Talk:Palestinian enclaves

DYK

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Closing as unsuccessful per comments from reviewers and general instability after two months.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Palestinian-controlled West Bank

• ... that the areas of Palestinian partial autonomy in the West Bank (pictured) currently comprise an "archipelago" of 165 islands? Source: Nathan Thrall (16 May 2017). The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine. Henry Holt and Company. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-62779-710-8. 90 percent of the population of the West Bank was divided into 165 islands of ostensible PA control

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Columbus Quincentenary

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 09:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC).

• POV failure, duplicates existing articles. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum. Your blanking is not consistent with WP:DELETE. You are welcome to open a deletion discussion, then we can get back to this afterwards. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The POV problems in the article are beyond repair, the article duplicates existing articles. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have never submitted or reviewed at DYK before. I suggest you review the policies and procedures here before commenting further.

Please explain your issues with the article at the talk page so we can proceed constructively. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The premise that there are Bantustans is inherently POV premise which couldn't be fixed also like it was pointed is WP:POVFORK of West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord --Shrike (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum. You can call them what you want (islands? enclaves? patchwork? fragments?) but they are real. No respectable source denies that. The sources used in the article are of the highest quality. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment The article is one sided POV fest with chosen Pro-Palestinian POV authors to push a Bantustan concept in to I/P conflict. Its never could be a DYK material --Shrike (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, sorry but you are wrong. Let’s discuss on the article talk page (your sources appear to have failed verification), and then come back here afterwards. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read both sources before making your claim? --Shrike (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Given that the article is still there and discussions have been going forth on the article talk page, a new review is clearly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Looks to me to be a POVFORK of Israeli apartheid analogy. (t · c) buidhe 02:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• The topic of the article is not that clearly defined. To my reading, the main thrust is a mixture between a potential future final state which consists of enclaves, and a coverage of the comparisons of such enclaves (past, present, and future) to the bantustans. Regarding neutrality, while the usage of "bantustan" and related words through quotes seems like a necessary part of covering the topic well, the widespread usage of such words outside of quotes is concerning, and does not reflect common usage. Specifically regarding DYK, the proposed hook is inadequate, as it does not cover either of the entwined topics I mentioned before. Looking at just the hook alone the expected bolded article would be West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. If the intended topic of the article is just those areas, then this article would be a POVFORK. If the intended topic is otherwise, and this can be clarified, the hook would need to relate to that topic. CMD (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Chipmunkdavis: thank you for these comments. The article has undergone significant improvements in the last two weeks, and an RM is still ongoing. This topic does seem to have struck a chord with a lot of editors; it was described in Haaretz a couple of years ago as "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century." I have also made some tweaks to the hook above. I suspect there will be further discussion on the talk page, including another RM, so I think it is better to wait a little further until reviewing again. Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Nothing has changed its same POV fest with cherry picked sources to present one sided POV.Its not DYK material --Shrike (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that this editor has behaved this way previously in DYK nominations about well-sourced topics covering elements of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. See Template:Did you know nominations/Old City of Hebron.

Raising concerns is good, and to be encouraged. But this editor raises non-specific concerns which cannot be addressed, and makes no effort to address the concerns themselves or engage in any real discussion. At Old City of Hebron they started with a few specific comments, which were all addressed, then pivoted to general comments which they refused to engage in discussion on.

I am not saying this article is perfect – as I have said above, there is work to do and discussions are ongoing. I am simply highlighting that there is a chance that this editor repeats the above claim going forward even when the article is ready and discussions have been resolved.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Its not only me.Other editors opined that the article is problematic exactly like in the example you brought --Shrike (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Raising concerns is good and helpful. Topics related to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are often politically sensitive, and our open-source encyclopedia is the best place on the internet for the topic precisely because we get input from editors of all persuasions.

If you don’t follow up your concerns with constructive discussion or editing, and endlessly repeat the non-specific claims, it is disruptive. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave this article on hold for now, but it cannot be considered for DYK while it remains unstable. I hope that the ongoing talk page discussions will provide more input regarding neutrality concerns. Perhaps the RM and similar discussions can also help hone in on a clear article topic. On DYK specific concerns, the current article posits the main topic as "proposed enclaves", and I would prefer a hook that reflects that topic (even though the current situation was undoubtedly proposed at some point). Hook assessment will also require a more stable article. CMD (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree w Chipmunkdavis. Also, the hook is confusing to me. What's the other 10 per cent? One island? 1000 islands? Not under PA control? Full PA control? It's just very confusing. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Onceinawhile: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5, yes – we have started to see some stability at the article, which is very encouraging. The editor above, Shrike, who has a track record of regular sniping at Israel-related DYKs but does not engage in constructive dialogue, has sadly continued this trend of non-engagement. His input would be appreciated. There remains an open RfC, which needs to be resolved before this DYK can proceed. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, The problem that the author has history of writing one sided WP:POV articles against the policy its not only my opinion but other editors think so also.Talk:West_Bank_bantustans#NPOV_concerns.Also there is an emerging consensus about name change against the author wishes. But let ask other editor that opined in this DYK if its became DYK material.@Buidhe:, @11Fox11: Could you please give your opinion about the article if it ready for DYK --Shrike (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Not ready, very POV. It was almost deleted, but just barely closed no-consensus at AfD. I probably will start a merge discussion soon. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• The article doesn't seem to be very stable at the moment so I would suggest withholding a final review until that is resolved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have been checking in occasionally, but I am leaning towards expecting this article will inherently not be stable enough for DYK at the moment. CMD (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Given the stability and neutrality issues, as well as the disagreements between editors as to if the article is suitable for DYK or should even have an article at all, it appears that the article meeting DYK requirements is not feasible at this time. As such, this is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, any chance we could wait until the (possible) name change and then take a view? The article is actually very stable; despite all the friction over the name, there has not been a single edit war as far as I am aware. This is because the editors claiming POV have not brought any sources to support their claims. There doesn't seem to be any rush, and I don't think it is healthy to give in to this kind of transparent behavior which is, again, unsupported by sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

At least three separate editors have mentioned that the article is lacking in either stability or neutrality, and I haven't seen any comments from you explaining how the article is in fact neutral and stable apart from you dismissing their comments instead of addressing their concerns, regardless of their validity. In addition, I took a look at the article's history and it is still being continuously edited by other editors. At the very least, given the status of the article is in flux, it does not appear ready for DYK at this time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5, yes I agree it should wait until the RM is done and any subsequent proposals are fully discussed. But I would appreciate if it was not closed at this point; I don't think we should set a precedent game plan for the exclusion of "difficult" subjects from DYK. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As to "explaining how the article is in fact neutral", it has been built from a bibliography of almost 100 sources, primarily widely respected scholars and commentators. The sources have a reasonable balance of Israeli and Palestinian authors (albeit more Israeli than Palestinian), as well as American and other international authors.

I note that two months ago an opposing editor described it as a "one-sided POV fest with chosen Pro-Palestinian POV authors"; unfortunately in two months that editor has failed to provide a single source from any other POV. The article has also been expanded significantly since the date of that comment. Should this editor, or others, make further claims going forward, I hope they will be asked to substantiate them with actual sources, which – should these sources exist – could then be addressed. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That this is on a difficult or controversial subject is itself not the issue here, the problem right now is more of stability since it's still actively being worked on by multiple editors. In addition, multiple editors have also expressed concerns about the article's neutrality and have yet to raise their objections. Until these issues are resolved, the article may not be approved for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5, understood. What should we do if editors continue to raise objections without providing a clear route to addressing them? I am keen to avoid creating an easy way for editors to block articles from DYK. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to avoid that but the fact is it is easy for them to do it and so they will, I even saw one of these editors saying they should tag just to "keep the article off of the main page". Another just writes POV/UNDUE on everything regardless if that is true or not. This is to be expected in IP area, going by the sources is way down the list of priorities. So in practice, they can keep any DYK from progressing and I notice that's what has been happening. Just don't do DYK's for IP area, that's my advice.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good moment to step back and consider how we think about DYK articles which cover "difficult" subjects. See below two examples which I have been involved in over the last couple of years, with some of the same opposing editors here, and which both relate to some of the more "sensitive" areas of the way the West Bank is run:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Enclave law
• Template:Did you know nominations/Old City of Hebron

The first of these went through, only after I conceded to temporarily remove any reference to words which did not reflect well on Israeli policy, despite them being well-sourced. The second I withdrew, because the opposing comments essentially said that unless the article was rewritten to duplicate Hebron#History then they would not consider it fulsome. In both cases, as here, the opposing editors did not make any effort to edit the article themselves, and in the subsequent years did not edit the articles either. I would appreciate thoughts on how we should approach such situations more broadly. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• The article has now been moved to Palestinian enclaves. Nevertheless, the article still appears to be in an unstable state and there are some statements with a "by whom" tag. Due to these, and the fact that the nomination has been ongoing since November without the issues being adequately addressed to allay editor concerns, I just cannot see the article staying in a stable state anytime soon. As such, I would recommend that the nomination be closed as unsuccessful. As mentioned earlier, I do not believe that being on a "difficult" subject is by itself a disqualifier from DYK and indeed we've already had multiple articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on DYK. However, stability and neutrality are two of the most important DYK criteria and an article that may never meet either or both just simply won't be passed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your comment that “being on a "difficult" subject is [not] by itself a disqualifier from DYK”. The DYK process has to balance the challenge that difficult subjects usually require more time to reach consensus, against the fact that old nominations cannot remain forever (there are still two nominations older than this one). If we get that balance wrong, we create a situation where difficult subjects are being excluded in practice, even if we aren’t intending to. My primary concern is not allowing an easy way for the system to be gamed by those who oppose a particular article for non-sourced-based / non-policy-based reasons. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Right now I just can't see this article ever being ready for DYK given the stability issues that are currently existing. In addition, I'm not really sure why there appears to be an apparent persistence of keeping this particular nomination open instead of accepting the prevailing sentiment that the nomination cannot proceed at this time. Not all articles are meant for DYK and sometimes nominations don't work out the way we wish for, there will always be other opportunities to nominate other articles in the future that may meet guidelines. This particular nomination may be closed, but it doesn't mean that the gaming concerns can't be addressed. If you do believe that there are gaming issues with DYK with regards to difficult subjects, you are always free to start a talk page discussion over at WT:DYK and discuss possible solutions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As the reviewer of this DYK, I found issues with this article outside of strict stability concerns. Instability may have played a part in their not being able to be addressed fully, but I do not believe that this constitutes the article being gamed out of DYK. If there is a larger pattern, this is not the place to discuss it. I agree this should be closed now, but note that a failed DYK should not be considered a diminishment of the effort put into this article. CMD (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

References

Table of contents

What do folks think the table of contents should look like? What sections should the article have, and in what order/organization? Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'd really like to see a much firmer separation of analysis from historical development, which I also think is the best way to address the neutrality tag. This has begun to happen since the article was started with the 'key issues' section, but I think a lot more needs to be done. Sketching out a rough idea of what I'd envision:

1) Etymology (needs a rewrite)

2) Historical context, separated into two sections (not sure which order for these two is best):

2.1) Development: a relatively succinct (but still comprehensive) overview of the process by which fragmented enclaves have been consolidated over time, written with an exclusively factual style, drawing from the 3 current sections 'early history', 'Oslo Accords' and 'Subsequent peace plans', but setting aside the narrative-based analysis which current dominates. (For example, sentences like The 1995 Oslo II Accord formalized the fragmentation of the West Bank, allotting to the Palestinians over 60 disconnected islands;[aa] by the end of 1999 the West Bank had been divided into 227 separate entities, most of which were no more than 2 square kilometres (0.77 sq mi) (about half the size of New York's Central Park) can be lifted straight into this section, whereas text like Arafat was incensed at what he saw as the impossible terms rigidly set by Peres regarding Israeli control of border exits with Jordan, stating that what he was being asked to sign off on resembled a bantustan. This, Peres insisted, was what had been agreed to at Oslo should be moved into the analysis/commentary or 'plans for fragmentation' sections.

2.2.) Plans for fragmentation (a better title may be possible): merging parts of those 3 sections with text from the 'background' and 'planning for fragmentation' subsections of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation to factually outline the history of discussed plans for fragmented enclaves promoted by Israeli officials/politicians, along with motives for these plans.

3) Key issues: a large section with many subheadings, expanded to include content from Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation, particularly the subsections 'freedom of movement' (merge/expand into existing 'contiguity' section - surely the most important issue here), 'legal system', 'village closures' (possibly merge/expand into existing 'land expropriation'(?) also needs to mention/connect to the growth of Jewish settlements) and 'marriage difficulties'. A new section detailing the impact on human rights would be good. The overall theme of the 'Key Issues' would be the empirical impacts of enclavisation.

4) Analysis/Commentary - or similar. A large section, detailing normative discussions (judgement-based, relating to relative norms, morals/ethics) of the enclaves.

4.1) Impact on the peace process: where I'd like to see an examination of how it is widely (universally?) considered by experts to have damaged the peace process by severely impacting the prospects of a two-state solution, and emphasis on just how significant territorial fragmentation has been.

4.2) Comparisons/Parallels (there may be a better title to be found, perhaps it doesn't need to be exclusively comparative): coverage of the various conceptual examinations of the spatial phenomenon of the Palestinian territories and its parallels with ghettos, bantustans and apartheid: how enclavisation has been similar or how it has been different to these examples; including discussion of the significance of Israeli politicians' language relating to these territories. Supported by references from the sources discussed below, such as Julie Peteet, Ghazi-Walid Falah, Hanna Baumann and Elisha Efrat etc. Jr8825 • Talk 03:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This didn't get any traction, and is admittedly getting a bit far ahead of where we are at the moment (arguing over the lead), but I wonder whether it might be a helpful roadmap to work towards? @Selfstudier: @Onceinawhile: your thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been following it to some extent, not exactly but somewhat, in a way. I'm just about to get to Oslo, after that things are simpler because the Palestinians are recognized politically. You will doubtless appreciate there is quite a bit of interplay between different aspects, it is not so easy to divide things up neatly. One thing I found interesting was the way the settlement planning drove the peace proposals (and likely why none of them worked). That pattern reoccurs even after Oslo starts (Netanyahu).Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good start. Some kind of random thoughts:

1. I agree about having a history section that lays out the chronology (neutrally, without analysis). I'm not sure exactly how that history should be broken up (what are the major events/developments, what are the major dividing lines in terms of dates), but I think we could look at the sources and see what they treat as the major events or dates. Obviously everybody includes '67 and Oslo... what else? We could list short timelines for the various sources and see where they overlap (I bet there is a lot of overlap, i.e., different sources with the same major events/dates/etc.)
2. Same w/r/t key issues: what are the key issues exactly, and how are they organized? I see the "history" section of the article as the "just the facts", and "key issues" would be the thematic presentation that contains analysis. We could look at the sources and see what the "key issues" are. I don't think "contiguity" is one of them: that's not a "key issue", that's the issue: it's all about physical and non-physical contiguity, or the lack thereof, in other words, "fragmentation", the term used in the occupation article. (I still kind of view this article as the spin-off of the Fragmentation section of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article.) I think the key issues we'll find in the sources are things like settlements, roads, fences, walls, electricity, water, etc. (but that's my impression not yet having done a careful analysis of the sources).
3. "Geography" is a section I think most sources address and so should we: a description of the geographical layout of Palestinian enclaves and the West Bank in general, and how that geography relates to the enclaves or enclavization. I'm not sure if that's a "key issue" or if we should have some kind of "geography" lvl 2 section. Again I'd suggest looking to the sources to see how/where they present geography.
4. "Plans for fragmentation" v. actual fragmentation: I'm not sure that the sources present fragmentation or enclavization or enclaves as just something that is part of a peace plan, as opposed to a reality that already exists, as opposed to both. I think we should be careful about whether we are presenting "Palestinian enclaves" as an idea or as a reality or a mixture. Just a general comment as we move forward. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:05, 13 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 [[1]] 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[2][3] 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"[4] 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[5]. 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 Template:Widely criticized or Template: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)

Opening sentence (continued)

