct' usage. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: I want to continue this discussion, but please self revert your 1RR violation. 26 hours between edits[10][11] is a clear violation of WP:GAME. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Par for the course, I have rejigged the sentence, I don't object to critics/criticism as such since that is what is actually intended for the most part, I do object to transparent attempts to make it appear as if the criticism is something of little import.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: You need to strike your false accusation of edit warring, because 1) 26 hours is clearly not within 1RR and 2) you are apparently looking at the clock much more closely than I am.
Selfstudier, nowhere did the edit make the criticism appear of "little import." My edit appropriately put it in context with the sources; the problem with your edit edit attributes them to "notable officials," not the scholars he named. See the problem here? If you're going to attribute something, you don't cherrypick the attributed sources to "sound important." That's another subtle form of WP:WEASEL wording, whether you're aware of it or not. The statement needs to be balanced according to weight in reliable sources. We've established "bantustans" is a critical analogy, and the body can flesh out the details in a neutral and complete fashion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Backwards, it's already in the article body and I am merely summarizing it in the lead, which is the way these things are usually done. No weasel, not on my part at any rate.Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: I don’t intend to take this to the admin boards, but please note that 26-hour reverts on 1RR pages are frequently subject to discretionary sanctions as obvious attempts to skirt the 24-hour rule. Selfstudier’s proposal is a sensible middle ground, which I am willing to live with. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile Oh yeah? Tell me, did you raise that issue with any of the other edits by Selfstudier or others that were spaced 24-27 hours apart? See page history. And you do know what 24 hours means right? I was 1) outside the 24-hour window by a comfortable margin and 2) made minor tweaks to a section of the article that had already been modified in the interim, my change was neither a blind revert nor a restoration of a prior version of the article. So your double-standard of claiming 1RR for editors you disagree with, where no violation occurred, and staying mum on the same behaviors by editors you do, is exactly what your recent warning at WP:AE counseled against. So go ahead, either take my single pair of edits that were neither full reverts nor within 24 hours to a noticeboard, or retract your accusations and focus on content.
Second, Selfstudier did not make a "proposal," they made an edit to the article, just as I did. And it is not a "compromise," it's a vague and intellectually lazy attribution of a statement to "notable people" meant to connote "importance" in a manner not consistent with WP:NPOV. If it wasn't important, we wouldn't include it. The notion that we need a cherrypicked yet unspecific (WP:WEASEL) of "notable people" getting behind something is not what I was suggesting. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Things might be less fraught if you did not make edits attempting to enforce your version of things while a discussion is ongoing. As I mentioned earlier, it was the RM closer who set the lead up and I am willing to defer there as an independent arbiter of any difference of opinion we cannot amicably resolve by ourselves.Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty astonishing for you, Selfstudier, to claim that I shouldn't edit the same section of the article that you just did, because there is an ongoing discussion about it. I'm well aware -- in fact, I opened this discussion yesterday to explain my subsequent, and minor, edits to the targeted sentences. But there's no need for things to be "fraught." I understand your concern about minimizing certain information, but remember that, when we note an opinion in the second sentence of the article—by default we are according weight to it. Puffing it up with "this opinion is held by very notable people" is just superfluous and runs into NPOV problems. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see any reverts "by Selfstudier or others that were spaced 24-27 hours apart". Please could you identify the specific edits you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
All of the personages are wikilinked and WP requires "notability" for that so that point seems without merit, this is not people of no note sitting in a corner cafe and venting. I agree that I added weight, that's because it should be added. It is less weight than is in the article itself which lists them all out individually and specifies what was said and when.Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: There are so many instances of non-consecutive edits and partial reverts to the article that frankly I don't think I need to do anything but ask you to take a closer look. [[WP:YOUCANSEARCHTOO]. Both you and Selfstudier have been extremely active at this page from the get-go, which is fine, but you both aggressively pushed a position regarding the title that was against community consensus, and have now each made empty accusations of wrongdoing without evidence because of a content disagreement stemming from that discussion. It's clear that more editors' input will be helpful here.
Selfstudier, I wouldn't describe what you did as "adding weight," you added an unspecific and puffed up attribution without accounting for broader context. Your wording almost implies that there is a unanimous view on the subject, and there is anything but. That is not "weight," that is WP:WEASEL wording, and it is a problem in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
That is your opinion, it is not mine. The lead should reflect what is in the body and afaics, it does. There are still some things wrong with the lead but the article is still only half done so I would prefer to concentrate on that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Happy to work on those, but perhaps in a separate discussion. But the presentation of views is a serious problem here for the reasons I described. I would like to see less focus on pushing or adding weight to a certain view and more care in how to present that view in a neutral manner. First the "bantustans" title was rejected via consensus, and now you are trying to place undue weight and using weasel words to present the analogy as definitive in the first sentence of the article. This isn't compliant with policy, and I cannot comprehend why "critics have called the proposal X" is not acceptable, and you think we need to slant it a few degrees further. At the very least, we should have used Nishidani's version. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The title has changed, but that is no mandate to change the content, when the sources overwhelmingly use the word 'bantustan'. No one is saying as you repeat that 'the analogy is definitive'. What 'definitive' is supposed to mean here escapes me. The sources state that numerous insiders and outside observers make this comparison, and one can't tamper with the language to camouflage this. You raised an issue, I provided one solution, selfstudier another, etc. I'm happy with either, but alternatives that substantially distort the WP:LEDE summary brief by disappearing what the bulk of the article says are not acceptable. All submissions must clearly synthesize what the body of the text documents.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Nishidani, the current wording implies that this view is unanimous. It is no different from saying most people think or everyone thinks, neither of which is apparently the case. Your version was superior because, while it lacked attribution, it wasn't poorly attributed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
