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)

Contested deletion

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

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

Recent addition

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

Please read page 62 starting with words "these are central diatribes ..." Shrike (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have read that, and the preceding two pages. It is not referring to the topic of this article. Sorry. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, It does it clearly describe the concept of Bantustans in a list of anti-Israeli diatrabes Shrike (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, those 10 paragraphs also refer to the Israeli West Bank barrier and other elements of the West Bank. Are you suggesting that any articles describing the more distasteful elements of the arrangements in the West Bank are inherently POV? If so, you are wrong. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And for the avoidance of doubt, your citations definitely do not support the sentence "Such concept is popular among far left and could be considered as a group paranoia against Israel". I suspect you may not have read the article properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not myself consulted the proffered sources but the sentence is so vague as to be almost meaningless. It reads as some sort of political attack on the left and some sort of ill-defined defense of Israel against something. I have tagged the sentence, perhaps the author would care to elucidate? Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I think its your who didn't read the the source please reread it again. The source list various example that used by fringe left and that it what sourced for Shrike (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, please bring a full quote to support your claim. If you think I am missing something, surely you can spell it out. “Hand waving” won’t cut it. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have brought it here, until these problems are fixed: Such concept is popular among far left and could be considered as a group paranoia against Israel Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References

And what are the problems precisely? The sources discuss this use. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The inline tags state what the problems are.Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Per below, please substantiate your allegations. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A couple sources

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

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

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

Might as well keep putting them here while we wait."Israel's annexation plan: the 'existential threat' to Palestinian dreams". FT. June 17, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020. What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

.Selfstudier By the way do the 2 FT sources you cite have authors? I cannot access either.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani:The 2013 one is Philip Stephens (did I cite that, I forgot) and the 2020 (The Big Read) is Mehul Srivastava (FT's Jerusalem correspondent).Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

That is an excellent source. Thanks. A number of the key elements of that are also in her International Affairs paper from 2005 at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3569071

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Emirates plan

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

POV, OR, lack of focus, tone

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

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

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

"What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world,” a group of UN human rights experts warned on Tuesday.

Of course you may try to argue that the ft is extremist partisan but I think that argument will not hold water. It seems to me that your arguments for the tags (4! of them) lack substance, I suggest you read WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:TAGBOMBING.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is full of high quality sources, and I could bring hundreds more. @11Fox11: I understand you are not a fan of the article name. But above you are alleging an "extremist partisan POV" and SYNTH, which is "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Your strategy seems Trumpesque - throwing around unsubstantiated nonsense in the desperate hope that something will stick.

If you are not to be ignored you will need to prove your allegations. Can you show us even just a single sentence in the article which has an "extremist partisan POV" or "impl[ies] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"?

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@11Fox11: you have had five days to answer these challenges. If you wish to add the tags back, please provide the evidence requested to support your claims. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that this article is a POVFORK: it covers the West Bank areas from the apartheid perspective. This is certainly a POV and by no means a universally held one. It ought to be merged into the apartheid analogy article or else into the West Bank areas article. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I.e. reality is POV. I don't know why it is so difficult to get editors to grasp what NPOV/POV means in practice. Much of what happens is ugly, always has been: no nation is exempt. Encyclopedias, following scholarship, describe this. If you take the South African case, or , say, that of separate development of aborigines and their children (Stolen Generations) engineered by Australia (far more brutal than apartheid practices) it is encyclopedic to describe how the idea arose, how it was applied, and how it worked out. To do so is not POV, unless by that one means that the description is not counterbalanced for equal weight by the rationale of the apartheid/Australian government, as though both were on a par. Israel is not exempt from this. If anything, the nervous nelly fits that arise anytime its behavior in these regards is documented in an article signify the break down of NPOV, because deleting, or ignoring scholarship with whatever policy flag one catches at to wave, is simply instrumental, a matter of denying coverage because that country must be accorded an exemption status.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate, you must have just missed all that pre and post Oslo stuff in the article. The rest is the usual assertion minus evidence. The primary error here is in the assumption that this is some sort of comparison with Apartheid, SA style. I could write a whole other article if that's what this was about.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the expression 'Neutral sources' is, in itself, flawed, a common misperception. No sources are 'neutral'. WP:RS demands that editors, optimally, bring to bear on a topic sources of the highest quality, of academic provenance, subject to peer review (which itself means in any discipline, evaluated by specialists whose personal views, political or cultural, differ widely), or from mainstream newspapers where fact checking is a standard procedure. In this area, a significant amount of material comes from think tanks that have a clear POV, whose researchers clearly identify with a political POV. No one in their right mind, as a wikipedian, could challenge the use of that material as not 'NPOV neutral'. One includes it because it meets the WP:RS highbar, like it or not. I constantly avail myself of such material(See how frequently Matthew Levitt's book is cited on Hamas, despite it being extremely ideological - but it is thorough and very useful nonetheless), despite its obvious total lack of a neutral perspective. NPOV is a balancing of POVs, not the search for NPOV sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