It’s the obligation of the editor who wants to include material to verify it with sources. Not to provide a source, say you haven’t scrutinized it, and then imply that those challenging the material should find the sources for you. As it is now, there are multiple highly reliable sources that state that the term is used by critics of the proposed enclaves. As in, not widely.Drsmoo (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Take your own advice, why not? Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Drsmoo (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are free to edit the article yourself, no need to lecture me on how to edit, grandmother sucking eggs and all that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My edit was reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's something else, nothing to do with sourcing or adding material, just shuffling data from one place to another, presumably with the idea of de-emphasizing bantustan. Bantustan, like Apartheid, is an element of the discourse these days, like or not. We can't just pretend it isn't there.Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The options a matter of spatial vs temporal adverbs. Either 'widely', or 'often' ('Oslo thus trassformed Palestinian cities into enclaves (Falah 2oo4. Taraki 2008a), which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of Souyth Africa (Zureik 1977; Farsakh 2005a; Abourahme 2009).' Christopher Harker,Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine, Duke University Press, 2020 ISBN 97-8-147-801247-4) or 'commonly'.('the proposals are commonly described as modeled on South Africa's Bantustans.' Ronald Suresh Roberts,No Cold Kitchen: A Biography of Nadine Gordimer, STE Publishers, 2005 ISBN 978-1-919-85558-5 p.704) So toss up which adverb is preferable, for some such adverb must remain there, given the overwhelming frequency of the usage and comparison.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that there are actual sources for commonly and often, as opposed to widely it would make sense to use those. Commonly would conflict with the existent sources stating that the term is used by critics, but there is no technical or factual obstacle to using "often". Drsmoo (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do it. I might put "popular" back in for the analogy (or you could do that, too.:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't due to 1rr Drsmoo (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh..Well, whenever you are able, anyway problem is resolved, for now at least. Why are all the sources on the Intifada so crappy, @Nishidani:, got any recommendation? Causes, specifically.Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well 'often' was my original compromise, so I'll restore it (1R etc. doesn't count surely since we have consensus on the talk page) Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd wait for Wikieditor to go along if I were you. Oh, you did already, well, I'm sure it's OK. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bantustans is still bolded against consensus, additionally, we need to include the source linked to above, as well as the multiple reliable sources stating that the analogy is made by critics. "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." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/world/middleeast/isael-annexation-west-bank-risks.html "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." https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2005/feature_motro_sepoct05.msp "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 "The demolitions, together with the settlements and their related roads, checkpoints, residency permits and the security walls now under construction, are, say critics, a way of maximizing Israeli territorial expansion at the same time as ensuring that any future Palestinian state will be more akin to South Africa's apartheid-era Bantustans, dependent on Israel for everything from jobs to water." https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Destruction_of_Memory/Xuz6GngdaVsC?hl=en&gbpv=0 Drsmoo (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do that and you have to tweak also that the analogy was made by senior Israeli proponents and politicians who were not critics, but view such nan arrangement in a highly positive light. I'm sorry but the official Israeli government spinning to downcase if not disappear a precise description of what it intends to do has gone far enough, with the absurdity that we use 'enclave' exclusively of Palestinian areas when Israeli legal language uses that term to describe Jewish settlements, not Palestinian areas. Indeed, what is the official Israeli term for these 'Palestinian enclaves'?Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "official Israeli government spinning"? The article must be based on reliable sources, not original research, and the lead must reflect that. Drsmoo (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking you to state what Israel's official term for the bantustans is. It is certainly not 'enclaves', a term the Israeli courts use to describe only Jewish settlements. The genius of wikispin here is magically transforming the Israeli legal term for settlements into the default term for Palestinian areas, which constitute a far greater land mass in the West Bank. We leave it at that farcical as it is, but there are limits to how juggling with words, as has been done here, can undo reality. Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with bantustan as an aka? I don't know what you mean by against consensus. The title was changed but that has nothing to do with standard practice for the lead. I can't recall whether archipelago was discussed at any length as another relatively common alternative, if it was then that should be bolded as well. It is obvious that it is mainly intended as criticism but when Peteet uses enclave, she also means it critically and that's the case for any of the names (open air prison is criticism not praise) so I don't think that is crucial for the lead, something short and simple covering all the names, including enclave, can go in the names section. What the NYT thinks about it is irrelevant, there are scholarly sources for that.Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a large discussion which concluded that the term Bantustans as a title is not neutral. Obviously the New York Times is not irrelevant, nor are the other reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Title is one thing, lead is another, alternative names go in as usual, you seem to think you can keep focusing in on bantustan to the exclusion of everything else. As for criticism, when I said I wanted criticism mentioned, I mean in general not specifically bantustan, no-one is praising these things, whatever they are called.Selfstudier (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

On sourcing, Levivich was first to say it and Nishidani and I agreed with him. We don't need newsorg when we have or should have scholarly. We may need newsorg for recent things or some special reason but criticism isn't one of them.Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bantustans is traditionally understood to refer to the South African apartheid territories. A number of Israel critics have attempted to draw a linkage between the two, and in those circles the term is used often (especially as shown by the opinion pieces provided here), but there is not support to show that it is a widely used alternative term, and it is confusing for readers to present it as such. High-quality news organizations such as the NYT are perfectly appropriate to determine whether or not a term is widely used in public discourse, perhaps even more suited than an esoteric scholarly source. It seems like we are now on the same page in one respect, though, which is that the bantustans analogy is clearly a criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You've said that a hundred times so I for one feel under no obligation to respond to it. Compromises when the complaint is reasonable have been reached and enacted. By the way, the NYTs is not reliable on these issues: all of its Jerusalem Bureau heads (housed in an apartment that is 'enemy property' in Jerusalem) have deep personal commitments to Zionism and the way they consistently manipulate reports so that little of what Israeli mainstream newspapers report emerges, has been analysed by many scholars, not least of which is Jerome Slater's, Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000–06, in International Security, 32:2 pp.184-120. Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Something more recent on the same subject https://www.wrmea.org/2019-may/how-the-new-york-times-rigs-news-on-israel-palestine.html (James North is an activist but if I was discussing NYT on the boards, I would make many of the same points)Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure "the bantustans analogy is clearly a criticism" and so are all the other names, this is the point you are missing. Peteet says enclave is "worse" than bantustan and open air prison, canton, ghetto and whatnot are obviously criticism as well. I have said since the beginning I want criticism mentioned and the place for it is in the names section where we can safely say that critics/criticism exist (and have done for the last 50 years). People may draw their own conclusions about how many such critics exist.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: People may draw their own conclusions about how many such critics exist. People can draw their own conclusions, but it should not be presented to be "widely held" if it isn't and there's not evidence to support that. And if you genuinely believe that, then there is no reason to keep repeatedly adding the "widely held" language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do keep up, that was resolved already and it's not in the article anymore.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Often," "widely," "frequently," all unattributed and WP:UNDUE, frankly. The original verison I proposed Critics have also referred to them as bantustans should have been uncontroversial. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yo0u either don't read the threads you participate in or suffer from a bad memory. These statements are false.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Drsmoo. you just egregiously hoisted yourself with your own petard with this latest contribution to the article. You have also insisted on consensus, and that lacks any.

Several times you objected to the use of adverbs etc in the lead that lacked a source, saying otherwise all such senmtences are WP:Synth. most recently here and here

Today you did exactly what you criticize other editors as doing. You add 4 sources to justify ‘typically by critics’. None of those sources contain that phrasing . Thus it fails the very criterion you have insisted on. It cannot stand and has to be reverted out. A minimal coherence is necessary in editors' work here. And note: this has a uniform template and format, and you ignored it. You didn't give pagination where available or a link to the cited work's precise page.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention the complete ignoring of the conversation about criticism above. Frankly, I do not see any point in entering discussions on this basis.Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to modify the citations to add the precise page, it's hard to imagine there is any real issue with my edit, which was an earnest attempt at compromise, and which supports both set of sources. There was no objection to "the use of adverbs", there was an objection to unsourced material and ideas. The lead claimed that the phrase was "widely used" without source, the issue was the lack of sources, not the specific adverb. Multiple sources describe the analogy as being used by critics, while the sources stating it is used often or commonly are less specific. I sincerely thought my edit was a reasonable accommodation of both sets of sources, but it seems in this zero-sum editing environment no compromise is ever acceptable. If is crucial to specify that the analogy is most often made by critics because it is attested to in multiple reliable sources, and is important for placing the situation into context.Drsmoo (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well now you've just made it clear that this article is advocating a POV. obviously Selfstudier's recent edits don't work for the lead of any decent article. Based on the recent edit, it's clear that this article is not actually about Palestinian enclaves (or whatever you want to call them), it's a collection made by googling Bantustans, and the article is simply attempting to present that POV. If the response to an earnest attempt to compromise is to double down and mess up the lead entirely, then we will have to involve noticeboards, unfortunately. Drsmoo (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The demand is that the article continue to be edited competently, with respect for sources and the established format, and optimally by a rational consensus. You cannot edit with double standards, insisting on following consensus, then ignoring the fact you have no consensus for that edit; insisting a type of summary is WP:Synth, and then going ahead with exactly that kind of edit you deplore in others. Secondly you whipped 'typically' out of the rabbit's hat, WP:OR/WP:Synth in your own words and fail to respond to my query regarding this abuse. If you read the sources added, and several others, you would realize that they could equally be used to write

'a reality reported to have influenced architects of the fragmentation and often drawn by Israeli, Palestinian and foreign critics'

And please avoid saying this is a zero-sum editing environment: several adjustments have been made by compromise. There is no evidence that the analogy is most often made by 'critics'. There is very good evidence that the Bantustan model has a long history in Israeli political planning, and they weren't critical of the analogy: they found it of heuristic value in screwing the Palestinians. The only problem was managing the inevitable implemented analogy in such a way as to avoid Israel being compared to the republic whose model it drew on, by spinning the fidelity of analysts to the known record of Israeli geostrategic planning as people conducting 'criticism of Israel' (ergo racist and borderline anti-Semitic). Please note lastly that virtually every one globally, save for that ex-White House clown and his myrmidons, recognizes the dysfunctionality/absurdity of the various fragmentation/Bantustan models proposed, identifying them as a threat to peace, impossible to negotiate. And these include pro-Israeli American Jews, numerous high-echelon defence analysts in the US and Israel, and thus 'critics' (implying there is a wide constituency that does not criticize these projects) is question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please know that I sincerely was attempting a compromise, there is a lot of bad faith here. The "wide constituency" you refer to is actually the majority of people who don't know anything about anything and may be reading the article and not even know, for example, that a Bantustan is something bad. Since everyone in this talk page is in agreement that the Bantustan analogy is made by critics, and we have multiple reliable sources attesting to that, that could be a good point of compromise/consensus, rather than something that needs to be needlessly fought over. As it is right now, for example, the article is transparently POV. For example, why have a list of specifically "notable Israelis and Americans" that have used the term at some point or another, if not to push forward an obtuse and misleading POV? Were it not for the fact that almost no one is engaging with this article, it would have been demolished thoroughly. Drsmoo (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The "wide constituency" you refer to is actually the majority of people who don't know anything about anything and may be reading the article and not even know, for example, that a Bantustan is something bad.

Thanks. You admit the idea that an ethnic power that isolates native peoples into fragmented resourceless mini-pseudo-states is creating something that is bad. You implicitly think that fragmenting the indigenous population of the West Bank (and Gaza) in isolated discontinuous pockets of resourceless land however is something different, and, yeah 'not bad'. Since that is not bad (because Israel is the major architect of the same difference) the result cannot be called bantustans. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's clear you have no idea of what I think, "implicitly" or otherwise, and I would suggest you focus on content and not contributors. Drsmoo (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your idea of compromise differs rather radically from mine and after the most recent editing on your part I will not engage in further discussions with you in order for you to just ignore everything said and simply impose your version. A throwaway remark in a NYT article about something else entirely and you cite that for unidentified "critics" even after the previous discussion, really. If you wish to visit the boards for some aspect, then don't threaten to do that, go ahead and make your case there for whatever it is that concerns you. As far as I can see, you have contributed nothing to this article other than a persistent effort to disappear, downplay or reduce the importance of "bantustan" which is comprehensively sourced in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The obsession with the NY Times is quite odd. There are four sources cited for the use of the analogy by critics. If your response to an editor including reliable sourced information is to make a comically POV edit which throws the entire lead into disrepute, and then shut down and refuse to engage, that's on you. Drsmoo (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT thing was specifically discussed above and ignored completely by you but it is not the principal issue, merely a symptom. My edit was a logically crafted response to your edit. I see now that engagement on your part means "by way of edit summary" and "noticeboard". And that's "on you", to use your phrasing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If your response to the insertion of reliable sourced information that you seemingly would prefer to not be in the article is to make a "logically crafted response" to seesaw the lead back towards your preferred POV, then ok. Just don't claim you're actually trying to neutrally represent sourced information on the subject.

Additionally, if one is going to include a list of "Notable Israelis and Americans" who've used the term (why)? Then why not include, for example, Edward Said and Norman Finkelstein? Why include Israelis and Americans and not Palestinians and, for example, Europeans?Drsmoo (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Insert as many as you would like to that are notable, no objection from me. If you are pleading guilty to that which you accuse me of, we might make progress. I doubt that's what you are doing. As for the edit, all I have done is move what was already in the Names section of the article body up to the lead section (where you seem to like to edit) to demystify your "critics" with a description of said criticism and who is making it. This is entirely in line with what I said before your edit, that the "critics" ought to be in the Names section but since you put it in the lead regardless, I perforce had to do likewise for balance.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All of this and most of the talk page since this article was created is due to an obsession, not solely on your part, with "bantustan" which from my perspective, although of some interest, I find to be one of the least interesting elements of the article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, they are not "my" critics. Your issue is not with me, but with an assertion made by multiple reliable sources. Making an WP:OR, POV list of every cherry picked "non-critic" who's uttered the word Bantustan one can find, and then moving it to the next sentence to "balance", based on a POV, the reliably sourced information, is not conducive to building a good article Drsmoo (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I and others will build it, you may continue to add the occasional edit to the lead as seems to be your wont. I don't mind about what you call "critics" and I call "criticism" but you care only about the abstraction while I care about what was said and by who. I will repeat what I said before your edit, I want the criticism mentioned specifically. I object to where and how you decided to do that as described above. That is not cooperative editing.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Until this current discussion within the past few days, none of my edits were to the lede. Who are you referring to? Drsmoo (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

When in doubt, change the subject? See the section heading? "Opening sentence". Followed by reams of discussion ending with "often" being inserted on your behalf in the lead (subsequently objected to yet again by Wikieditor) and then your recent addition to the lead. I have said frequently that the article is incomplete and I would rather be working on that than engaging in lengthy and ultimately futile discussions about "widely held" versus "often" or unidentified "critics" unilaterally assigned by you only in respect of "bantustan". Do you not understand that it is the entire enterprise that is being criticized? In every respect. Looking forward to a new section about something other than the "opening sentence" and preferably not about anything else in the lead either.Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

QED. I will return to building and you and Wikieditor can continue to tilt at windmills:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier This was a step in the wrong direction. Adding a block of text filled with cherrypicked examples of "notable persons" who said or referenced a point of view is not appropriate attribution. That kind of extended attribution can stay in the body; it is enough to say that critics have expressed this view. It is redundant to repeatedly highlight that they are "notable." If they weren't notable, we wouldn't be including their views in the first place. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Break

In the last week the lead seems to have gone out of control, with behavior which looks very close to edit warring. This is in stark contrast to a two-week period of stability following the closing of the RfC (version here[6]). For the sake of turning down the temperature, could we please stop editing the lede and just build the consensus on here first. From reading the threads above, this is not an insoluble disagreement - there seems to be a desire on both sides to characterize the use of "critics / critical" in a fair and nuanced manner.

The changes made to the introductory paragraphs since the post RfC version are shown here. I don't understand some of the other changes, but perhaps we can explain them all here and if we can't reach an agreement we can have another RfC. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: You are "turning down the temperature" by reverting others and introducing as an alternative title a name that was specifically rejected by consensus, content that was not in the article previously. Rather than criticizing others and making accusations of edit-warring, perhaps you should dial back your most recent edit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Onceinawhile. I agree on condition that we revert back to the post RfC first para version. It's defective in prioritizing the rarer archipelago over the common 'Bantustan' and 'popular' should be replaced by 'common' since we are misleading people if they are to get the impression 'Bantustan' is a political, academic description, not an analogy widely known out there in the general reading public-Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you per MOS:BOLDSYN, but I think if we depart from the consensus version selectively we will be back into tug-of-war.