In summary style the wording reflects the text. Were there unanimity then we would state that. Since those figures who do regard the Bantustan analogy as cogent are successively named, they form a specified class, which excludes 'implicitly' everyone. There are ways to improve the sentence, but saying that it implies unanimity, rather than widespread informed opinion (outside of the US-Israeli political elites), is a fair assessment.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted to my suggestion as a compromise, since you stated that it was better (if objectionable in your view) to the other text. I think we've exhausted this point.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Nishidani, do you disagree with the wording saying that Critics of these proposals have called them bantustans language? What if it specified which critics? I.e. Critics of these proposals, including . . . . Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is something deeply disruptive about what's going on here, and the phrasing that is being pushed. The three of you repeatedly claim that "bantustans" is a widely used term to describe the areas, and yet those same arguments failed by community consensus with regards to the title. If that were true, then the prior title, Palestnian bantustans, would have satisfied POVNAME, but the community found it did not. You are each now trying to push those failed arguments into the text of the introduction with inflated attributions and weasel wording, but there is simply no evidence that these views are widely held. There was one claim here that "60" authors used this term, yet I see no evidence to back this up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
They are only failed in the sense of POVtitle. In the absence of a commonname, the consensus you keep talking about was mostly directed at getting bantustan out of the title and that's been done. If you have more sources (than we have) that these areas are widely called something else by anyone that actually matters, bring it on. Like Nishidani says, there's no mandate for messing around with the article content beyond reducing the overuse of the term which has also been done. I don't much like Nishidani's latest version but I like it better than I like your one sided version of events. I can also put up with the way the RM closer put it originally ("popular" = widely held, right?)Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Sources abound which state clearly that the term is popular and frequently used. For example: "what are popularly described as “Bantustans”, those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its checkpoints"[12] and The Palestinian areas will be nothing more than “Bantustans,” it is frequently said in Israel, that will cut the West Bank into noncontiguous Palestinian islands[13]. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
My objection to using 'popular' as a stand-alone term is that implies not frequency of usage, but rather (uninformed) 'popular opinion', as if we were writing up the way a loose term is bandied about. No. We are describing a term that serious political thinkers, analysts, etc., think adequate to what Israel is engineering, and one that definitely played a key role in producing these um . . enclaves.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way, it is not true to say that I am pushing bantustan. If you look back (I think you were not here for a lot of the discussions), you will see that I have done the opposite, I suggested a title in the RM that I actually do believe in, for me whether it's bantustan, enclave or Swiss cheese is something of an irrelevancy although if I am forced to put them in some order, I will put bantustan ahead of enclave (which is a seriously bad title, consensus or not). This or that name is just not what this article is really about.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Either "popular" or "widely" is inappropriate if it is not qualified that these comparisons are--obviously--coming from critics of these proposals. It is not "one-sided" to note this, nor is it expressing a view on the validity of those criticisms. This is the language most consistent with the sources already provided on this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Look. This haggling is getting tendentious. The comparison arose not, as you keep harping on, 'critics'. The analogy arose as a heuristic model among Israeli planners for what to do with the Palestinians. This is strongly documented. It informed the actual design set out by settlements' chief architect. None of these originators of the idea were 'critics': they assessed bantustans as a positive model for Israel's control of the West Bank and Gaza. Historians and analysts noted this element in Israeli thinking. Once this be came known, critics focused on it. So your attempt to deny that for Israelis for three decades the Bantustan model was entertained not 'pejoratively' but as a net positive for Israeli is unacceptable. The fact that many critics deplore it is beside the point: they recognize in the B model a political intention which reengineers for the Palestinians a reality similar to that the fathers of SA apartheid originally thought up for blacks. Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, I think we are agreed that it is often used in a critical sense, but you will not find agreement that it is always used in that way, because (a) the facts of the historical usage is clear; (b) we have sources which talk about how the term is popularly or frequently used (my post 18:17 3 Feb) that do not state your "critical" point; and (c) most of the commentary on this topic is critical by nature, irrespective of the term. Would you be satisfied with an amendment to the current version along these lines:
The enclave models are also widely referred to as bantustans, a term implying a comparison in this regard between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa,[b] often in a critical sense, and figuratively as a Palestine Archipelago[c][4][5][6] among other terms.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
For my edification, where does this expression "enclave models" come from:)?Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
But where is the evidence that "bantustans" is ever not used in a critical sense to describe those areas? You said the facts of the historical usage is clear but that's a bit conclusory and I'm not sure what you mean. All the sources provided on this page, from all parties, show this is a comparison drawn by critics. I don't think it's any comment on the validity of that criticism to properly note that. The problem with "often" is that it just doesn't seem to ring true, because it is almost certainly always a criticism. I can't imagine that comparison being non-critical in any context, and I haven't seen that in any source provided here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
)SelfstudierTongue in cheek!? It's our politically correct, intellectually stupid concession to the ignorant result of the 'consensus', since it substitutes 'enclave' for what many sources call 'the Bantustan model'. That consensus came from editors who probably hadn't the foggiest notion of who the top insider sources for this information were, Benvenisti, Liel, Primor etc.etc., a quality of top echelon Israeli insiders who know and admit exactly what the 'enclave model' is, a Bantustan arrangement. Still, no use crying over milt spilk.
(1)'Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister since 2001, had long contended that the Bantustan model, so central to the apartheid system, is the most appropriate to the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict.' Leila Farsakh, 'Independence, Cantons, or Bantustans: Whither the Palestinian State?,' Middle East Journal 59:2 Spring, 2005), pp. 230-245 p.231