I didn't realize that Wikieditor is now arguing to expunge the bantustan synonym altogether, as when I was last at this page three days ago, there was no hint of such a suggestion and he and I had been talking for a number of days.

@Wikieditor19920: would you mind letting me know what has changed? The argument that the name in the article "was specifically rejected by consensus" seems new to me, given the discussion was only about the title.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the lead since the consensus version

Looking through the changes shown here, I see the following primary changes:

1. Archipelago reference moved after bantustan reference

• Agree.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Open air prison reference deleted

• Agree Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree, as helpful to contextualize the range of names. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• No opinion,it might depend what else was in the lead besides.Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Bantustan reference prefaced with "Critics refer..."

• Disagree Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree, although open to use of the word subject to my points about re not implying that it is only critics who use it and not implying that most other terms are used uncritically. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree, criticism ought in the first instance be in the names section and not just be limited to users of the word bantustan. If suitable sources exist, I prefer some sort of identifcation rather than the anonymous/throwaway "critics"Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Debolding of all alternative names

• No objections, if archipelago place under bantustanKeep as to the policies mentioned (illuminating my ignorance) immediately below this comment. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• MOS:BOLDSYN suggests we should have this. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• It is customary to bold aka's, especially in this case where there is no clear commonname, so bantustan and probably archipelago.Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

5. "...most outstanding..." quote deleted

• Keep Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as highlights notability. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a somewhat odd quote from a newspaper article, the last para we have now is much better as notability.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

6. Reference to "A number of US-Israeli peace plans" deleted

• Keep Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as helpful explanation; most readers will not be familiar with the individual plans. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not really necessary and a little misleading, perhaps change to "number of peace proposals"?Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

7. "Bantustan option" deleted

• Keep Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, gratuitous, gilding the lily, as compared to the "enclave option"? the "canton option". Seems out of place.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

8. "...group of non-contiguous..." sentence moved down

• Move back upNishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep where it was – it is a more helpful if earlier. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• No opinion at the moment will wait to see how lead develops.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

9. Clarification re Area C being "the rest of the West Bank" deleted

• Retain Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as most readers will not know what Area C is. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move I did this, I moved it to the text of the picture at right ie I used the formulation as used in Oslo II Accord

10. Not in version: [Proposal to expunge references to Bantustan altogether]

• That violates WP:Lead summary style. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per wp:lead and consistency with sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, this is self evident by the article content.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

11. Move Francis Boyle reference in footnote c down to the main body

• Support. No need for this complex footnote in the lead. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• The objection is petty but that's okay if shifted to name section, but no further down, and it is not a complex footnote. The thrust of much POV editing is to move 'stuff' out of sight of the lead, on the assumption that in our times, people never read beyond that, and so shifting down proposals are often viewed as 'disappearing' acts, or desaparecido demotions.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• If this one is moved, then I see no reason why we cannot move all the rest of the footnotes/refs out of the lead and then the discussion becomes "Does the lead reflect what is in the body?"Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please could those involved in the discussion confirm which of these changes you agree with? Then we can put back the ones which actually have consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You can I think safely assume no consensus around "bantustan", a majority of the points. The discussion has been going nowhere and I see little prospect for any change in that regard. Most of the other things are I think, fairly inconsequential, some are due to it being Palestine, not just WB, not all plans are US-Israeli, that sort of thing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In theory that's correct, but with the lead under assault with doubts as to the propriety of so many words, expressions, data, and hence requiring refs, the ideal can only be approached when this article assumed some stability.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an incredibly ineffective way to develop consensus around wording. You should be presenting different versions of the sentence under dispute, and you just restored a version of the article that is the most problematic.

There is a overt effort at this page to 1) present the bantustan analogy as if it is an explicit truth, rather than a criticism, and to 2) attribute its usage to a wider audience than the sources support. None of you have responded to these specific objections and are instead hurling constant accusations of edit-warring, disruption, etc., even as you contradict the prior consensus on the issue of whether or not "West Bank Bantustans" was a widely used term. The consensus was not limited to the title -- the vast majority of editors saw it as unsupported by the majority of sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to "present different versions of the sentence under dispute" if you prefer. I will be happy to engage. My last comment prior to today was three days ago[7] – I would be interested in your views on these two questions. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The first of your questions is legitimate -- not all critics of the enclaves do so by calling them bantustans. However, the phrasing Critics of the enclave proposals often refer to them as bantustans, comparing them to . . . etc. does not necessarily mean all critics call them bantustans. As to the second part of your comment, the answer is that all comparisons to bantustans are criticisms. The notion that a such a comparison has been used in "neutral" or "generous" manner is simply doesn't ring true with the sources or common sense, frankly. I have not seen any of the instance syou referenced where bantustans is supposedly a neutral comparison. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I don’t believe that Moshe Dayan or Ariel Sharon’s uses of the term were in a critical sense? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote attributed to Moshe Dayan was purportedly made in 1967 -- I stand corrected, and clearly there are limited instances, reportedly, of this phrase being used unironically. However, I don't believe that's reflective of modern usage of the term. I cannot find Sharon explicitly using the term bantustan; I did find he's credited with proposing "autonomous enclaves," whatever that means. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920, thanks for this. Re Sharon, Ha'aretz reported: "According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict." Our article currently clarifies: "When d'Alema, at a private dinner he hosted for Israelis in Jerusalem in late April 2003, mentioned his recollection of Sharon's Bantustan views, one Israeli countered by suggesting that his recall must be an interpretation, rather than a fact. d'Alema replied that that the words he gave were 'a precise quotation of your prime minister.' Another Israeli guest present at the dinner deeply invpolved in cultivating Israeli-South African relations, confirmed that 'whenever he happened to encounter Sharon, he would be interrogated at length about the history of the protectorates and their structures.'." Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the underlying accusation here is that the enclaves proposed in the mid 20th century were intentionally designed based on the bantustan model. Maybe that's possible. But remember, much of this article is dedicated to modern proposals, and the lead references modern usage of the term. I will concede I was wrong on my earlier point about it never being used in a non-critical sense, as apparently it's possible it was. However, I think we should be more focused on the modern trend, especially because the lead currently says the term is used "by way of" the modern Israel-Apartheid analogy, which is undoubtedly intended as a criticism (something noted in the first sentence of that page). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I am ok with this. Shall we move to agreeing a specific form of words? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Critics of the modern enclave proposals have likened them (blue link to Apartheid analogy) to the bantustans of Apartheid South Africa set aside for black inhabitants. However, usage of the term "bantustans" to describe the areas has also been traced back to the 1960s including by Israeli military leader and politician Moshe Dayan, who reportedly suggested bantustans as an explicit model for the Palestinian enclaves. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wikieditor19920. Given the size of this I assume you are referring to what might fit into the main body, and then we deal with the lead summary afterwards?

I don't particularly like "Critics of the modern enclave proposals have likened them...", because this is more than just likening; it is frequently used as the actual name (many of our sources state this explicitly).

As a way of shortcutting this I would be ok with a version of what was proposed by Drsmoo this morning[8].

This would help by adding "frequently" or "often" (which we have many sources confirming) and the "typically by critics" formulation deals with the point that this is not always used in that way. So we could replace it with: "The entities are often referred to as bantustans, typically by critics,..." Onceinawhile (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to add a form of this to the "Name" section of the article (it could be merged into the existing second paragraph)? Once we have agreed how that looks, then we can move to the question of how to refer to it in the lead?

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This was just my crack at summarizing the term for the lead -- if you think it's more fit for the body, I suppose that's fine. I just think that the current tone/wording of the sentence is not encyclopedic. "By way of," "popular comparison," is just not language I think should be used. Drsmoo's phrasing, IMO, was more direct and appropriate for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There were never a consensus version the article was constantly challenged for its serious POV problems and they still have not been solved -Shrike (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was disruptive. You failed to pay attention to due process. Onceinawhile endeavoured to stop the chronic editwarring by going back to a version that had some temporal stability after the RfC, and opened up a discussion. So we start from scratch, and wait until some agreement on minimal terms is achieved. So stop just barging in, and upsetting the mediation.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, please note we are now having a constructive discussion here. Your last contribution was on 15 Jan, the exact day of the post-RfC version which then remained stable for the next two weeks. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wikieditor19920: I have tried to implement your proposal in the main body, with my amends including Drsmoo’s wording. What do you think? Once agreed we can then decide how to deal with the lead? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

On body: I think the way it's plugged in is a bit awkward, so I'd suggest re-wording the two sentences that follow. But it's off to a good start.

This is the sentence I have a problem with in the lead: By way of the popular comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as the West Bank bantustans. I'd like to see this one fixed up with more encyclopedic language and noting that modern usage of the term is typically a critique; I think that a compromise between one of yours, Nishidani's, and Drsmoo's versions would be fine. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920, I am fine with both your suggestions here. Do you want to make the edits you had in mind to the wording in the name section? I think we can address your points on the lead sentence by borrowing from whatever we land on in the name section. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile I made some changes to the paragraph we just discussed. I think they're pretty minimal but should be effective. Maybe this paragraph can serve as a template for whatever 1-2 sentence summary we include in the lead (since that sentence will basically be a summary of this section). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"The entities (,criticized across the board) are often referred to as bantustans, typically by critics;" Reason, the criticism of (enclaves, cantons, whatever) is broad based from all over. It is not only people using bantustan that are being critical, nearly every single source we have is expressing criticism of these "spaces". I fail to see why bantustan critics are being singled out, well, I do see, but its not NPOV. The fact that some people use the word bantustan pejoratively is a different thing.Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920, building on the above (sorry for leaving for a couple of days):

Your version says: Critics of the enclave models frequently describe the areas as "bantusans," a reference to the enclaves in Apartheid South Africa set aside for black inhabitants. The name "bantustan" is considered to have economic and political implications that imply a lack of meaningful sovereignty and is used pejoratively.

My main concern is with the first clause which starts "Critics of the enclave models"; it should not single out bantustans. They are only referred to as enclaves by critics too. Find me a source where they are described as enclaves by a "supporter". The phrase "Critics of the enclave models" suggests that "Supporters of the enclave models" exist. You may say that there are supporters - surely all those US and Israeli politicians who have proposed these arrangements over the years? But from Sharon to Netanyahu, and from Kissinger to Kushner, none of them have "supported the enclave models", they have simply pretended that they weren't enclave models at all. The Camp David proposals were famously criticized for non-contiguity, but they were never made public and the Israeli and American party line was to deny it. The Trump Plan, the first time this has ever been made public, had this to say: Transportation corridors included in this Vision create transportation contiguity that greatly reduces the need for checkpoints and greatly enhances the mobility and quality of life and commerce for the Palestinian people. Self-determination is the hallmark of a nation. This Vision is intended to maximize self-determination, while taking all relevant factors into account. Sovereignty is an amorphous concept that has evolved over time. With growing interdependence, each nation chooses to interact with other nations by entering into agreements that set parameters essential to each nation. The notion that sovereignty is a static and consistently defined term has been an unnecessary stumbling block in past negotiations. Pragmatic and operational concerns that effect security and prosperity are what is most important. So they are admitting it and hiding it in equal measure. So we must not imply there are "Supporters of the enclave models", by creating a category called "Critics of the enclave models"

What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that this article is, ostensibly, about the potential outcome of various peace proposals, it is important to note that the majority of sources are ascribing the analogy's use to critics of the proposals themselves. For example "what Oslo critics have called "apartheid-style Bantustans", "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", "the Trump administration’s Peace to Prosperity plan that proposes the annexation and division of significant parts of the West Bank, which has led to several prominent Israelis, Israeli human rights organizations, and other critics condemning the plan and comparing it to South African apartheid and bantustans","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." So the line could be something akin to "Critics of various peace proposals have described the potential outcome as akin to Bantustans." However, this analogy shouldn't be in the lead at all. Currently this article is only posing as being about about the end-result of various peace proposals or potential annexations. In reality, it is a POV coat rack of every mention of the word Bantustans that could be found to fit in this context, comically ignoring the overwhelming majority of sources which do not touch the analogy at all. Drsmoo (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the ever mysterious collection of sources that when we ask to see them, can never be produced. That's what's comical.Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That's funny, all but one of these sources were posted in the article when the original critics mention was included, and I was criticized for including too many sources. Could you please provide an example of a time when someone asked to see sources and I didn't produce them? Perhaps you were referring to the majority of sources that don't use the Bantustan analogy at all. In which case every aggregator of scholarly information has exponentially more results for "Palestinian Enclaves" than any permutation of Palestinian/West Bank Bantustans. Yes this article is at present not actually about anything other than a POV coat rack. Drsmoo (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, because the burden is on us to prove something false as opposed to you to prove something true. And we totally didn't already provide an article from the pre-eminent paper in the world summarizing the debate. See no sources, hear no sources, speak no sources, am I right? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not "us" against "them". We are trying to collaborate. Drsmoo, you have made two unsubstantiated claims about "majority of sources" above. Please substantiate them.

Wikieditor, you are referring to the NYT I believe ("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 apartheid like second-class status indefinitely.") (1) They do not use the word enclaves or any other word we use in this article; (2) they write in neutral voice "leaving them in an apartheid like second-class status indefinitely". It seems you are cherrypicking from this source, which you call the pre-eminent paper in the world, or are you happy for us to follow their apartheid phrasing? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The majority of sources of the ones I had listed throughout the talk page and article that point to the analogy being used by critics. I was pointing out that those critics are not of the enclaves, as you claimed, but primarily the sources are describing critics of the peace proposals. Drsmoo (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, so you are describing the majority of sources which you have selected, which is interesting. But it is not “the majority of [all] sources”.

I would appreciate if you or Wikieditor would respond to the points in my comment above at 21:33, 11 February.Onceinawhile (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not say it was the majority of all sources in the universe. The subject was how to incorporate the multiple sources attributing usage of the analogy to critics. You and Wikieditor discussed "Critics of the enclave models", and in fairness, my original edit was "typically by critics", which is overly vague. I was responding that most of the relevant sources describe the critics as not being critics of specifically the enclaves themselves, but as being critics of various peace plans/proposals (ie "Oslo critics" or "Palestinian critics of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations) and presenting the proposed enclaves as a negative consequence of those proposals. Drsmoo (talk) 01:26, 12 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)

LRB article from 3 weeks ago

Very well written article at:

Nathan Thrall, The Separate Regimes Delusion, London Review of Books, Vol. 43 No. 2 · 21 January 2021:

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I posted that on the Israel talk page, the Apartheid section, they weren't impressed, wonder why.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look when I have time. Bookmarked. Jr8825 • Talk 17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thrall is the most objective, unpolemical but intensely realist analyst of the I/P realities we have today. That article teases out all of the equivocations that inflect the discourse and shows what a shambles these fine distinctions many sources make really are. The essence of his article is in two remarks:

It is not difficult to make the case that Israel’s actions in the West Bank amount to apartheid. Israelis and Palestinians in the same territory are subject to two different legal systems. They are tried in different courts, one military, one civilian, for the same crime committed on the same street. Jews in the West Bank, both Israeli citizens and non-citizens who are eligible as Jews to immigrate, enjoy most of the same rights and protections as Israelis in the rest of the country. Palestinians are subject to military rule and are denied freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement and even the right not to be detained indefinitely without trial. The discrimination is not just national – by Israelis against Palestinians who lack citizenship – but ethnic, by Jews against Palestinian subjects and citizens alike. While Jews in the West Bank, citizens or not, are tried in Israeli civil courts, Israeli citizens who are Palestinian can be sent to military courts. A 2014 report by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the largest and oldest human rights group in the country, noted that ‘since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens or residents of Israel … no judgment was found in which the request of an Arab citizen to transfer his case from a military court to a court in Israel was accepted.’

millions of Palestinians continue to be deprived of basic civil rights and subjected to military rule. With the exception of those six months in 1966-67, this has been the reality for the majority of Palestinians living under Israeli control for the entire history of the state. South Africa’s apartheid lasted 46 years. Israel’s is at 72, and counting.

In short, it is no longer a radical, leftwing marginal POV to state what has long been obvious. As he shows, the apartheid strain in Zionism is rooted in the 'left'-Zionist tradition, which indeed started the apartheid separatist settlement of Palestinian territories. Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've only one objection to what he writes. I.e.

It is not difficult to make the case that Israel’s actions in the West Bank amount to apartheid.

Clearly Thrall is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. And that's to the good, since it would be tragic for an acute mind to waste his time trying to wrangle some realism and respect for the current scholarly consensus from the chronic defensive POV protectionism so entrenched here.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I have to clean up my desk now as I accidentally took a gulp of water before reading your last paragraph...

I also thought the following was very insightful: A Palestinian in Ramallah ostensibly lives in one of the 165 Palestinian Authority-governed enclaves that together make up less than 40 per cent of the West Bank. But she, too, is subject to a single Israeli authority, not a separate West Bank regime... Zulat, a new think tank headed by the former chair of the liberal Zionist Meretz party, Zehava Gal-On, published a report entitled ‘Whitewashing Apartheid’. In a section on the consequences of de jure annexation it performed a whitewash of its own, arguing that apartheid in the West Bank is currently practised not by Israel but by a separate regime: ‘Even if we annex only one square metre, the state of Israel will be relinquishing its democratic pretensions and abandoning its 53-year declared intention to end the conflict, reach an agreed settlement with the Palestinians and cease ruling over them.’ Even annexation, however, ‘does not necessarily make Israel an apartheid state but rather preserves it as a state operating a regime with apartheid characteristics in the occupied territories’. By this standard, apartheid South Africa was a democracy – like all democracies, an imperfect one – operating a regime with apartheid characteristics in the townships and Bantustans. Those Bantustans, incidentally, had their own flags, anthems, civil servants, parliaments, elections and a limited degree of autonomy not unlike that of the Palestinian Authority.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Drink tea rather than water (fish fuck in that, as the boozers of my youth would have said) when reading stuff fueled by ample slurps of endless cuppas. There's only one thing I dissent from in your copy and paste:surely 'Zulat' as a name,. in that context should be 'Zulut'? Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

When I posted it, the response was "a criticism is not a fact", I guess that must be the preferred method for dealing with awkward facts, just dismiss it as "criticism" and the people positing them as "critics".Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: the comment above from Selfstudier is an elegant explanation as to the sensitivity around the "critics" language we have been discussing at this article; we should not use it to undermine the use of the term in Wikipedia's voice. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I'll just remind you of WP:ASSERT. Noting that a comparison is critical - which is not only common sense but how it is described in sources - is not taking a side on the matter, nor is it "undermining" the validity of that criticism. The idea that we have to assert as fact something because you and two other editors strongly believe it to be true is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. This is what myself, Shrike, Drsmoo and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, and which, unfortunately, has been waved off by the three of you by insisting that you are right, and your edits reflect WP:TRUTH. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV and frankly comes off as POV pushing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The 'gang of three' have read several dozen sources and actually edited the page, as opposed to kibitzing repetitively on minutiae on the talk page. Shrike habitually drops a one-liner on talk pages, a vote, but rarely if ever engages in a logical analysis of texts and inferences, or what his interlocutors say in response. That is their right, but I can see little palpably cogent in any remark he has made here. Your remark above ignores the fact that all thought is intrinsically critical, and that critical thinking will be, ineludibly, part and parcel of any interpretation, pro or con. To try to swerve the lead into some POV that suggests analysts of the West bank fragmentation are 'critics' is to push an innuendo that subjectifies the analytical work done, and implies that it bears primarily a negative or hostile thrust. Well, no. Even a Zionist planner develops his models by critical thinking which will accept or dismiss or refine other proposals according to what, in their lights, seems to be a viable policy option. Many Israeli politicians were 'critics' of the various Allon, and Sharon proposals, such as Shimon Peres and Teddy Kollek. The problem here is not pushing some POV, but in getting POV pushers to grasp the history of the topic, and assess carefully, if they read them at all, the mass of sources adduced to throw light on the topic. I for one asked you to read up on the references, and you pleaded lack of time, if I recall correctly. But you have used a huge swathe of time to argufy on the talk page. Your personalizing our divergences in the caricature above is gratuitous.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Brevity in talk page comments is a positive, not a negative. "Critics" isn't innuendo, it's a fact reported in reliable sources that the bantustan comparison is typically drawn by critics, bar a few isolated instances of Israeli politicians using the term in another context nearly half a century ago. Contrary to your repeated claims, you are not the only one informed on the subject; I presented you with a NYT article aptly summarizing the debate over the term and calling the comparison one typically raised by critics, and you dismissed it out of hand in favor of a book by Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic and one of those critics as if somehow he is authoritative but the NYT is "too biased" to offer an objective take on the matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920, I was trying to explain the thought process.Your response felt like an attack, which misrepresented the nuanced discussion we have been having. We have been building an understanding of each other, building on our different perspectives, and I thought it would be helpful to provide more color. Now I feel that outreach has been thrown back in my face. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the thought process. And it is flawed. Please see my explanation above. If you see my comment as an "attack," then I regret that because I think we can achieve improvements through collaboration. But on the other hand, I didn't exactly find Selfstudier's remark "elegant," to be honest I found it a bit belligerent. If there's something wrong with how I'm interpreting the arguments above, I'd be happy to hear a clarification, but it sounds like the concern over noting something is a criticism (which is, in fact, a criticism), is that it is "diminishing it" and it is preferable to present this criticism as an objective truth, because you believe there's lots of evidence behind it. If I'm wrong, that would be the greatest news in the world, because debating against that line of argument--which is not compliant with NPOV--is not something I look forward to over the next few weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I get myself on the list of critics? That's a place I definitely want to be. Is a sps acceptable?Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor. For the nth time, you are just chatting. It's intensely repetitive, unresponsive, unfocused and boring. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I want to engage with your comment because I think it is moving us forward - you have explained your thinking clearly. Just as you think my thought process is flawed, I believe the opposite to be true. To illustrate, there are three long form versions of our respective positions here (I have extrapolated them for effect):

1. The enclaves are frequently referred to as bantustans.

2. The enclaves are frequently referred to as bantustans because they are similar to the puppet-enclaves in South Africa

3. The enclaves are frequently referred to as bantustans by critics of Israel, particularly by those who wish to paint Israel as an apartheid state

I believe you consider 1 and 3 to be true, and you are not sure about 2 but assume that it is open to debate. As a result you think 1 needs qualification. Am I summarizing your position correctly? If so, then you need to show that there really is a debate around 2. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not disputed that "bantustans" is not an analogy that has been drawn in reliable sources. I do not know if frequently is an appropriate phrase. It is enough to say that the analogy has been drawn. On point #2, you have inadvertently illustrated the problem yet again. This is not "each one thinks the other is wrong so they both are wrong." I'm not here to debate whether or not something is true for the sake of the article. WP:FORUM. We are here to debate what reliable sources say and how to present it in the article compliant with policy. It is obvious that there is debate on this subject, and we have already determined by consensus that the phrase "Palestinian bantustans" is not a widely accepted term that satisfies WP:POVNAME. Reliable sources like the NYT have attributed the comparison to critics of Israel, because it is obviously a critical comparison. That is not a comment on their motivations or the validity of that criticism, it is an acknowledgement that a certain critic exists and comes from a certain side in a debate. It is disingenuous to claim there is no debate byu citing published works by participants in that debate who hold that view and acting as if that's the only voice on the subject. WP:CHERRYPICKING. Nishidani dismisses this as white noise and "chatter," which I can only interpret as a indifference to facts and policy, and contrary viewpoints. If you are seriously interested in collaboration, Onceinawhile, I'm open to that, it's time to move the direction of the debate towards what actually matters here, which means acknowledge prior consensus on collateral issues to closed discussions and relying on what the sources have said, and not getting into ideological debates about which side is correct. We summarize disputes, we don't engage in them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I agree with most of what you wrote. Please substantiate "It is obvious that there is debate on this subject" with sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: 1) I just provided a source, the NYT, and others are available in this page. 2) The burden is not on me to establish that a controversial view is not widely accepted, the burden is on you to show that it is. 3) This last point, #2, was already argued in the prior discussion and rejected by consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich thinks you need scholarly rs, not some throwaway comment in an NYT article about something else entirely. You must be quite desperate I would say. I remember you pulling out some old NYT article in support of some nonsense position on the Hamas Israeli ceasefire and trying to argue that it merited the same weight as more than half a dozen more recent scholarly sources contradicting it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Times article reads: 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 apartheid like second-class status indefinitely. Your idea that this summary of the debate constitutes a "throwaway" comment is flatly false. Not only that, but you are still not understanding that the burden is on you if you want to claim a view is unanimous, and that is not illustrated by only presenting scholarly sources agreeing with your point of view. You need to present mainstream, objective, and unopinionated sources consistently using this phrase, and you have repeatedly failed to do so, in the last discussion and this one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Per above, I am happy for us to follow the NYT language as you propose: "apartheid like second-class status" in the lead. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly so. The burden is on all of us to support our positions with sources. We agreed a while back to prefer scholarly sources. Now I am absolutely fine with abandoning that principle as the number of sources available in support of "our" position will rise exponentially in that case. So are we agreed?Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is language that appeals to you from the NYT article that is not currently covered, I am fine with including it, including the section you noted, but you can't pick and choose language you favor and omit points you don't. And Selfstudier, you are still not understanding how WP:ONUS works. No, that does not mean only one of us needs to show sources. It means that if you want to claim a view is widespread, you need to show evidence of that widespread use in non-opinionated sources. That means that you can show major news organizations, books, reports, and scholarly sources from all sides of the spectrum unanimously and consistently referring to the subject in that manner. A sweeping claim requires substantial sourcing. We have not even gotten close to that, and that's why the title was rejected in the last discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein as a source

I don't know what precedents there are in wikilaw for an admin to step in and lock down a talk page, but my impression is that we have been going round in circles for some time now. Much is mere repetition, and no matter how much one remonstrates the memes are reproduced further down the page. One example:

• (a) Norman Finkelstein is ‘a fired university professor who has a notorious reputation for bias on Israel-related matters’ Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(it was pointed out Finkelstein wasn’t fired. He has no reputation for 'bias' - as opposded to writing analytic monographs on bias in I/P reportage, being something of a factual record obsessive.)

• (b) Nishidani, you have presented sources like books from Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic with an openly anti-Israel agenda, Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(It was pointed out that he has recently had his work published by the University of California Press and it is widely acclaimed as a exemplary piece of forensic historiography, proof he is not ‘discredited). I replied:'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.’ Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

4 days later, insouciant to the disproof of his claim, Wikieditor returns to the point.

• (c)@Nishidani: . . a book by Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic.’ Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This has happened multiple times. Levivich is quite a close reader normally, and I think I have some claim to the same pertinacity, however above, this evening, we talked at cross purposes even over the simplest semantics of plain English. So, without apportioning blame to any 'side', I think it fair to infer that a state of exhaustion, or a precipitate of attrition, has come to rule this roost, and that the sensible thing is to have all participants desist, take a break, do other things, and, when the (bull)dust has settled, return to the page and re-examine the issues again. Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein is not a professor at any major American university. He was previously a professor at De Paul University in Illinois, until he was denied tenure and removed from the university over a row over plagiarism with Alan Dershowitz, another high-profile professor. Finkelstein's strong and sharply negative views on Israel are noted by the ADL and his "inflammatory rhetoric" has been observed in reviews of his work and career.

Nishidani, the next time you want to publish a screed like this and call for a "cooling down," you better double-check your sources. I'd also suggest toning down your persistent claims that somehow you're the only one who's well-read on the subject, an ironic claim as you downplay biases in clearly opinionated sources (Finkelstein) and presume bias in widely respected and objective ones (NYT). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Also note: even as you call for "calm," you are utilizing the page title to suggest that another editor is "irrational." I am editing the title to indicate a neutral discussion on Norman Finkelstein as a source, which is apparently what your focus is here. What I can't fix is the lack of self awareness. I suggest you consider if calling another editor "irrational" really serves the ends of "calming things down." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please desist- This endless chat is disruptive, when not attritional. It is by way a well-known tactic in negotiations by one party to that geopolitical area, observed by Kissinger in his memoirs, and analysed in books and articles. I might actually write an article on it. And please don't tell me to read sources when you begged off reading all those listed on the article, all of which the actual composing editors read thoroughly. Nishidani (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Those arguments were rejected as not supported by consensus for the "bantustans" comparison being either widespread or unanimous. Apparently we're all idiots. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be to do an rfc and solicit feedback from as many unaffiliated editors as possible regarding how to structure the lede and article. Drsmoo (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so. I think we will get a clearer outcome if we continue some of the constructive threads we have had in recent days. For it to continue working we all need to be respectful of each others' sensitivities. I have found Wikieditor to be thoughtful and constructive when dealt with cordially, as is Levivich. And I am confident that we can get somewhere with Levivich’s source-based bottom up assessment. But we all need to commit to listening to each other – and to try to evolve our position and our words based on what we hear. Repeating things that we have already heard the counterarguments to, without acknowledging those counter-arguments, will take us in circles not onwards and upwards. Onceinawhile (talk)

Amen — that's a commitment I'm willing to make. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

NYT again

Here is how the world press reported the appointment of a new ICC prosecutor:

1) British Human Rights Lawyer Elected Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

2) Britain's Karim Khan Elected International Criminal Court Prosecutor

3) Britain's Karim Khan Elected International Criminal Court Prosecutor

4) British human rights lawyer elected as new ICC prosecutor

5) Karim Khan: UK lawyer elected chief prosecutor at ICC

6) British barrister Karim Khan elected ICC's new chief prosecutor and they are all like that

while the NYT reports:

'International Court, Battered by Critics, Elects Briton as New Prosecutor,'

I'm beginning to notice a pattern here, lol Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That it consistently skews I/P reportage is well known, as is the fact that its main area reporters are committed Zionists. Given the quality of direct Israeli sources for nearly everything they cover, I think it preferable to use Haaretz, which in this case simply reprinted Reuters' neutral 'Britain's Karim Khan Elected International Criminal Court,', and the NYT attempt to spin neutral reportage into an assertion of implicit bias again means that they showcase the word 'critics', which in this case refers to official spokesmen from banana-republics, the Trump administration, Israel etc., countries that have systematically militated against any institutional en deavour to lend executive force to international law. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Because the NYT offers a deeper analysis of a complex issue than other papers, you paint it as bias? It further noted that “the court is widely perceived from within as too bureaucratic, too inflexible and lacking in leadership and accountability.’’ Sounds like an appropriate and nuanced observation. Nishidani, you call anyone who doesn't align with your rigid views on this issue, which you make no bones about on this and other talk pages, a "committed zionist" or "Israelo-centric" even as you prop up known ideologues like Norman Finkelstein as reliable and free of bias. This pathetically obvious POV-pushing is what has been an obstacle to progress on this page, and Onceinawhile's calls for collaboration ring hollow by conveniently and repeatedly ignore this obvious and persistent problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If you ping me once more on a page I evidently have bookmarked, I won't reply. And of course if you make WP:AGF personal comments about my putative 'rigid views' idem. And don't mention or characterize thinkers whose works you have evidently never read, but know only through rumour, like Finkelstein. That lurk only suggests you talk here about things you've never troubled to study. This impression, for which there is admitted evidence in your posts, means that people who do research are no longer obliged to take your comments seriously. Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The balance of reliable sources (required for NPOV) is not the NYT, that's the point. Finkelstein is a rs, same as his mirror image, Dershowitz, both need attribution if it is something out of the ordinary.Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dershowitz know nothing about the area's history - that has been definitely shown by scholars who have parsed his books and shown where he lifted his ideas. and therefore Finkelstein, a specialist in the narratives and history of the conflict (whose works have never be shown to falsify or misrepresent sources) should not be taken as mirroring Dershowitz. One is a reliable source for facts, the other a reliable source for his own views.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to distinguish between their books and themselves.Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This should not even be regarded as a remotely serious discussion about sources. Norman Finkelstein has been noted as a sharply partisan critic of Israel in objective reviews and by reputation. Alan Dershowitz—someone who no one on this page has proposed using as a source—can probably be described similarly as partisan or having a certain viewpoint. But no credible editor would claim Finkelstein is objective or a "specialist." This misuse of sources has bled into the article itself and lead to the weasel worded attribution that is still in the lead, maintained only by edit warring and contrary to prior consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dershowitz is at the very least, every bit as "bad" as Finkelstein, only on the right side of the fence instead of the left. I am a credible editor and I would have no trouble citing a Finkelstein work such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict except that then I would have to read pages and pages of bunk from pro Israeli editors.Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My presumption is that everyone here is credible and serious, but applying such an obvious double standard detracts from that credibility. We can't say that "pro-Israel" material is "bunk" but Finkelstein is "no problem." Finkelstein may be useful in certain respects, but he is an opinionated source. A source like Alan Dershowitz, perceived as being on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, is similarly limited by the fact that it is an opinionated source. But both are typically thoroughly researched, and that is where the usefulness comes in. But to pretend one is superior to the other because editors agree with the views of A and not B is flatly ridiculous, and that's where conversations on this page go repeatedly. Let's also distinguish between a perceived bias from an objective source, like the NYT, and the bias that we should all be able to acknowledge from sources that engage in open advocacy. The NYT is an objective source. No paper is free from bias, but there is no indication that that bias has made them unusable in I/P areas. Far from it. Editors from both sides are often unhappy with the NYT's supposed anti-Israel/pro-Israel slant. That's probably the best indication for neutrality one can think of in this area. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Pontificating again on someone of whose works, writings, life and opinions you have no knowledge, for example that many prominent Palestinians, esp. the Ramallah elite are disgusted by his criticism of them as 'hopelessly corrupt and inept', as are many Palestinian critics of Israel. It appears you haven't read Dershowitz either. If Finkelstein cannot be cited, neither can 30 years of annual reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'tselem, whose conclusions are identical, in most respects, to his own, except that they do not go into the political science of the narrative game. That is why no Zionist critic has ever made even a minor dint in his scholarly reputation by factual challenge. So please desist from this embarrassing use of this workplace as a forum for expressing your uninformed opinions, or outrageous assertions 'the NYTs is an objective source' (Nice to go to bed with a laugh. They even write reports (Jodi Rudoren) from up north posted as written from 'Golan Heights, Israel', when not writing them from the NYT Jerusalem office, which is stolen 'enemy property' left momen tarily by its Palestinian owners in 1948). Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not worth engaging with. I've made my point about the sources. You are free to disagree.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Any source that is not part of a small group of fringe academics ardently critical of Israel is somehow composed of "Zionists" and other co-collaborators with Israel, including the NYT, and not to be trusted. But anyone who express views critical of Israel is held on a pedestal and accorded weight far beyond what any source or their own credibility warrant. This poor reasoning has influenced this article for far too long. I think it's time to tone it down. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You nailed it, Wikieditor19920. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If you mean, his colors to the mast, I agree with you. If you mean anything else, probably I don't agree with you or any of your 8 contributions to Wikipedia. I shouldn't judge you by that or by the company you keep, I can't help it, so sorry.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the kind words, Kenosha Forever. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor appears to be engaging in a game of attrition, and now we have the usual numbers weighing in. One has seen this innumerable times. It is the fall-back strategy of POV-obsessive or obsessing editors.