(2)'The map attached to the Trump plan is an imitation of the Bantustan model, with Palestinian fragments surrounded by territory fully under Israeli control, making permanent the domination of one ethnic or religious group over another.Alon Liel (Israel’s ambassador to South Africa from 1992 to 1994 and was the director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 2000 to 2001) Plan for Palestine Looks a Lot Like Apartheid Foreign Policy 27 February 2020
(3) 'The bantustan model for Gaza, as depicted in the disengagement plan, is a model that Sharon plans to copy on the West Bank. His announcement that he will not start to disengage before construction of the fence is completed along a route that will include all settlement blocs (in keeping with Binyamin Netanyahu's demand), underscores the continuity of the bantustan concept. The fence creates three bantustans on the West Bank - Jenin-Nablus, Bethlehem-Hebron and Ramallah. This is the real link between the Gaza and West Bank plans.' Meron Benvenisti Sharon's separation scheme is doomed to fail once it becomes clear what it means [[The Guardian]] 26 April 2004
ps
(4) The Bantustan implication is mentioned in the late 1990s by Norman Finkelstein Securing Occupation: The Real Meaning of the Wye River Memorandum New Left Review Nº 232, 1998, pp. 128-139; Norman G. Finkelstein, 'Indigenous rights: Oslo: The last stage of conquest,' Radical Philosophy Review 1 (2):133-140 (1998)
(5) worthwhile also this 2000 interpretation of a good book (1997) analyzing Oslo follies by Raja Shehadah.' Paraphrasing Israeli political analyst, Aryeh Shalev, Shehadeh identifies those objectives as follows: (1) 'to ensure that the ultimate political fate of the occupied Palestinian territories is ... "put off"' (i.e. postponed indefinitely); (2) 'to make it possible during the interim phase for Israel to continue to create facts [i.e. Jewish settlements] so that the option to annex these areas in the future should not be jeopardized'; and (3) 'to establish an autonomous [Palestinian] authority enjoying functional but not territorial powers', while ensuring that 'Israel should remain the source of all authority'.'7 Although he does not explicitly draw the analogy, Shehadeh's analysis of the means by which Israel secured these objectives through the DOP essentially exposes the document as something of a plan for a South African-style Bantustan system of pseudo-independence-where the native Palestinians are permitted to 'administer' their own local affairs, and the occupying Israelis, having been relieved of this burdensome task, are left to dispose of the territories, in toto, as they see fit.' Ardi Imseis 'Review: Law, Reality, and the Oslo 'Peace' Process,': Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , Autumn, 2000, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 469-476 p.471 (reviewing Raja Shehadeh From Occupation to Interim Accords: Israel and the Palestinian Territories, 1997 Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani:, you act as if there was no discussion of sources (there was, extensively) and as if other editors didn't also provide sources showing "enclaves" as a more commonly used term (they did). The five sources you just provided include two opinion pieces, writing from a fired university professor who has a notorious reputation for bias on Israel-related matters, and two other sources that were already discussed earlier. The "bantustan model" is a criticism leveled at the current proposals via that "apartheid analogy." The sources do not confirm that there is an explicit "bantustan model" embraced by any of the U.S., Israeli, or Palestinian governments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Pointless addressing this WP:Bludgeon gambit. Erratic, indeed 'false' insinuations about Finkelstein. He wasn't 'fired' and the only reputation he has re Israel is that he is forensically meticulous in documenting everything he states. If, as that shows, you don't know much about these things, refrain from argufying, esp. when you haven't even checked Finkelstein's bio. Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Drsmoo, who engaged in an extensive back-and-forth with Nishidani on the sources and offered a far more articulate take than I have the capacity to repeat here (again). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:Canvass Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sceptre: If you have the time, I would appreciate your intervention here, since the "argument" is about a section of the lead originally put up by you. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: You might want to read WP:CANVAS, because I pinged someone already active on this particulate discussion and did so publicly. You also need to read WP:DETAG, because you should not have removed the "by whom tag from the lead. The unsupported attribution and weasel wording currently in the lead should also not have been restored. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll make a similar request. Read all the 127 sources used before making any kind of accusation, charge of a generalized nature. Those who wrote it have so. So far objections seem to stem from complaints about phrasing and adjectives in a line or two in the lead, and do not indicate much familiarity with the materials used for this article.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: The onus is not on everyone else to read a library's worth of books before they can make content. I've been closely following the relevant discussions since shortly after this article was created, and you repeatedly failed to establish that this view is "widely held," nor has Onceinawhile provided any rationale to support that an analogism to apartheid practices is somehow not critical. Onceinawhile asserts, conclusively, that this is a "factual assertion," which is an outright violation of NPOV. We don't treat opinions or criticisms as facts, we note those opinions with due weight.
That can be accomplished by, early on, noting the bantustans analagy, but not presenting it with weasel words or as if it is an incontrovertible assertion. You need to accusing others of an "Israelo-centric view" or other similarly offensive, bad-faith characterizations. Frankly, I do not think your assessments reflect an objective evaluation of either 1) the available source material or 2) the discussion we have already had on this page about the same subject. There is nothing unreasonable or diminishing about saying "Here is a commonly raised criticism," there is something completely unreasonable about saying "Here is a criticism that's also true and that everyone believes", which is the implication with the current wording (and which is obviously not compliant w/ WP:NPOV). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Those few around here who actually write articles in depth, read everything they can muster. Then we get mother lodes of browsing opiners, who know it all. We're wasting time here.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I respect that you are well-versed in the subject and the knowledge you bring to the table. But you have to stop presenting yourself as the only person interested in or knowledgeable about the subject matter. The fact that the prior consensus landed on a result you disagree with does not mean everyone else is an idiot, and even if you believe that, we all have to respect where those discussions settled (unless they are later unsettled). It is not a waste of time to focus on minute aspects of the article — details matter. I still don't see why you would object to appropriately noting that critics have drawn these comparisons -- the current wording is not terrible, but it is not completely accurate either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Please don't keep pinging me when you know I am on the page.
I wrote:

Those few around here who actually write articles in depth, read everything they can muster

Meaning, for this article, Onceinawhile, Selfstudier and yes, myself.
You interpret this as

.you have to stop presenting yourself as the only person' interested in or knowledgeable about the subject matter.

I.e. you deliberately skewed my remark to imply a general statement about several I/P editors referred only to myself. If that is how you read even talk pages, while admitting you are not interested in reading the source documentation, then I for one don't think there's any point in carrying on this conversation.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: stepping back from all this, I have reread this thread. I believe that all your questions have now been addressed with clear WP:RS evidence and reasonable compromise proposals have been made for the drafting to address the nuances you have highlighted. Would you mind rereading the same and then summarizing your outstanding questions and concerns with the drafting? So we avoid going round in circles, perhaps your summary could acknowledge the evidence and proposals that have been made above. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I would recommend the phrasing "widely criticized as" rather than "widely referred to as." This would address my concerns about how the analogy is presented currently and is not dramatically different from the current wording. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wikieditor19920, thanks for this. I can’t put my finger on it, but there is something that seems off about the proposed phrasing; albeit you can see from the above I am not against the word critical/criticized here. Perhaps because it might imply that they are not criticized as enclaves? And does it cross the line of implying that the term bantustan is always a criticism here, when some politicians have used it neutrally and some scholars have used it as an explicitly “generous” comparison? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
And, just to make explicit the obvious, the insistence on 'critical' is not neutral: that word is ambiguous. Wikieditor seems to want the text to imply that the Bantustan analogy translates into hostility to Israel, echoing the POV meme that such reflections are born of some innate animus against Jews/the state established in their name. The word 'critical' however is widely used as a synonym for 'analytical' - in the sense that the works using this term do so in aspiring to tease apart the meanings of processes, their functions and implications. This morning I read one such text:Kristofer J. Petersen-Overton, Johannes D. Schmidt, Jacques Hersh, 'Retooling Peace Philosophy: A Critical Look at Israel’s Separation Strategy,' in Candice C. Carter, Ravindra Kumar , (eds.), Peace Philosophy in Action, Palgrave Macmillan 2010 ISBN 978-0-230-62240-1 pp.43-76)and came across the following remark:

'Such a categorical distinction between the occupied Palestinian population and Israeli settlers has led some to draw comparisons with South African apartheid, a parallel that has become increasingly justified as the Palestinian population in Israel and the OPT edge closer to exceeding Israel’s Jewish population.' p.51

Jimmy Carter’s (2007) book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, precipitated a furious reaction in some circles for his use of the term “apartheid” and led to allegations of anti-Semitism and bigotry, despite that fact that Carter presented an overall argument that was more sympathetic to the Israeli position than that of many mainstream scholars (Bosman, 2006). Several prominent South Africans have drawn the apartheid comparison (long before Carter discovered the term), including erstwhile Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights John Dugard, Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu,and former South African Minister for Intelligence Services Ronnie Kasrils (McCarthy,2007; Tutu, 2002; Tutu & Urbina, 2003). Furthermore, many Israelis have themselves used the term, including the historian Ilan Pappé, former Attorney General Michael Ben Yair, deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti, and peace activist Uri Avnery among others (Barat, 2008; Lelyveld, 2007; Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007).' p.70, n.26

This kind of study has nothing to do with questioning the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but very much to do with what Israel does, illegally, outside its territorial confines. It is no fault of editors that they are obliged by their reading to note the obvious: that an ideological division between ethnoi in occupied territory, privileging the settlers and penning the indigenous population in confined resourceless stateless fragments of land designed to be wholly enveloped by a future ethnic state's borders most approximates, according to numerous politicians, historians, critics, to the model South Africans developed to rid their ethnic state of the meddling presence of the peoples indigenous to that land. Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm personally at ease with the current wording, although I am wary that, like with a lot of I/P issues, we may end up in a WP:TOOMANYCITES-style problem. The only wording part I feel too strongly about is that if we do use the term "bantustan", it really does need to be couple with the apartheid analogy context, because otherwise it doesn't make sense. Sceptre (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we do not want to do what Selfstudier warned about, which is imply a criticism is somehow invalid; I do not believe that's necessarily implied just by noting that something is widely criticized. I don't have an issue with noting the apartheid analogy in the same sentence, because that's basically what's being referenced, but I think that "criticism" is a key context. Again, I do not believe that noting this necessarily implies that the criticism is invalid, or even gives any sort of commentary on its validity whatsoever; maybe the problem is how I presented it. I would recommend either widely criticized or The proposal(s) has/have been a subject of intense criticism, with many drawing a comparison to X. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity, on the apartheid analogy, it makes no difference to me one way or the other, I am also content with the current version even if it is not the way I would write it myself. It's just not worth arguing about it and we should move on.Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right and I've said my piece on it, not every proposal has to be accepted. What can we do to remove the NPOV banner, though? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
A lot of these IP related tags just sit there for a long time, I would just leave it there and we go on editing the article until it is finished, still a ways to go on that. Anyone feels strongly about some element(s) can edit, supply sourcing and so on in the usual way. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the lead should mention Bantustans at all. I've moved that sentence to the names section. This article is about the enclaves themselves, not about their nicknames, nor should the article be a synth to get around consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It is obligatory, per WP:Lede summary style which requires the opening or lead paras to faithfully summarize the key elements of the article. A large part of the article deals with the Bantustan analogy. It is ineed a core element, and by disappearing it into some lower section (yeah, people don't read beyond leads, I know) that principle is violated.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There being no common name, other names deserve mention in the lead. Bantustan is at a minimum an aka in the usual way.Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
That's just absurd. The reason is significant alternative names should be placed in the first sentences per WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:LEAD. nableezy - 22:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources that state that the enclaves are "widely referred to as Bantustans" please provide them. Right now the sentence is SYNTH. If it is to be included, it should be based on reliable sources and in correct context. For example, "Critics of the proposed enclaves have likened them to Bantustans", and the name section as a whole should be merged into the lead. Drsmoo (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that bolding "bantustans" as an alternative name after it was rejected by consensus as failing WP:POVNAME is contrary to that consensus. I have also added a "by whom" tag indicating the attribution/weight issue being discussed here. Please don't edit war against consensus or remove tags before discussion is resolved. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. No valid reason for tag.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: WP:DETAG. The fact that we are currently discussing the issue is valid reason to allow the tag to remain. I have explained this to you before. And why are you still insisting on re-bolding a rejected title, despite consensus otherwise? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This bludgeoning for the erasure of Bantustan is beyond farcical as is the tagging. If an article has scores of sources and text mentioning the Bantustan analogy, that suffices to use the adverb 'widely' in the summarizing lead. That is not synthesis, but summary, and experienced editors should know the difference and not twist policy. The tagging again was pointless for the same reason, because the text states by whom, abundantly. These points have been raised and answered in detail repeatedly and to persist is just WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT married to WP:BLUDGEON.Nishidani (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikieditor, why are you posting rubbish on my talk page?Selfstudier (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
No,the lead cannot say “widely referred to” without a source. There is no source in the article claiming the enclaves are widely referred to as Bantustans. What you are describing is explicit synth. Inventing something out of nothing is synth and original research, not summary.Drsmoo (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The RM closer thinks it's fine, so do I.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani:, I have not suggested removing "bantustans" entirely from the lead, but you should note it was rejected as a COMMONNAME in prior consensus, so bolding it seems odd. Noting it is a criticism is also not removing it from the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
”Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” The current lead is actually a textbook definition of synth.Drsmoo (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Widely held is a perfectly reasonable description of the article content which is all sourced and does not need sourcing again in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by"sourcing again"? Which source in the body states that the enclaves are widely referred to as Bantustans? There's no article content which states that the enclaves are widely referred to as Bantustans, so, no, it's neither perfectly reasonable, nor is it actually a description or summary of the article content at all. It's synth, and was simply made up by the editor. Drsmoo (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Popular, which was what the RM closer put to start with, also works. I think it was Wikieditor didn't like that one but I don't recall and it doesn't really matter.Selfstudier (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Which source states that they're popularly refered to as Bantustans or that it's a popular term? Drsmoo (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Let me just understand something before we continue. Are you saying that every single word in the lead requires a source explicitly using those words? Further that you will not object to sourced wording anywhere in the lead? Or is your position merely limited to descriptors for the word bantustan?Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Every idea does, that is how Wikipedia works. It doesn't need to explicitly use those words. What you can't do it synthesize something out of nothing. Presently, there are no sources in the article stating that the enclaves are widely referred to as Bantustans, or any semantic variation thereof. If sources are provided it can then be weighed against any potential contrary sources. But it's a non-started to do original research/make stuff up. Drsmoo (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
So why are you asking for the source in just this particular instance? (I assume you have also read WHATSYNTHISNOT).Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Because it's blatant WP:SYNTH and shouldn't be in the article. If there are other examples of Synth, they should be removed as well. Drsmoo (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Why have you not edited the article to remove the alleged SYNTH, specifying the new thesis being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources? Selfstudier (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The burden has not been met to show that this term is at all "widely used,"—even worse, it's being asserted that we shouldn't even acknowledge that this term is a criticism in those limited instances where it is used. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof rests with those alleging synth. This is all in WHATSYNTHISNOT by the way. I am not really bothered about the criticism aspect, I think I said that already before, it is indeed intended as criticism for the most part and I would actually prefer that be mentioned somewhere. I keep saying that this article is not finished, usually the lead follows the article, all these distractions are of little consequence if whatever gets changed now gets changed again at some later point. And the title will be challenged again, etcetera.Selfstudier (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I have been since this all started, reluctant to bring in the apartheid analogy but it seems it's in regardless. Now it is dreadfully easy to turn up oodles of sources saying that this analogy is popular/ widely /increasingly used so then the lead could go back to the way the RM closer put it to start with ie don't say that bantustans is widely used just refer to the widely used/popular analogy instead but then this amounts to the same thing as saying that bantustans is popular/widely used and so nothing changes, right? Selfstudier (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