What does encyclopedic editing consist of? Responsibility for a text’s reliability, total mastery of references, and hard work on verification. If one sees on a bookmarked page like Khazars, this kind of intrusive edit, one reads the linked page and, if one discovers it is thick with flaws, or nonsense, going to the trouble to muster as many relevant sources available, slowly reading them, and overhauling the text so that it reflects the minimal requirements of encyclopedic composition. One uninformed error by an anonymous IP can cause serious editors two or three days work - in the case of Semien, it means reading several sources running to over 150 pages, and then two or three days desultory but intense work. Articles are not written by otiose talkpage kiobitzers, but by people who spend most of their time reading on topic, rather than flashing their personal views as if talk pages were a social forum.

So when, as here I asked succintly an extremely disputive talk page editor to read the sources, rather than endlessly argufy on the talk page,

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) (271 words)

Only to be trouted with a farcical, humongously long brush off (six times long full of nescient-know-all opinionizing)

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. Etc etc etc etc. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (1,527 words))

Actually, editors aspiring to be taken seriously on an article's composition and the talk page are under an obligation to read what the sources used state, otherwise their views are null and void by definition, especially if they openly admit they don't care to familiarize themselves with the evidential basis of what is being discussed. And indeed, as in the case of the Finkelstein kerfuffle, keep bludgeoning on about a person with the same clichés even after their nescience about his scholarship has been exposed.

I think it reasonable to infer that anything the said editor argues for can be justly answered with silence, since they admit to unfamiliarity with the basic sources for the article, and assert that familiarity with just the talk page comments is sufficient for forming a judgement on an article’s content. Wikieditor is not using any known policy consensus rule. The style is that of attrition to wear out opposition to his views, which he boasts do not require familiarity with the article sources. When I see this WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT tacticism, like Antaeus, I, for one, just strengthen my toehold on the ground sources, and ignore the crossfire. So it won't work. But eventually, this approach will be reportable.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's reportable already.Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, the endless blathering about how you're the only one who's read the sources is becoming more and more ridiculous. To you, any source that's not part of a fringe groups of academics who are vehemently anti-Israel are always "Zionists" and somehow co-collaborators with Israel and not to be trusted. These conspiratorial delusions have infected this page long enough, as have your false accusations against me and others that they somehow aren't familiar with the source material, even as you lie about sources (such as Finkelstein not having an anti-Israel ideology). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, why do you keep insisting that I either haven't read the sources, or are suggesting reading the sources are not necessary? You are repeatedly taking comments out of context. You repeatedly brag that you are far more well-read than everyone here, and therefore your weighing in on any matter reigns supreme. I reminded you that not everyone needs to have read the same amount as you to edit portions of the page, especially on narrow issues. This is precisely true with the "bantustans analaogy," which, I will remind you again, was rejected by consensus as a title or satisfying POVNAME, despite you repeatedly claiming otherwise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

All and sundry have a different word for these spaces and I trust you are not actually denying that bantustan is one of them, along with enclave, canton and the rest (Dugard used all three of those in a single paragraph). Perhaps instead of merely focusing on the name, it might be better to focus instead on the usual (where, who, what, when, why and how) of these spaces. FWIW.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT tris. Talk page attritional disruption

(1) 4 February

@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. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I replied:

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)

(2) 7 February

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)

(3) 11 February Wikieditor repeats the skewing of positions he was shown to engage in

I for one asked you to read up on the references, and you pleaded lack of time, if I recall correctly. But you have used a huge swathe of time to argufy on the talk page. Your personalizing our divergences in the caricature above is gratuitous.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

He replies returning to his skewing summation of my views, ignoring the connection:

Contrary to your repeated claims, you are not the only one informed on the subject; I presented you with a NYT article aptly summarizing the debate over the term and calling the comparison one typically raised by critics, and you dismissed it out of hand in favor of a book by Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic and one of those critics as if somehow he is authoritative but the NYT is "too biased" to offer an objective take on the matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And returns again to the same harping within hours.

Nishidani, the next time you want to publish a screed like this and call for a "cooling down," you better double-check your sources. I'd also suggest toning down your persistent claims that somehow you're the only one who's well-read on the subject, an ironic claim as you downplay biases in clearly opinionated sources (Finkelstein) and presume bias in widely respected and objective ones (NYT). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I warned him to desist

Please desist- This endless chat is disruptive, when not attritional Nishidani (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(4) 14 February Inperturbable, the relentless refusal to get over an original misprision, and skewing of my views is again, gratuitously repeated, 10 days after my warning, and, note bene, he throws it in my face by pinging me, which I asked him not to do.

Nishidani, the endless blathering about how you're the only one who's read the sources is becoming more and more ridiculous. To you, any source that's not part of a fringe groups of academics who are vehemently anti-Israel are always "Zionists" and somehow co-collaborators with Israel and not to be trusted. These conspiratorial delusions have infected this page long enough, as have your false accusations against me and others that they somehow aren't familiar with the source material, even as you lie about sources (such as Finkelstein not having an anti-Israel ideology). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This, as with the Finkelstein trashing, is profoundly disruptive, and makes no sense unless it is a tactic to divert discussion, personalize it, disrupt it. The strategy is obvious: to unnerve those opposed to much of his views by exhaustive provocation. I think it needs administrative attention. Can someone ping an admin on this to keep an eye on such shenanigans. No one can focus when such repetitive refusal to grasp the core issues, and continued divagations, of a personal nature, disrupt the talk page. If this persists, nothing is going to be resolved for sheer lack of intelligent, concentrated focus on real article issues. Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Nishidani, clearly not only do you read novels cover to cover, you write them, on Wikipedia talk pages. Let's open an RfC and be done with it. Then we can all accept the outcome of how to word the lead and move on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

An RfC will raise the temperature, because it encourages voting rather than discussion. And voting on controversial topics encourages sock-puppets, who are usually more aggressive because their accounts are "throw-aways". I think we will be more successful by following the classical advice festina lente. The issues we are working through are subtle and nuanced, and shouting matches will not resolve them. If you didn't like my 10-in-1 approach, then Levivich's one-by-one approach is the next best option. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, an RfC will introduce a wider array of opinions into an issue where we've reached an impasse. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Francis Boyle

The entire notion of "bantustan" is being pushed based on sourcing to Francis Boyle, a professor who is zealously anti-Israel and claimed that America's intent to "steal all of the oil" in the Middle East is fueling (no pun intended) its continued support for Israel. Boyle is a biased, opinionated source not representative of the swath of the public that editors here are insisting. This is not a suitable source for the lead, particularly for the claim that the views he expresses are "widely held" or "frequently mentioned." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Be so kind as to explain what "the entire notion of bantustan" means. And why you think that the article is based solely on Boyle. There are are many references to "bantustan" in the article not just Boyle. "Biased and opinionated", assuming that it is true, is not a sufficient reason to disqualify rs. Nor is being anti-Israel(or anti-anyone else). In any case, the lead will ultimately reflect what is in the article body (still unfinished as has been pointed out by myself and others) and not what you personally think it ought to contain. At the moment the lead remains at the version that was established by the RM closer post RFC and I do not think we should be making random changes to it absent a clear cut consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate and biased sourcing. 11Fox11 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Boyle is not even in the lede; his source is citing the second half of a footnote discussing alternatives to Bantustan such as Palutustan and (Boyle’s) Jewistan. Both can be removed from the footnote as far as I am concerned. I have added it above at #Changes_to_the_lead_since_the_consensus_version; to avoid edit wars it would be helpful if you and other interested editors could provide your views on the other proposed lead changes there as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Boyle is in the lead. The location of the footnote is in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this is getting tiresome: you are 'correcting' Onceinawhile for saying exactly what your 'correction' states. Don't skim read. Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

To do list and sources

Source list

Already in the article Books/book chapters Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-019045908-6. Peteet, Julie (2017). Space and Mobility in Palestine. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-02511-1. Kamrava, Mehran (26 April 2016). The Impossibility of Palestine: History, Geography, and the Road Ahead. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-22085-8. 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. Makdisi, Saree (2012). Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06996-9. Le More, Anne (31 March 2008). International Assistance to the Palestinians after Oslo: Political guilt, wasted money. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-05232-5. Efrat, Elisha (2006). The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-17217-7. Adam, Heribert; Moodley, Kogila (2005). Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking Between Israelis and Palestinians. UCL Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-84472-130-6. Journal articles 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. 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. Makdisi, Saree (2005). "Said, Palestine, and the Humanism of Liberation". Critical Inquiry. 31 (2): 443–461. doi:10.1086/430974. JSTOR 430974. S2CID 154951084. 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 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. Review: Ricarte, Joana (2018-02-01). "Book Review: Stéphanie Latte Abdallah and Cédric Parizot (eds), Israelis and Palestinians in the Shadows of the Wall: Spaces of Separation and Occupation". Political Studies Review. 16 (1): NP40–NP40. doi:10.1177/1478929917724388. ISSN 1478-9299. Review: Hussain, Mushtaq (2016-12-01). "Book Review: Stéphanie Latte Abdallah and Cédric Parizot (Eds) (2015). Israelis and Palestinians in the Shadows of the Wall: Spaces of Separation and Occupation". Contemporary Review of the Middle East. 3 (4): 465–467. doi:10.1177/2347798916664630. ISSN 2347-7989. 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. 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. Earlier article version: Tilley, Virginia (2003-11-06). "The One-State Solution". London Review of Books. Vol. 25, no. 21. ISSN 0260-9592. Retrieved 2021-01-15. 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 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) 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.

This is the source list compiled by Levivich (it was archived by the bot). The search criteria was "21st-century books from academic publishers, and journal articles from journals with an impact factor >1". Where do we stand on adding the sources that aren't already included? Given that it's an ongoing, politicised issue, there will also be cases where broadsheet newspapers and NGOs/think-tanks that specialise in this area are valuable sources, as long as we use them carefully and appropriately. It might be helpful to expand the list above as we go along.

The tsunami of long discussions on this talk page is an obstacle to getting involved in the content creation side of things. Now that a bunch of it has been archived, it seems like a good time to try and direct the productive discussions towards making improvements and focus on working methodically through the different sections.

I think it may be a good idea to use this source list and the discussion at Talk:Palestinian enclaves#Table of contents to create a To Do list which we can work on together. What practical things can be done relatively quickly? What are the longer-term changes that are needed? I'd greatly appreciate it if we could try and keep discussion here as succinct and direct much as possible, given that discussions on this talk page tend to end up in polemic. Jr8825 • Talk 15:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• The book reviews of Abdallah et al are pointless: we have the book, and a scant page or two commenting on it hasn't any real weight.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• I don't mean to be difficult but there are several matters in hand not yet dealt with and perhaps we ought to take care of those first? Like Once's difference list above Talk:Palestinian_enclaves#Changes_to_the_lead_since_the_consensus_version, contributed to by himself, me, Nishidani and no-one else. Then there is the not yet concluded discussion with Wikieditor.Selfstudier (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason no one else has participated in the discussion opened by Onceinawhile is because it is extremely difficult to follow, both in formatting and the writing itself. If we could open an RfC with the three different versions of the page that have existed in the last two weeks and have a vote/discussion to resolve it, then we can all move on however it turns out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well if we can't manage the simple things I doubt we'll manage a ToDo list.Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly a lot of things you probably want to do with the article that I'm sure I'd have no problem with. My preference is to focus on improving article leads and fixing language/neutrality/concision other issues. On this article, the manner in which the "bantustans" analogy is presented strikes me as problematic for language/neutrality issues. I've proposed a version of the sentence that I think would fix it, but it's been repeatedly rejected by you, Onceinawhile, and Selfstudier. Maybe for good reason. Or maybe a broader group of editors might see something we're not seeing. So an RfC would help. And if I'm wrong and the RfC rejects any changes, then it'll be a moot issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I would be keen to finish the discussion with you on the "critics" / "criticism" question. We left off when the discussion got sidetracked three days ago. You had written "It is obvious that there is debate on this subject"; what I had wanted to explain is that I am not aware of this debate (around whether the West Bank situation has meaningful similarities to the bantustan arrangement in South Africa). Since this is a question of fact - is there a debate or isn't there - perhaps we should try to bottom the question out? It will help narrow the difference between your thought process on the wider question (19:22, 11 February) and mine (21:05, 11 February). Onceinawhile (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Why are you assuming that the apartheid analogy is met with universal acceptance? I already provided a source from the NYT noting that this is a comparison drawn by critics of Israel. It is a mistake to 1) ignore this source and 2) assume that a criticism or a charged comparison is universally accepted without any evidence. I am also frankly getting annoyed by you repeatedly insisting that it is everyone else's job to show that a view isn't widely held. This is a disingenuous way of flipping the burden; it is on you to show a view is widely held by establishing consistent usage in mainstream sources. I'm really not buying the "collaborative" act -- I thought we were onto something, but you repeatedly edit-war your version of the article back into place, wrongly asserting that there is "consensus" even as more editors have opposed it at this point than have agreed with it (You, Selfstudier, and Nishidani are just more willing to repeatedly edit war and bludgeon this page). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I am trying my best here; I am not going to allow myself to get drawn in to a fight again. So collaboration is the only way forward, even with those unwilling to assume good faith. For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the current version of the lead - but it is the only one which has shown any semblance of stability. I don't like your RfC structure, but I will try to work with it. On your comments above, I do not believe "the apartheid analogy is met with universal acceptance", nor do I believe "the [bantustan] analogy is met with universal acceptance"; I do believe that no-one seriously debates the similarities between the West Bank situation and the South African bantustans. You seem to want me to prove a negative (i.e. that it is true that there are no such debates), despite the fact that to prove the positive should be a very easy thing to do if you are correct. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are getting this backwards. You state I do believe that no-one seriously debates the similarities between the West Bank situation and the South African bantustans. What is the basis for this belief? Absolutely nothing but conjecture. Reliable sources attribute this to view to critics of Israel and the current situation -- you take that a step further and insist that everyone feels this way, ask me to prove everyone doesn't and still believe I'm asking you to prove a negative. This is where we are not seeing eye to eye. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920, I appreciate your question here. It is because in building this article over the last three months I have read perhaps 500 high quality sources of all kinds, from all perspectives. And in those 500 sources I have not seen one serious claim that the bantustan analogy is not broadly reasonable. That is very different from the apartheid claim - there are hundreds of sources who pull that apart, primarily on the basis of Palestinian citizens of Israel having technically the same rights as Jewish Israelis. So yes it's critical, but so are the terms "Climate Change" or "Terrorism" - and we don't have to caveat those terms with "often referred to by critics". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is getting rather annoying, please go back in the edit history and count my reverts, then count your own and confirm who it is that is edit warring and bludgeoning? My preference is to add material to the article and that is mostly what I have been doing. There IS a consensus (not permanent but temporary) that arose immediately after the RM when the RM put up a suggested version of the lead and everybody ran with that for a while and then I think you were the one that disturbed that consensus initially because you didn't approve of "popular" (the RM closer's word not "ours"). So please be careful with your allegations, they just don't stand up to scrutiny.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

One place to start might be just with the first sentence, which currently reads, 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. I do not think this statement is correct, because I do not think the sources say Palestinian enclaves are proposed areas, as opposed to existing areas.

To take one familiar example, Peteet 2016 (cited in the article) seems to say there are 167 enclaves that can be identified and that they were "carved" after Oslo: [Quote moved to #Lead sentence] So, as a place to start, Palestinian enclaves are ... is a sentence we could try to get consensus on (not just based on Peteet, but looking at all the best sources). Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to start with this question. Note in my original version[9] I wrote "The terms have also been used to describe Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord"; the idea being that the topic is the "non-contiguous subordinated enclaves" allocated for Palestinians, historically, today and in the future. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Abdallah 2016, pp. 6-10 (citation in the source list above) seems to agree with Peteet about when enclaves developed, but also includes Gaza as a "Palestinian enclave", not just A and B in the West Bank, and mentions Palestinian enclaves on the Israeli side of the wall: [Quote moved to #Lead sentence] At this point I think the first sentence should be something like "Palestinian enclaves are noncontiguous areas where Palestinians live in ..." or something like that, and I'm not sure whether it's "in the West Bank" or narrower/broader than that. But I think if we keep going like this we can get to a solid first sentence fairly quickly. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We will open Pandora's box if we try to change the scope too much; the article has always been only about the West Bank. Enclaves in the Triangle and EJ, and Gaza itself, can be mentioned, but it should only be tangential. The reason it is the WB is that the only "true" enclaves are there; the other situations are very different.

I am ok with the first sentence emphasizing the present, but it should also reference the future proposals because it is fundamental to the topic. The current situation was only ever supposed to be temporary, by all sides, but the Israeli and American proposals intend the enclave-nature of the arrangement to remain permanent. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I will move these quotes I posted here to a new section about the lead sentence and we can go from there. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptiveness and endless rhetorical yodeling have stopped me from writing up a point that struck me from the outset. I should have jotted it down earlier to save other editors' time.

I don’t know what editors’ backgrounds are, but the programme for re-editing the article proposed here happens to be a perfect illustration of what, both in science and sociology, is regarded as a flawed procedure in research methodology, namely selection bias. This is for example easily overlooked by anyone with a legal background, where picking a jury or determining what evidence is admissible, is normative.

Let me illustrate.

• We have 127 sources, all reliable, for the present article.

• Of these 8 book sources, and 4 articles were idiosyncratically excerpted on the grounds that they dealt with enclave analysis, rather than the bantustan analogy (the overriding them of the article)

• 4 books and 2 articles not yet used were adduced as relevan t to enclavization.

• The result was that the original bibliography was undermined of its cogency by sifting out 5/6ths of the relevant evidence (many of those remaining 87 sources also mention enclaves, but they do so in the context of nominating the word ‘bantustan’).

So this is, surely, an inadvertent design containing selection bias against the majority of the textual evidence of RS so far, and of course would lead to a diffrerent result, one perhaps preferred by those who think that a change of name mandated a complete overhaul of the content (forgetting Shakespeare’s memorable ‘A thorn by any other name will prick the same').

If however the scope is to add points ignored so far, by including East Jerusalem (Hanna Bauman) and Gaza, then it would be far simpler simply to add short sections on those entities. However that will not exclude the Bantustan analogy, since it is attested certainly for the latter. East Jerusalem is a special case, since there both Jewish settlements and the Palestinian ghettos or slums if you like, are both frequently called 'enclaves', with the distinction per Peteet that only the Palestinian enclaves are designed to be 'socio-spatial formations that similarly arrange inequality.' (2017:62)Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to mention, as it is frequently forgotten, "West Bank" usually includes East Jerusalem which itself includes that part of the West Bank annexed along with Jordanian East Jerusalem, some sources are not entirely clear on these points. Then there is the wall in that area.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I should have specified 'EJ' as a separate entity from WB according to the Israeli POV.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Source quotes

Peteet 2016:

As the Israeli economy lessened its dependence on the large-scale mobilization of Palestinian labor, parallels with the Bantustans crystallized more explicitly. These parallels advanced when Oslo carved the West Bank into the discontiguous areas A, B, and C, which were then further fragmented by settlements and the Jewish-only road network connecting them to each other, to Jerusalem, and to Israel ... The Bantustans were legislated, named, concrete spaces on maps and their design and intent (to separate Blacks and whites and contain labor) were public knowledge. The Palestinian enclaves- contoured by the A, B, C division of territory, settlements and their bypass roads, and closure- are animated by a policy of demographic and political containment. 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. The contours of the larger enclaves correspond to Palestinians towns- Jenin, Nablus, Qalqiliya, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem, and Hebron- cut off from each other and their hinterlands. Numerous small villages are isolated by closure's mechanisms. In total, over 167 enclaves can be identified. 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 formations that we have yet to develop tools to conceptualize.
— Peteet, Julie (Winter 2016). "The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid". Anthropological Quarterly. 89 (1): 247–281. doi:10.1353/anq.2016.0015. JSTOR 43955521. S2CID 147128703.

Abdallah 2016:

[p. 6] ... The Wall [erected in 2002] also divides Palestinian areas from the rest of the Palestinian territories. It firstly created a number of Palestinian enclaves on the Israeli side; then it defined Palestinian enclaves on the Palestinian side ... [p. 7 is a map] [p. 8] ... If we are to understand the nature of the separation Israel has imposed on Palestinians, its territorial and institutional implications and its influence on the directions the conflict has taken and the stakes involved, we have to look back to the moment the separation was introduced in the early 1990s and then trace its subsequent readjustments. The separation policy was implemented differently at the time of the Oslo Accords (1993-2000) from the subsequent period (2000-2014) ... The separation policy was launched at the time of the First Intifada (1987-1993) ... [p. 9] Oslo ... reinforced this process of separation while giving it an administrative, negotiated dimension ... Whilst agreeing to abandon some of the territories occupied in 1967, they [Israel] have reorganized their civil and military occupation to increase their presence in the C zones. On the eve of the Second Intifada (2000), these redeployments had left a patchwork of Palestinian enclaves that were isolated from one another. In the West Bank, the A zones at the time only accounted for 17 percent of the West Bank, the B zones 23 percent, and the C zones 60 percent. In the Gaza Strip, the independent Palestinian zones covered 65 [p. 10] percent of the territory, the Israelis maintaining control of the remainder of zones in which there were settlements ...
— 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.

Ghandour-Demiri 2016:

The dominant security modality in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) nowadays is the coexistence of an archipelago and enclaves. In the archipelago, people and goods move relatively freely and smoothly. The enclaves, however, are spaces of exception where the rule of law and the emergency procedure merge into indistinction (Agamben 2005). The archipelago/enclaves typology is helpful to understand the complexity of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and it is one of main reasons the conflict remains unresolved ... This conceptualization of this particular urban and political reality is characteristic of the situation in the West Bank: settlements and Israeli bypass roads belong to an archipelago in which circulation is smooth and uninterrupted, while Palestinian villages and towns are enclaves characterized by containment, policing, and minimal circulation (if not immobility) ... The territorial fragmentation based on the archipelago/enclaves typology is maintained by a number of (in)security mechanisms, two of which will be discussed in this chapter (i.e. the Wall and the blockade on Gaza) ... two Israeli security mechanisms that have played a key role in maintaining the coexistence of an archipelago and enclaves: the Wall and its associated closure regime, and the blockade on the Gaza Strip. ... The most important consequence of the Oslo Accords was the division of the West Bank into three non-contiguous areas A, B, and C ... However, apart from the division and diversified allocation of power, each area lacks territorial contiguity ... the West Bank has been turned into an archipelago of enclaves, each one with different levels of security ... the Wall has proved to be (together with other mechanisms, such as settlements, road networks, checkpoints, etc.) an essential spatial mechanism contributing to the fragmentation of the West Bank, reinforcing the creation of an archipelago of enclaves ... The Gaza Strip has therefore turned into an enclave where its 1.8 million population live in a constant state of insecurity. The three-dimensional blockade forbidding the free movement of people and goods, the violent military incursions, and policies such as de-development, deny Gazans a secure life. The Gaza Strip has been turned into the biggest ‘exemplary’ enclave, where the rule of law is suspended and the state of exception has become the norm.
— 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.

Discussion

• Palestinian enclaves are ...? Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you about enclaves being a current feature (not just a proposed/future one). I had a quick search for fragmentation (with the aim of finding sources describing it as an ongoing/incomplete process) and one of the first things I came across was an article from 2006 in the Forced Migration Review by David Shearer (then head of UN humanitarian affairs in Jerusalem). Shearer described it as an extant situation 14 years ago – but also a "system", a "closure regime" in the process of being consolidated. A combination of checkpoints, physical obstacles and a permit system has cut the West Bank into three distinct areas – in addition to East Jerusalem. Within these areas, sub-enclaves have been created, isolating many Palestinian communities, restricting their access to services and stifling commerce. ... The closure system has become steadily more sophisticated and has increasingly channelled Palestinian traffic onto smaller, local roads... As the closure system becomes more institutionalised it has a myriad of other impacts... Like Peteet, he also touches upon the significance of the decline of Palestinian labour in Israel proper during the Second Intifada for the economy of these areas.

I'd summarise it as: The Palestinian enclaves are the non-contiguous parts of the Palestinian territories in which Palestinians live. Some scholars describe the areas of the occupied West Bank as an "archipelago" in order to distinguish these from more isolated enclaves, such as the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure whether I've got the archipelago summary right, it seems to be a term which is used to describe both Area C of the West Bank and Areas A & B? The next sentences will summarise how enclaves are created/institutionalised by Israeli policy. Then there'll be a summary of their development and then of their impact. Do any sources describe the enclaves as a finished product, rather than a continually developing situation? Jr8825 • Talk 02:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

One cannot write a lead without summarizing the existing source base (something which we originally did (WP:LEAD), and are now challenged for doing so). Choosing just two or three texts to do so is pointy. Let me tweak what we have taking into account the above suggestions.

The Palestinian enclaves, (also figuratively described as the Palestine Archipelago) are existing or proposed areas in the West Bank designated by Israel for Palestinians.

• 'Existing' overcomes the noted flaw in 'proposed'.
• I elide both 'US/Israeli plans' because since 'existing' has to be introduced, these enclaves were formed long before any peace plan by Israel or the US, (b) many countries are involved in the infinite series of peace plans, and the the only US/Israeli peace plan that has envisaged jointly the enclavization of the West Bank is the 2017 Netanyahu/Trump model.
• Idem the phrase 'to end the conflict' cannot stand because a very substantial number of important scholarly, political and analytical sources state that a unilateral plan of this type would never be feasible as a serious peace proposal or solution since no Palestinian leader would ever endorse it, and most analysts I read say this fragmentation will exacerbate the conflict rather than end it. That is why many top Israeli intelligence directors oppose that kind of plan.
• The other problem in that opening line is that 'archipelago' can't stand, and either has to be removed, or placed after 'Bantustan'. Since 'bantustan' mentions make some bristle with horror, archipelago must go out, as, compared to 'bantustan', it is a far rarer term, (whose function here originally was to replace the B word), and be placed with Bantustan in the second sentence (alternative names summing up section 1).

Gentleman, this is a far more difficult thing to get historically right than has been imagined so far. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that saved me some ink. We have sources that point to enclaves going back to Allon (note g specifically, discussing Oslo and .."Though the language may have changed slightly, the same structure that has characterized past plans remains. 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." descriptively, that is enclaves (or bantustans or canton or..) without using the word), and notes 43 and 44 in the article body. None of these plans were ever strictly official but all were implemented anyway to a greater or lesser degree. Trump's scheme is stated by multiple sources to be nothing more than a version of Allon. The line by line approach to editing the lead seems like a poor method (in this instance, because the lead does not properly reflect the article content to begin with). Once's 10 at a time is better and better still would be an attempt based on all relevant sourcing, to understand the story here. If once there is an agreement on the story, then writing it is a simpler exercise. Wikieditor homes in on critics of "bantustan" but omits the critics of enclaves (Peteet and there are several others, not exactly praising these spaces). In any case, it is just a distraction, storm in a teacup.Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jr: In re to your question at the end, my impression is that most everyone describes these a continually developing situation, and they talk generally about four phases in history (which I think are pretty commonly used dividing lines for this conflict): (1) pre-67 [and pre-48, and pre-17] according to some, (2) 67 (6-day war) to late-80s (1st intifada)/early 90s (Oslo) according to some, (3) 1st intifada/Olso to 2000 (2nd intifada)/2002 (the wall) according to everyone, and (4) post-2000 or post-2002 (the wall) according to everyone. I've seen some very recent (last few years) sources say "it's done" in the sense that the settlements are so built up now, and the infrastructure (eg roads, walls) so entrenched, and the enclaves so fragmented, that there is no possibility of a Palestinian state because there is no contiguous territory to support it (e.g., a Palestinian state physically could not supply water, or security, to its own territory, because it's so fragmented), meaning that a one-state solution or Palestinian assimilation into Israel is the only viable option, which these sources seem to present as Israel's plan all along, a plan of intentional enclavization or fragmentation, which is now complete. I think this viewpoint (both the intentional plan, and that the plan is complete) is a significant minority viewpoint that should be in the article, but not the mainstream view that we should say in wikivoice. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The POMEPS source (The Project on Middle East Political Science) in the article has a good selection of recent (2020) scholarly articles discussing the so called "one state reality". As for intention, the interested reader can look at the sourcing and judge for themselves, I don't think anyone has gone as far as to actually call it "intentional", have they? Still, one thing does lead to another.Selfstudier (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bantustans" analogy in the lead

The three questions below relate to the first paragraph of the lead, and how/if to present the "bantustan" analogy described regarding the proposed enclaves and racially segregated areas in apartheid South Africa. For those new to the discussion, please feel free to review the prior move discussion, which resulted in an article title change from "Palestinian bantustans" to "Palestinian enclaves."

Question 1: Should the lead make mention of the bantustans analogy?

Question 2: If yes to Q1, which one of the following three versions should be used to describe the analogy? (These are drawn from the prior three versions of the sentence present in the article. Please feel free to suggest slightly modified wording, but it would be helpful to indicate which is your closest preference based on the versions below.)

• A Critics of the enclave proposals have analogized them to the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, which were areas set aside for black inhabitants.
• B By way of the popular comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as the West Bank bantustans.
• C The enclave models are, typically by critics, often referred to as bantustans, a term implying a comparison in this regard between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, and figuratively as a Palestine Archipelago among other terms.

Question 3: Should "bantustans" be bolded as an alternative title? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC Votes (Please keep your votes concise.)