State Crime Journal

Vol. 5, No. 1, Palestine, Palestinians and Israel's State Criminality (Spring 2016), pp. 81-108 (28 pages)Selfstudier (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear who this article is referring to when they say "popularly,"but The New York Times attributes the comparison to "Israel critics." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
They are a scholarly rs, one of quite a few I haven't gotten around to putting in the article as yet, they can just say it and we can just use it. If I get to use newspapers to demonstrate stuff, I doubt you would like the result. We have tried not to do that for the most part in this article.Selfstudier (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Newspapers are acceptable if they are exceptionally reliable (The NYT is), and not opinion pieces. Academic sources aren't always top-notch, and this doesn't really read like an academic source. Issues of bias, vagueness, and even just having incorrect information can plague academic pieces like any other. If you could provide the link for the above I'll take a closer look (not saying I'll dismiss it, but I'd be curious to know what "popular" means and where this is coming from.") Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The NYT is the only major newspaper to have not reported the new Btselem Apartheid designation so it is not true to say that the NYT is highly reliable, it depends.Selfstudier (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)~
I'm not going down the road "Give me a source", "OK, here"·,"Oh, I don't like the source", "the author hates Israel" and the rest, waste of time.Selfstudier (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
He was just asking for the link (here's the link btw: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0081?refreqid=excelsior%3A4b431ec14b0b7b708bf7dc341a551a02#metadata_info_tab_contents) to determine the context by which the author used popularly. It’s good that there’s a source at least. Though ironically, what you described does seem to be your reason for saying the NYTs reliability “depends”. I would be very surprised if they were the only major newspaper to not report on that btw. Drsmoo (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Drsmoo is correct. Selfstudier, you provided a quote from a source -- it'd be considerate if you could also provide a link to that source, rather than just a mis-formatted citation. And yes, your sources are subject to scrutiny just as are everyone else's. You're waving off the NYT, yet claiming whatever you quoted is incontrovertible; I don't think so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Please don't mischaracterize what I say, I have said often enough that all sources are biased and I just object when someone says something along the lines of "but mine is gold". The NYT is no better and no worse than any other reliable newsorg. Sitting in Europe, one tends to notice that the NYT and other elements of the US press tend to downplay negative Israel stuff nor is that really surprising. And I never said my source was not biased, it likely is, I haven't really scrutinized it, there are plenty such sources if one takes the trouble to look.Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, you have presented sources like books from Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic with an openly anti-Israel agenda, as if they are authoritative and unquestionably objective, and yet, with the New York Times, you cite an article over a decade old as somehow definitive evidence of bias and claim a "commitment to Zionism." There are parties on both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate claiming the NYT is biased against/for Israel, so they must be doing something right if everyone's unhappy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you persist? I noted that by your own comments you know nothing about Norman Finkelstein, and you keep repeating the trash dumped on him by pseudomedia. His latest historical study was published by one of the most prestigious academic outlets in the world, University of California Press in 2018. They do not publish 'discredited academics'. If, as you admit, you are unwilling to read all the sources mustered here, or any, perhaps, then you are wasting everyone's time. This is not twitter.Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Style

I would like to use the system used in the better articles, no citations in the lead and the lead is a summary of the body. Can we agree on that, at least?Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess not :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Citations are appropriate for controversial claims, as is attribution and due weight the latter of which you have repeatedly resisted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There's no problem with having citations in the lead as long as they're kept to a necessary minimum. Claims that appear controversial or might surprise a reader benefit from keeping a citation. I agree that the current lead has far too many explanatory notes though - 12 in total! Jr8825 • Talk 17:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
True, but if you want to get FA, they all have to go (the guild insist, lol).Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I managed to keep a couple in the lead of a recently promoted FA, shhh don't tell them. Jr8825 • Talk 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Change of title

Anyone had any thoughts about this yet or is it a bit too early? I would still like "ization" attached to something even if it's only "enclavization". Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've always preferred this as I think it's more accurate. The currently title rather confusingly overlaps with Palestinian territories, enclavisation would help distinguish what this article is about: the process, rather than the entities themselves. My opinion is that the previous page move was driven by a strong desire among the majority of editors (including myself) to move away from "Bantustans" for various reasons, and although 'enclaves' was settled on as an acceptable compromise to replace it, there wasn't really a full consideration of how precisely it fits the article.
Do any editors object to renaming Palestinian enclaves to Palestinian enclavization? Perhaps I'm overlooking an angle, but it seems like a relatively straightforward (and – dare I say it – uncontroversial) change, and having a clearer idea about what we're trying to define and summarise might help us to resolve the arguments going on over the lead. However, if there's disagreement then it's probably best to put it aside for now given that there was a lot of input at the page move – the current title is workable, even if it's a bit awkward. I don't think we should move away from 'enclaves' at this point given that there was a strong consensus in favour of it. Jr8825 • Talk 15:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that indeed is what I for one have argued from the outset. As a process -ization is requisite. I don't see anything problematical in making this change. It is factual, and accurately conveys the fact that this is a process. The title as it stands violates NPOV because 'enclaves' appears as an established reality, implying that Israel is the sovereign power over the rest of the territory, consisting as it does of what sources and Israeli legal decisions called Israeli settlement enclaves.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Jr8825, The Arabs at least in last hundreds of years didn't controlled the territory so its not exactly enclavization.If someone what to change the name they should get another RFR Shrike (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't really follow you, Shrike, as my understanding is that the article is talking about the process of (incomplete) breaking up of Palestinian-majority areas following the Six-Day War (i.e. areas previously outside the Green Line). ...But as you have an objection I'm a bit reluctant to push for a discussion on renaming given how recent the previous move was, unless there's a reasonably broad sentiment in favour of it. Jr8825 • Talk 19:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
That's sort of what the article says, but I think the sources say the process started well before 1967. Were there enclaves already in 1966? I think on balance the sources say yes. (By "the sources", I mean specifically the ones I posted on this page in a thread above.) I think it would be useful to have a deep examination of the top sources to clarify the scope of the article, and then choose the best title based on that. For my part, I think it's an open question whether the sources suggest having an article about the places (enclaves) and the process (enclavization), or just the process. I lean towards an article about the places and the process, with an article about just the process being a potential spin-out. But perhaps other articles already sufficiently cover the places, and so we should just make this article about the process. So I'm personally a bit undecided but I think the place to begin to answer this is by examining what the best sources say about it. One place to start might be by answering "when do the sources say the enclavization began?" Levivich harass/hound 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unless you want to go back before the occupation began, then it is 1967. Before that it was Jordanian control and afaik they were not going around doing all the things that the occupation has been doing. Unless you mean the enclavization of Palestinian Arabs in Israel, yeah, that's possible (and still ongoing).Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Object, confusing and unnecessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we should look at when sources say it began, as opposed to just posting assertions about when it began. So here's one source:

[p. 3] ... Palestine has for the past century been dismembered and reconstituted politically, demographically, and discursively ... Zionism's time-space trajectory is marked by the watershed dates of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1948 establishment of the state, the 1967 occupation of the remainder of Mandatory Palestine, and the post-Oslo period ... The fairly consistent components of the Zionist project have included ... immobilizing them [Palestinians] in enclaves ... [p. 4] Palestinians keenly grasp the continuity between the past and the present, from 1948 to 1967 to the current set of policies and practices designed to ... effectively preclude a geographically contiguous Palestinian territory ... In short, the past, present, and future are conceptualized as intimately and purposefully linked. Colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPTs) following the 1967 war, for example, are understood as a continuation of the Zionist settler movement from the pre-1948 period.
— Peteet, Julie (2017). "Introduction". Space and Mobility in Palestine. Indiana University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-253-02511-1.

Peteet goes on in the introduction to discuss post-1967 settlement-building in the West Bank as part of enclavization. She says this process began even before 1948, and presents it as an integral part of "the Zionist project". To be clear, I'm not suggesting we say any of this in wikivoice based just on this one scholar's view. But it's one source that should be considered among the rest, and it's one source that suggests the starting point is earlier than 1967. Levivich harass/hound 21:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting quote, although she seems to be talking quite generally about what she perceives to be traits of Zionism, it may still be that Israeli control over the West Bank post-1967 represents a new phase/development from existing conditions. I'd like to read more of the book to understand her argument fully but am not sure I'll have time in the short term. It sounds like content that might fit into a 'historical context' section. As for this discussion, I think it's hit a dead end for now as clearly renaming it to 'enclavization' isn't the uncontroversial change I'd hoped it might be. Jr8825 • Talk 22:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Wise decision, best not to get wrapped up in different Palestines and different occupations, all that lot above has absolutely zero to do with what the UN today refers to as "Israeli practices". True that from the Palestinian POV it's just the latest occupier, that part is true. The British used to blow up "terrorists" houses too, the Israelis said they were just following precedent, get my drift?Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The sister article in Hebrew is actually something along the lines of what Levivich has been suggesting - discussion of cantonization plans in Zionist thinking pre-1967, which only a brief nod at enclaves post 67. They are two distinct articles thematically, the Israeli version ignoring the large literature on post 1967 bantustans, and this article not engaging with the history of cantonal theories in Zionism, since that was not the original or developing remit. If one wants an article like the one Levivich is suggesting, then it's simply a matter of creating a new article, not subjecting this one to the stress of a quite distinct topic:i.e., 'Cantonization of Palestine' ( with a much fuller exposition than the Hebrew article allows for). Sugestions to mix the two is a recipe for muddle and edit-warring ad infinitum.Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
That is not at all what I am suggesting. I am suggesting we start by examining sources and build the article from there. Levivich harass/hound 15:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
We examined the sources when we made and built the article, let us know when you have caught up.Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Please stop with these sort of comments. Levivich harass/hound 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps if you didn't try to imply that only you are capable of examining sources for this article, I wouldn't need to make them.Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The article has already been built, apart from some minor tiling. If someone wants to write a different story, there's the sandbox and the absolute freedom wiki provides for any editors to construct or build an article according to their lights. Whatever the result, it won't overlap or replace this, but supplement or complement it. Feel free to do so. It would be a welcome addition and extend our coverage, under a separate cover.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: it has been more than three weeks since you last proposed this, and set out your initial thoughts. As I said before, I am keen to engage with you on this. What made you stop with that effort, and what can we do to revive it? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: what made me stop are comments like the ones just above: "We examined the sources when we made and built the article, let us know when you have caught up.", "Perhaps if you didn't try to imply that only you are capable of examining sources for this article, I wouldn't need to make them." (tell me, once, do you think anywhere I've said I'm the only one capable? Have I impugned anyone's competence anywhere on this page?), and "The article has already been built...". It's not reasonable to expect an editor to collaborate in this kind of environment, one where some editors think this article is already built, and editors get attacked for like every suggestion they make. No thanks. FTR I'd be happy to go through sources and improve this article (which is nowhere near done) but not if I have to deal with the attitude expressed in those quotes. Levivich harass/hound 16:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Palestinian_enclaves#Sources <- You did suggest one or two things, as I recall. As for my comments, I only just made them and I made them in response to your " suggesting we start by examining sources and build the article from there." which I found as offensive as you find mine.Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This is what I mean. Of course I suggested many things. Did I ever say I didn't suggest anything? You and Nish keep putting words in my mouth. I can't imagine how anyone could be offended by "suggesting we start by examining sources and build the article from there". Or how anyone could disagree with it. And that comment was in response to Nish saying I suggested something I hadn't suggested, which is why I clarified what I was suggesting. And no one can disagree with my suggestion, it's just a restatement of what we all are doing here on Wikipedia. Levivich harass/hound 16:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I put words into your mouth. Had I, you would be fully justified in sueing me in court for something like invasive rhetorical encumbrance. τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα σιγῶ: βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ μέγας βέβηκεν: 'for the rest, I'll shut my trap for a huge ox has plunked itself on my tongue,' as the nightwatchman says in the incipit of Agamemnon.Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You wrote "The sister article in Hebrew is actually something along the lines of what Levivich has been suggesting - discussion of cantonization plans in Zionist thinking pre-1967, which only a brief nod at enclaves post 67." which I never suggested. I never said anything even close to that. In fact I explicitly said above To be clear, I'm not suggesting we say any of this in wikivoice... How could I possibly have been any clearer about not suggesting what you said I was suggesting. You wrote, "If one wants an article like the one Levivich is suggesting, then it's simply a matter of creating a new article, not subjecting this one to the stress of a quite distinct topic..." I did not suggest anything of the kind; I explicitly said the very opposite. In fact I've made no suggestion whatsoever as to what this article should or should not say or cover, other than to suggest we look to the sources to answer those questions. You did "put words in my mouth", meaning you mischaracterized what I said. And now right after doing that, you tell me that you didn't do that. Instead of just saying "sorry Levivich", you deny it. The rest of your comment is Greek to me. Levivich harass/hound 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the sources say the process started well before 1967. Were there enclaves already in 1966? . . . One place to start might be by answering "when do the sources say the enclavization began?" 19:55 10 February 2021