• Q1 Yes, fine with it. At this point it's likely to remain. Q2 Option A for the reasons described above. It is necessary and appropriate to describe this as a criticism, consistent with how reliable sources like the NYT have framed it in the broader discussion over Israel-related issues. This term has not been established to be in widespread usage, as per the agreement in the prior RfC. Q3: No, bantustans was rejected as failing POVNAME and should not be presented as an alt title. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• 1. Obviously, this is a well sourced alternative name for the topic. WP:LEAD and WP:OTHERNAMES require it be included. 2. B or C. It is well sourced that this is an alternate title, not simply a criticism. Yes, people who find apartheid to be a bad thing will likely see the usage of this name as critical. For example This source (which are often referred to as Bantustans), puts lie to the claim that this is not a commonly used alternate name for the topic of this article. And that being the case, the lead needs to treat bantustans as an alternate title. This nonsense argument about consensus being against using bantustuns as the title of the article means that it should not be given as an alternate name in the lead is just that, nonsense, and it makes a mockery of our policies on NPOV which require that all significant views be given their appropriate weight. The sources are clear on this, bantustuns is an alternate name. Our policies are likewise clear as to how alternate names should be treated in our articles. And that means 3, obviously yes. nableezy - 16:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  Since it was just "the one source Nableezy linked to", I've added a couple more to the bottom of the additional comment section. We have several reliable sources that explicitly say that "bantustans" is a common way of referring to these "enclaves", and as such, per WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:LEAD, that needs to be included in bold in the lead. Personal opinions that that either bantustan is inappropriate or that the reliable sources are wrong (absent any source disputing them) are quite simply non-arguments on Wikipedia. nableezy - 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Q1: Yes but in accordance with sources and I've yet to see language that matches the sources. Q2: No, no, and no. None of the three formulations pass WP:V, IMO. For example, they are not "often" called bantustans, and not only by "critics". Q3: Probably not. Notwithstanding the one source Nableezy linked to, other sources say that the Palestinian enclaves are different from, not similar to, South African bantustans. I think it's an analogy more than an alternate name, and we should look at the sources more carefully to determine if it's a common enough alternative as to merit being a bolded alt name in the lead. So in sum, yes it should be mentioned in the lead, but probably not as a bolded alt title and not in any of the formulations proposed so far. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1&Q3 are in a way the same question and idk why it is even a question, a cursory examination of the sources in the article provides the answer to both. If James Baker and a parade of notables (all sourced) can call these spaces "bantustans" then so can WP. Q2 The reason for this question can be found in the RFCBefore (editorial discussion on the issue) in nearly all of the talk page sections above. The sources give instances of many descriptors for these spaces and the sources also suggest that there is no "correct" word to use so in that sense all the words are analogies of something there is no proper word to describe; you can describe it all the same just not in one word. Are some people using the word pejoratively (insultingly), sure. I don't think the notables are doing that, they are using it because it is the simplest word that makes the point they want to make and yes it IS intended as criticism. A United Nations rapporteur (John Dugard) more than familiar with Apartheid and all its implications says (it's quoted in the article) "Within these areas further enclaves have been created by a system of checkpoints and roadblocks. Moreover highways for the use of Israelis only further fragment the Occupied Palestinian Territory into 10 small cantons or Bantustans." and there you have it, fragment, enclave, bantustan and canton in a couple sentences. It makes absolutely no difference at all which word is being used, none of them are intended as a compliment.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1&Q3 Both Yes, very clearly these names are frequently used in reliable sources. I'm not entirely happy with the wording of any of the 3 options. B is probably the best, but I think it could be worded better to explain what the similarity is, perhaps in more detail in another section? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1: Yes, Q2: A, Q3: No. Per Wikieditor19920. Mottezen (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Vote Per the Encyclopedia of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict (ed. Cheryl Rubenberg; Lynne Rienner Publishers): "Bantustans: Also referred to as cantons or enclaves, "Bantustans" are the small areas of Palestinian habitation in the West Bank. These small disconnected areas are the result of several factors, among them the crisscrossing of numerous Israeli Settlements, settler bypass roads, military encampments, nature preserves, and the barrier (separation wall). Because these cantons are not contiguous, it is unlikely that a Palestinian state could be viable when (or if) the conflict ends" – Bantustans is a significant alternative name for this topic, so should be treated per WP:OTHERNAMES. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes as it is a well used alternative name. Q2 No opinion, Q3 Yes as it is a well used alternative name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1: Yes, Q2: not only critics use it, so alt B, Q3: Yes. Huldra (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC extended discussion

Several users have claimed that the bantustan analogy is "not a criticism," and seem to imply that referring to it as such somehow diminishes its impact. This fundamentally misunderstands our role as editors, which is not to assert the WP:TRUTH of any matter, and is not consistent with the sources.

• The New York Times, June 24, 2020, As Annexation Looms, Israeli Experts Warn of Security Risks: But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” — could close the door to a viable state, forcing Israel to choose between granting Palestinians citizenship and leaving them in an apartheidlike second-class status indefinitely.
• Reuters, June 16, 2020, U.N. rights experts condemn Israel's annexation plan and U.S. support: What would be left of the West Bank after annexation of about 30% would amount to a “Palestinian Bantustan”, it said, in a reference to South Africa’s poverty-stricken “homelands”, where black people were confined during apartheid.

The only support for calling them "Palestinian bantustans" as an official name offered on this page are a limited number of academics sharply critical of Israel, and making the comparison as a criticism or in their capacity as critical commentators. This is fine; we can include these. But they must be included under the guidelines of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The term "Palestinian bantustans" is attributable to less than a dozen scholars all who primarily focus on Israel and are sharply critical of the state. When dealing with these types of sources, we must attribute them. Per policy: Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.) This is precisely what B and C violate. They fail to properly attribute opinionated assertions and misrepresent them as widespread.

As for the suggestion that a single source "puts the lie" to the notion that bantustans has not been established a widely used term, this makes no sense. To show that a term is widely used, it must be shown that it is consistently used in mainstream, reliable sources across different types of sources. A small group of fringe academics using the phrase "Palestinian bantustans" does not make it widely used, and this is why the term was rejected per POVNAME in the last move discussion.

Levivich, I think you bring up some reasonable points. Please note that none of the wording is meant to be perfect at this stage. If one of the options is less problematic to you than others, please indicate as much. I understand nothing presented will be perfect (it's all a work in progress) but it'll be much easier to move forward once we at least have a rough draft closer to WP:NPOV and that avoids weasel words (at least by my interpretation). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I have no preference between the three Q2 options. Primarily, Q2 presupposes that we should have a sentence in the lead about the word "bantustan", which I'm not convinced of, as opposed to mentioning it, which is what Q1 asks. I think, per RSes, these are called "enclaves" and an alternative name is "Palestinian archipelago" (which I just changed it to from "Palestine Archipelago", we'll see if that is disputed), and probably only those two should be bolded in the lead. I think the lead could use a sentence along the lines of, They are also sometimes called 'cantons' or (usually pejoratively) 'bantustans', a reference to racially segregated areas in apartheid-era South Africa., but I think a full sentence on either of those is probably undue. The whole "bantustan" thing is more a wiki-controversy than a major part of the literature about Palestinian enclaves IMO (notwithstanding that there are a few papers specifically about the Israeli–apartheid analogy). The body is where we should explain the bantustan analogy more fully, but I don't think it merits more than a mention in the lead. As for the particular Q2 choices, A says "critics" which I think is not correct, B says "popular comparison" which I think is not correct, and C says "often" which I think is not correct. So given the choice of three sentences, each IMO equally wrong, I just can't bring myself to support one over the others, esp. when I don't think we should have a full sentence at all. I'm also not sure about this being in the first paragraph of the lead as opposed to elsewhere. I guess voting "no" on all is the same as abstaining from Q2. (Altogether I'm personally more interested in spending my time working on the first sentence, which incorrectly says "proposed", than any other part of the lead right now.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes Levivich, there are sources that dispute that these should be called bantustans. I am unaware of any sources that dispute that they are in fact often called bantustans. Whereas there are reliable sources that explicitly say that they are. As such, WP:LEAD and WP:OTHERNAMES require that we include that in the lead as an alternate name. And I have as yet seen not one person even attempt a response to that point. As far as sources, I'll take a book published by Duke University Press over a couple of news reports any day. I seem to recall you having a similar position on other topics. nableezy - 19:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

What reliable sources explicitly say that they are often called bantustans, other than the one you linked to above (Harker 2020, which says "Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves..., which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa.")? You have seen editors attempt a response to that point: Wikieditor specifically responded to that point in their second-to-last paragraph above ("As for the suggestion that a single source ..."). I agree with Wikieditor, a single source doesn't settle the issue. You only made that point a few hours ago, give it some time, I'm sure others will respond as well. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, he responded with what on Wikipedia remains a non-sequitur. He challenged what a reliable source says not with a reliable source that disputes it but with some requirement not found in any policy that I prove the reliable source correct. You are likewise doing so now. You have a reliable source (nobody is disputing that right?) that directly says that these "enclaves" are commonly referred to as bantustans. You have no reliable source that disputes that statement, right? Do I follow all parts of this? Forgetting all the sources that use the phrasing, which normally would be sufficient to demonstrate that a name is commonly used in nearly any other topic on Wikipedia, you have a source that directly backs up the statement that bantustans is a commonly used name for this topic. Care to explain to me how your or anybody else's unsourced assertions trump that on Wikipedia? nableezy - 20:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally, we shouldn't say "X" in wikivoice unless most sources say "X". If only one source says "X", then we don't say "X", even if we don't have a source that explicitly says "not X". This is especially true if X is controversial. So if I read 10 sources and only one of them says "often", and the others do not say "often", then I don't think we should include the word "often", even if there is no source that explicitly says "not often". I think we should have multiple sources saying "often" in order to say "bantustan" is an often-used term in wikivoice. Now, I understand if you disagree with this rationale, but disagreement doesn't make it a "non-sequitur" nor does it justify saying "not one person even attempt a response". Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Care to back that up with anything resembling a quote from Wikipedia policy? But here:

• Yambert, K. (2012). The Contemporary Middle East: A Westview Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-97253-9. Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"

Yes, it says pejoratively. It also says often referred to as. Which is what matter for usage as an alternate name. nableezy - 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but Yambert 2012 says Palestinians often refer to it pejoratively as "Bantustans". Peteet also says "bantustan" is a word used by Palestinians. Saying in wikivoice "often referred to pejoratively by Palestinians" is quite different from saying just "often referred to". Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That isnt what Yambert says. Yambert says the Palestinians complained that the proposals would leave three disconnected cantons. And that those cantons are commonly called "bantustans". It does not say that it is only the Palestinians that call them that. nableezy - 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hehe... what you wrote in two sentences (Yambert says the Palestinians complained that the proposals would leave three disconnected cantons. And that those cantons are commonly called "bantustans".), Yambert wrote in one sentence: Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as 'Bantustans' [Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem]), each surrounded by Israeli territory. (brackets in the original). My reading of that sentence is that Yambert is ascribing "often referred to pejoratively" to "Palestinians", since it's in the same sentence, which begins with Palestinians noted .... And I note that Yambert 2012 says there are three cantons: WB, EJ, and Gaza; and he's talking about the Palestinian response to the Oslo peace process that ended in 2000, not the actual present-day situation on the ground. So I'm not sure how relevant this is to the lead of the article "Palestinian enclaves". I wouldn't use this part of Yambert 2012 to inform me about how to complete the sentence "Palestinian enclaves are ...", and if I did, I would draw the conclusion that "Palestinian enclaves are three noncontiguous areas: Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank", and I don't think that's an accurate summary of what all the RSes say, as it doesn't describe the fragmentation within the WB, and in fact presents the WB as a single, implicitly contiguous, canton, which it isn't. Similarly, I'm not sure whether this Yambert quote which describes a viewpoint circa 2000 informs whether we should say in wikivoice, present tense, without restriction, that enclaves are often called bantustans, in 2021. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

My reading is that unless he says "which they refer to pejoratively" that you cannot claim that he is in fact attributing what he says is commonly called to a specific grouping. And yes, the usage bantustans is not new, in fact you will find sources referring to "ever-shrinking bantustans" or things along those lines, to discuss how this process has been continuing unabated over time. nableezy - 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Earlier, you wrote you think often is not correct, and you later objected to my calling the request that I take a wholly unsourced belief that it is incorrect and prove that my reliably sourced statement that "often" is correct to be a non-sequitur to be an issue. Sorry, but saying one must prove a reliable source correct when they have no reliable source disputing it is indeed a non-sequitur on Wikipedia. We challenge reliable sources with other reliable sources. Not with personal opinions not grounded in any policy. Here, you now have two solid sources that not only use the phrasing, which again is taken as evidence for common usage across Wikipedia, but directly back up the statement that the term is commonly used. Do you have anything of equal reliability that challenges that? Anything of any reliability at all? nableezy - 20:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think he forgot mine: "We drove through Ramallah and into Area B. The wall ran parallel, half a kilometre to our right, as we travelled along a Palestinian road built seven years ago to link what are popularly described as “Bantustans”, those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its check-points."

State Crime Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, Palestine, Palestinians and Israel's State Criminality (Spring 2016), pp. 81-108 (28 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0081?refreqid=excelsior%3A4b431ec14b0b7b708bf7dc341a551a02#metadata_info_tab_contents (Penny Green is Professor of Law and Globalisation at Queen Mary University of London and Director of the International State Crime Initiative).

Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. pp. 256–. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6....each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.Selfstudier (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources that explicitly support that these "enclaves" are widely or commonly called "bantustuns"

• Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
  • Jerome Slater (Professor Emeritus of political science at the State University of New York at Buffalo), Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000-06, October 2007, International Security 32(2):84-120, DOI: 10.1162/isec.2007.32.2.84 ”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”
• Yambert, Karl (2012). The Contemporary Middle East: A Westview Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-97253-9. Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"
• Harker, Christopher (Associate Professor at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London) (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa
• Penny Green (Professor of Law and Globalisation at Queen Mary University of London) & Amelia Smith (author of The Arab Spring Five Years On). (2016). Evicting Palestine. State Crime Journal, 5(1), 81-108. doi:10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0081 "what are popularly described as “Bantustans”, those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its checkpoints"
• Chiara De Cesari (Associate Professor in European Studies and Cultural Studies at the University of Amsterdam), 2010, Hebron, or Heritage as Technology of Life, Jerusalem Quarterly Volume 41 Pages 6-28: "transformed the West Bank into a series of disconnected cantons often compared with the South African Bantustans"
• "The Palestinian enclaves struggle:an interview with Ilan Pappé". King’s Review. April 21, 2015. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) "They think that if you keep people in the enclaves I mentioned—or as others call them, Bantustans— and don’t give them full rights, you almost achieve the same goals as if you actually kick them out."
• Makdisi, Saree (2012). Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06996-9. "Even the term “bantustan” that is frequently applied to Palestinian enclaves like Gaza is, after all, an explicit reference to the little “homelands” with which South Africa experimented at one point in order to artificially reduce its black population."

Comments on the above

Note just in case some read too fast and miss the obvious, as has unfortunately happened too frequently (or widely) here:

The Palestinian areas will be nothing more than “Bantustans,” it is frequently said in Israel,

The only correct grammatical construal of this is that, 'it is frequently said in Israel' is a parenthetical clause defining 'Bantustans'. I.e. the analogy is widely/frequently understood in Israel, and not just some foreign outsider view. It is formulated neutrally, implying neither Israeli criticism nor Israeli endorsement, not to speak of Israeli realism. Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Even a brief look at these sources indicates they are each partisan commentators on the subject, and none of them provide any first-hand information to confirm the term "bantustans" is widely or "popularly" used.