Peteet goes on in the introduction to discuss post-1967 settlement-building in the West Bank as part of enclavization. She says this process began even before 1948, and presents it as an integral part of "the Zionist project". To be clear, I'm not suggesting we say any of this in wikivoice based just on this one scholar's view. But it's one source that should be considered among the rest, and it's one source that suggests 'the starting point is earlier than 1967. Levivich harass/hound 21:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You are blurring a very simple English distinction between drawing a comparison (he suggests (a) which to me sounds similar to (b)); and making attribution (He suggested (b). Let's get the parsing right. I made a comparison suggesting what you were proposing as a starting point (for reorganizing the content) was similar to what I found on the Hebrew article. This is not 'putting words into your mouth.' You repeated your idea that we should focus on the roots of enclavization before 1867 and indeed prior to 1948. This is precisely what the Hebrew wiki article on cantonization emphasizes. To make a comparison between what someone says, and what is written elsewhere is not to 'put words into someone's mouth'. It's chutzpah to suggest an interlocutor you misread owes you an apology for what you thought he said, rather than what he said.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, you do it. I made a comparison suggesting what you were proposing as a starting point (for reorganizing the content) was similar to what I found on the Hebrew article. Nowhere in what you've quoted do I propose anything, much less a reorganizing the content. I did not propose that. I did not suggest reorganizing any content. Those words you quote don't say that. Once again: "To be clear, I'm not suggesting we say any of this in wikivoice..." How is that possible not clear to you? You repeated your idea that we should focus on the roots of enclavization before 1867 and indeed prior to 1948. No, I didn't say that. Where do you see me say that we should focus on anything? Even the part of my quote you italicize, "the starting point is earlier than 1967" was preceded by "it's one source that suggests". One source, I am explicitly saying we should not say anything in wikivoice (much less reorganize an article!) based on one source. In immediately prior comment to the one you quoted, I wrote So I'm personally a bit undecided but I think the place to begin to answer this is by examining what the best sources say about it. Emphasis on a bit undecided. So, amazingly, again, you put word in my mouth, saying that I proposed reorganizing the article (!!) when what I actually wrote was the very opposite: that I'm undecided and that I don't think we should write anything based solely on the one source I was quoting (!!!). @Once: this is why. This right here. I waste so much time defending myself against someone who is just straw manning my arguments instead of engaging in anything remotely close to good faith. Levivich harass/hound 21:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This is insanely farcical quibbling.

suggesting what you were proposing as a starting point

is now twisted by taking exception to my use of 'proposing'. Let me remind you, you wrote:

One place to start might be by answering "when do the sources say the enclavization began?"

That is 'a proposal, (that we might consider starting to examine sources to find out when enclavization' began.
This is the most elementary meaning of words. If you want to waste your time denying the obvious, go on, but the case is closed. I've better things to do with my time that to play humptydumpty pilpul semantic badminton in a kind of pseuds' corner, since I'm bald and hairsplitting with me will get you nowhere.Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right, I did propose that we might consider starting to examine sources to find out when enclavization began (and other content questions). That is not the same thing as proposing to reorganize the content, or to focus on pre-67, etc. Levivich harass/hound 23:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_enclaves/Archive_1&oldid=1137067887"