• Jerome Slater, a historian who contends that the reason there is no peace in the MI is attributable entirely to Israel. See here.
• Christopher Harker, makes regular use of the terms "Israeli settler colonialism"
• Penny Green, who has compared Israel to ISIS

These sources don't even pass the smell test. I find it baffling that users can parse every syllable in the New York Times to discern bias and dismiss statements contrary to their position as "throwaways," yet present these sources without any context as to the WP:PARTISAN nature of the author's views. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN is available for testing your hypothesis.Selfstudier (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry what lol? Books published by university presses are generally considered reliable. nableezy - 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This one is from the Israel and the Apartheid analogy article - Settler policy imperils Israel's foundations, Financial Times, 21 February 2013: "Faced with widely drawn international parallels between the West Bank and the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, senior figures in Mr Netanyahu's Likud party have begun to admit the danger." Selfstudier (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesnt quite do what I was trying to compile here, which are sources that explicitly say that these "enclaves" are called "bantustans". Not that they are compared to them. nableezy - 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: There is a difference between reliable and biased. This is a select presentation of sharply biased sources, all representing the same point of view, as if it is somehow evidence of that view being "widely held." Mainstream sources like the NYT attribute the bantustan analogy to critics; earlier, these same users called the NYT hopelessly biased, yet here are bandying about sources that are engaged in open advocacy. You can't have your cake and it it, too, and we're not going to ignore the issues of bias that's obvious in these sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it is a listing of sources of the highest quality, per WP:RS (scholarship), that directly support what you, without any sources at all, claim is untrue. On Wikipedia, several rock solid reliable sources are given more weight than the unsourced opinion of a partisan editor (also please actually read WP:PARTISAN, you may be surprised at what it says). If you have any sources that support your contention please bring them. If you would like to challenge any of these sources, WP:RSN is thataway. But just stomping your feet and saying I dont like these sources is not one of the available options. And no, I am not taking a select presentation of sharply biased sources, all representing the same point of view, as if it is somehow evidence of that view being "widely held.". I am bringing actual reliable sources that explicitly say that the phrasing is indeed widely used. I have yet to see a single source challenge that statement that now has a handful of scholarly sources supporting And, oh by the way, news sources are unequivocally worse sources than scholarship. Maybe Levivich can explain that one, since I know for sure he has been in support of higher quality sourcing standards in other articles. I wonder if that carries over here. nableezy - 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And here's a (very) pro Israeli source "The word “Bantustan” is often used to describe Israel’s policy for a future Palestinian state. It might look like that, superficially, but it is not. Bantustans were intended to pen blacks into defined areas that served as labour reservoirs. Israel’s aim is to keep Palestinians out and to have as little to do with them as possible." https://hsf.org.za/publications/focus/issue-40-fourth-quarter-2005/israel-is-a-democracy-in-which-arabs-vote Says it all, right there.Selfstudier (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, what makes these sources so high quality? Because they are written by academics with strident views on a particular subject? They are certainly usable, they are also limited by the fact that they are written by individuals with sharp and occasionally inflammatory views on the subject matter. Acknowledging this isn't "stomping my feet," it's pointing out the obvious, especially when you and others claim bias when I note that the NYT noted that this analogy is typically drawn by critics of Israel. Selfstudier, the source you just mentioned specifically rejects the bantustan analogy, which indicates it is not a universally held view as Onceinawhile earlier seemed to conclude (without evidence). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The 15-year-old Benjamin Pogrund article which Selfstudier quoted proves my point because even this very pro-Israeli author explicitly confirms that they look alike. But, just to make it rock-solid, here is another article from Pogrund from a few months ago:[10] For Pogrund, who lives in Jerusalem where he continues to writes books about South African history, the idea of Palestinian enclaves within sovereign Israel is reminiscent of the bantustans in apartheid South Africa — non-contiguous territories the racist Afrikaner government set aside for blacks. “The bantustans were simply a more refined form of apartheid to mask what it really was,” said Pogrund, who was born and raised in Cape Town. “One of them had 15 areas that were unconnected to each other; we called it a nonsense state. The same now with whatever Palestinian state comes out of this, with a whole lot of bits and pieces here and there — it’s a nonsense state.” Onceinawhile (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

All agree that Peteet is a key source. Pogrund's position is identical to hers, with the sole difference that, after drawing out numerous examples of similarity in the analogy, she says Israel does not use the 'enclaves' as a source of labour, whereas SA did. hence the analogy is not correct. Pogrund simply states this one minor difference in the following terms:

“The bantustans were simply a more refined form of apartheid to mask what it really was,”

The analogy therefore cannot be disowned because of Peteet's singular minor difference for

(a) Peteet was wrong in the first place (also historically, i.e. the situation in Gaza for 2 decades prior to 1987). In 2020 133,000 Palestinians now work in Israel and the settlements

(b) in sociological methodology, a single feature of comparative difference does not destabilize the congruency of an otherwise strongly (even by Peteet) documented analogy. Were that so, comparative theory would be invalidated, since every cross-cultural comparison cannot but evince minor differences between the compared realities. Monarchies the world over differ far more pronouncedly in their specifics (i.e. an 'absolute monarchy ' as opposed to a constitutional monarchy) than does a WB 'enclave' and the SA bantustans.

In this sense, Peteet's dissenting viewpoint should be definitely noted, but it cannot determine whether or not enclave is the more conceptually accurate term than Bantustan.

We do know that it is official policy, with Israel leaders like Netanyahu asserting that “Israel is not a state of all its citizens … Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and them alone” , to vigorously challenge any public analogy between the rigorously ethno-territorial separation practiced by South Africa and Israel in the occupied territories. That POV abhorrence of the analogy is being reproduced in many arguments here. Okay. But the official view of a state cannot be passed off as conforming to what scholarship generally affirms, i.e. the strength of the analogy and the influence of the SA model on Israeli policy.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, many sources go out of their way to state that the comparison with SA apartheid is not exact, apartheid 2.0 is quite common, to signify a different and in some ways worse thing than SA apartheid. Those constructively using the word bantustan are simply taking advantage of the imagery to make their point not asserting an SA parallel per se.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why these sources are high quality. Particularly the lines When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. and Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Oxford University Press, Taylor & Francis and Duke University Press are all such well-regarded academic presses. International Security (journal) is a peer-reviewed journal published by MIT Press. We base our articles on scholarship, and that does not change simply because an editor seeks to disqualify sources on the basis of the perceived politics of the author. The NY Times is an amazing source for the news of the day. Not for taking a fragment of a sentence and seeking to use it well beyond what it supports (the NYT saying that critics have likened these places to bantustans does not in any way refute that it is either also not used by people besides "Israeli critics" or, and this is the important part for bolding it as an alternative title, widely or commonly used). nableezy - 04:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have at no point said that any of these sources should be disqualified; I said exactly the opposite and agreed they can be used. But the fact that these sources are from sharply opinionated authors indeed limits their usefulness, and they should not be accorded excessive weight. The NYT isn't being used for the "news of the day" and the article cited isn't a "newsy" article. It's coverage of the longstanding debate that touches exactly what we're discussing here -- the usage of the term "bantustans" to describe these enclaves/etc. and its connotation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is why the NYT is not anywhere close to being a better or even equivalent source as actual scholarship. You keep confusing "sharply opinionated authors" (which can fairly describe you here) with scholarship. Wikipedia places the vetted views by the academic community as being the highest quality and most reliable of sources. Full stop. These academic sources all support that the term bantustan is a widely used name for the topic of the article. You still have not come even close to addressing that rock solid fact. nableezy - 13:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we have any objections to characterizing usage of the term as "often" / "widely" / "popularly" / "frequently", I suggest we simply pick the one which we are most comfortable with. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we see the sources that say that the authors of the sources provided are "sharply opinionated", please? Sources were requested and sources were found. The usual way to balance things up (if unbalanced) is to cite contradictory sources so we want sources stipulating rarely, infrequent, not widely used and unpopular. I think it's quite difficult to find these when it is clear from the article itself that it is used a lot and has been all the way back to 1967 and even more so now.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy which can fairly describe you here, No, actually, that's not "fairly," this is a personal attack and also complete nonsense. My points are grounded in policy and can be applied to a source on any side of the spectrum. You, on the other hand, accuse me of "sharp opinions" and ignore the constant POV-pushing by other users on this page, including accusations of Israelo-centric, conspiratorial nonsense about the NYT, and a host of other comments. Curious. I suggest you go back to read more on what an ad hominem is, which you're keen on linking but not following. Claiming the sources are "academic" over and over again is not a counter to the caution we need to exercise when using clearly WP:PARTISAN sources, which the ones provided are. "Full stop." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think my calling you a partisan editor is a personal attack then you calling the named living people above partisans is a BLP violation. Glass houses. nableezy - 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, it is appropriate to recognize a bias in a source. The authors of each are prolific for commentary on Israel that is highly critical and has repeatedly veered into the controversial, if they have any sort of public profile. See the links I provided above. If you were to apply this same logic to a "pro-Israel" source (Alan Dershowitz is one example), that would be perfectly fair game. It's great that you did the research to find a source; that doesn't mean we silence commentary on those sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, no, this won't do at all. We now have a fair sized selection of acceptable sources and it will not suffice to trot out the usual "they hate Israel" argument, you really need to clearly and unambiguously discredit these sources and I doubt that you will be able to do that. Better still, produce contradictory sourcing but as I have already said, that will be just as difficult.Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What you're not understanding is that "academic" doesn't mean "unimpeachable" and if you are presenting a source as above commentary or criticism, then we're not doing our job as editors. Nowhere have I said that these sources are not credible or worth of use in the article. They are -- but not for what you want to use them for. Objective media sources attribute this view to critics, and the sources you cite are—surprise—critics. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Being a critic is only relevant if there is a credible other side. All credible commentators on climate change are critics of the phenomenon. And all credible commentators on these enclaves are critics. In three months of discussion, I have not seen a single reliable source which argues that these enclaves are a good thing. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument even is anymore, afaics the main purpose of this rfc seems to be to dredge up any kind of argument at all in order not to have bantustan as an aka in the lead. It says in the article right now in the Names section "Critics, including those using the term pejoratively, frequently describe the areas as "bantustans," a reference to the territory set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa." and if that is right and all the evidence indicates that it is, then you cannot avoid bantustan as an aka.(idk why what is actually in the article was not given as a choice in the RFC if it comes to that)Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor, I have not said my sources are unimpeachable. I have however said that there are no other equally or more reliable sources that dispute what they say at all. You, a random person on the internet, are not a reliable source. Your personal opinion is not relevant. Do you have any sources that dispute what now has a handful of scholarly sources supporting. And once again, please try to get this point. I am not using sources that call what our article calls "enclaves" "bantustans" as evidence that they are commonly called "bantustans". I am bringing a number of indeed unimpeachably reliable sources, and if you want to challenge that then please say so and we can see what the crowd at RSN thinks of a source list with 3 university presses and a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles explicitly supporting the contested statement, that flat out say that the topic of this article is in fact widely referred to as bantustans. Do you have any sources that challenge that? I do not care what you think of the politics of any of the authors, there's a reason why publisher and peer-review matter here. Are there any sources that dispute the statement that the topic of this article is widely referred to as bantustans? nableezy - 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@You, a random person on the internet, are not a reliable source. Your personal opinion is not relevant.: Here we go again, this is utter and complete hogwash. It is the job of editors to review sources and assess them for reliability, bias, and whether they can be used to support article content. That's exactly what I'm doing, and that's what you're doing as well -- we just happen to perhaps disagree, specifically on whether these sources support the "widely used" wording. I think they are "widely used," but by critics, and that is bolstered, not weakened, by the sources you have provided here. The available information about these scholars indicates harbor strong and controversial views on the subject matter in question. They are not neutral commentators on a debate like the NYT, they are participants in the debate, so taking their word alone that an analogy is "correct" or "widely accepted" is ludicrous when objective sources recognize that this bantustan analogy is indeed one raised by critics. A source provided by Selfstudier confirms that this is used as a pejorative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

10 at a time (now 11)

Once, can we not actually make some progress on this? Some of those points can be carried into the lead now, can't they? We can include a consideration of "proposed" as well, why not. Can you port the list down here so it is easier to see?Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure - copying down here (I have duplicated so as not to cause confusion with the threads above) from #Changes to the lead since the consensus version. I still think we should be patient before implementing any of these, to avoid edit wars restarting over the lead. Hopefully the temperature will begin to drop after this RfC has worked its way through. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Archipelago reference moved after bantustan reference

• Agree.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Open air prison reference deleted

• Agree Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree, as helpful to contextualize the range of names. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• No opinion,it might depend what else was in the lead besides.Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Bantustan reference prefaced with "Critics refer..." ==> [See RfC above, which covers this question]

• Disagree Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree, although open to use of the word subject to my points about re not implying that it is only critics who use it and not implying that most other terms are used uncritically. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree, criticism ought in the first instance be in the names section and not just be limited to users of the word bantustan. If suitable sources exist, I prefer some sort of identifcation rather than the anonymous/throwaway "critics"Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Debolding of all alternative names ==> [See RfC above, which partially covers this question]

• No objections, if archipelago place under bantustanKeep as to the policies mentioned (illuminating my ignorance) immediately below this comment. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• MOS:BOLDSYN suggests we should have this. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• It is customary to bold aka's, especially in this case where there is no clear commonname, so bantustan and probably archipelago.Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

5. "...most outstanding..." quote deleted

• Keep Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as highlights notability. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a somewhat odd quote from a newspaper article, the last para we have now is much better as notability.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

6. Reference to "A number of US-Israeli peace plans" deleted

• Keep Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as helpful explanation; most readers will not be familiar with the individual plans. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not really necessary and a little misleading, perhaps change to "number of peace proposals"?Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

7. "Bantustan option" deleted

• Keep Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, gratuitous, gilding the lily, as compared to the "enclave option"? the "canton option". Seems out of place.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

8. "...group of non-contiguous..." sentence moved down

• Move back upNishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep where it was – it is a more helpful if earlier. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• No opinion at the moment will wait to see how lead develops.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

9. Clarification re Area C being "the rest of the West Bank" deleted

• Retain Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as most readers will not know what Area C is. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move I did this, I moved it to the text of the picture at right ie I used the formulation as used in Oslo II Accord

10. Not in version: [Proposal to expunge references to Bantustan altogether] ==> [See RfC above, which covers this question]

• That violates WP:Lead summary style. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per wp:lead and consistency with sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, this is self evident by the article content.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

11. Move Francis Boyle reference in footnote c down to the main body

• Support. No need for this complex footnote in the lead. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• The objection is petty but that's okay if shifted to name section, but no further down, and it is not a complex footnote. The thrust of much POV editing is to move 'stuff' out of sight of the lead, on the assumption that in our times, people never read beyond that, and so shifting down proposals are often viewed as 'disappearing' acts, or desaparecido demotions.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• If this one is moved, then I see no reason why we cannot move all the rest of the footnotes/refs out of the lead and then the discussion becomes "Does the lead reflect what is in the body?"Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please could those involved in the discussion confirm which of these changes you agree with? Then we can put back the ones which actually have consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, could you reformat this so that it presents complete sentences as opposed to fragments, and doesn't overlap with the active RfC? I really would like to vote on this but I can't even figure out what's going on or what this is meant to cover. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It covers the changes that were made in the lead up to the point in time where Once reverted to the "consensus" version.(shown here) It's not really that hard, if Nishidani and I could manage it, I'm sure you can too.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a polite request. I appreciate that you put "consensus" in scare quotes for that version. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I finally obtained it. The entry for Bantustans reads:

“ Also referred to as cantons or enclaves, "Bantustans" are the small areas of Palestinian habitation in the WEST BANK. These small disconnected areas are the result of several factors, among them the crisscrossing of numerous Israeli SETTLEMENTS, settler bypass ROADS, military encampments, nature preserves, and the BARRIER (separation wall). Because these cantons are not contiguous, it is unlikely that a Palestinian state could be viable when (or if) the conflict ends. ”

Selfstudier (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: well done and thank you for getting hold of this. I think this could form a good base for the introduction of our article, and is consistent with Levivich's proposal above; it starts with the current position and then bridges into whether the arrangement is expected to continue in this form once "peace" is resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I never really paid it that much attention before because I was focused on the top two choices but it seems quite possible that cantons might even be more common than an archipelago or at least as common.Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Canton, as with the Hebrew version, was an analogy with Switzerland of course, often bandied about before 1948 when the idea of a unified Palestine divided along 'racial' lines was often pondered in Zionist circles. The assumption there was a unified state. After 1967, the unified state was not an option for the usual reasons that it would imperil Israel as an ethnocracy, and that is why Switzerland was dropped for South Africa and the Bantustan model came to the fore with force, esp. with the intensity of Israeli trade and defense links (for nuclear technology) with that regime. No one wants to admit that - it is a formidably odious comparison in political and legal terms because the WB/Gaza-Bantustan analogy were it recognized as very strong, as it indeed is, would immediately cause Israel grave legal problems in the courts of international law and world opinion. Hence the relentless hasbara shouting whenever the quackslikeaduck conclusion emerges (as with Carter's book). It is, finally, not surprising that South African (-Israeli) Jews of great notability take the similarity as given, or imminent if the Trump nonsense was followed by annexation i.e.,Ronnie Kasrils, John Dugard and, more recently, even the otherwise conservative Benjamin Pogrund. Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)