redirect abuse

The closing admin wrote:

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

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

I have requested the reversion of @11Fox11: disruptive page move at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves.Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I've reverted the move. Thank you. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• As pointed out by numerous editors, this article has blatant POV problems and had a non-neutral title. I moved the article to a neutral descriptive title which is more commonly used when referring to Palestinian ruled areas of the West Bank. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Several socks or ring-ins participated in that discussion. The article does not refer to areas of the Westr Bank under Palestinian rule since it covers a lengthy period when the whole of the West bank was under Israeli rule, and still largely is. You are redefining the article to refer what might be a future outcome per Trump, not according to its content, which concerns the way its territory has been carved up, while largely being administered by Israel. So the title is a blatant POV push, aside from the fact that the closure suggested a name-change might be possible, on conditions of an RfC. You are trying to strongarm a result which overturns the non-consensus on the AfD page.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• 11Fox11, Please feel free to open a RM. If editors agree that the article should move to [[:]], I would be happy to help. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

South African response to the comparison

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

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

Something like this, perhaps?-

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

Moved from article while discussion is continuing

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

Move end

References

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

Selfstudier, agreed. I don't like fragmentation because Fragmentation of the West Bank can be interpreted to mean the creation of both Israeli and Palestinian enclaves. So can the word Cantonization. So they are ambiguous. The ones I think are unambiguous are "exclavation" (because it is specifically about Israel carving out external areas for Palestinians) and "bantustanization" (because the word implies subordination, so it is clear only Palestinian areas are being referred to. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to eliminate, précis, and/or relocate that material under the new section elsewhere. I'm just supplying material. I've been reading about the bantustan model for three decades, and when this article came up thought: finally the analogy has a wiki page. To elide that for some euphemism, when there are a mass of sources that affirm how germinal the model was for Israeli planners, would be to gut the article and deprive it of its raison d'etre. As I said elsewhere it is a process, and therefore 'bantustanization's is the precise term for the title. By the way, Frncis Boyle, who was the Palestinians' legal advisor at Madrid, once argued that what Western imperialism had done was to create a Jewistan. He stated that in reaction to what he took to be the real purpose of American policy, a bantustan set of statelets for Palestinians. I'll look it up.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with bantustanization, there is some distance between that and bantustan used in isolation and it expresses the idea of a process over time. I'm not that fond of exclavation, I had to look it up. I just don't want to fall into the trap of writing comparisons with South African Apartheid because that road goes nowhere.Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree strongly with the last sentence. Direct comparisons with South Africa belong in the apartheid analogy article, not here. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

One also needs to ask "What is the reason for it?" eg We have the catchphrase, maximum territory, minimum Palestinians but is that the only reason? Why to control borders, customs, airtraffic, everything? I would like to to see if there are any sources on this aspect.Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I imagine there are many sources which will explain all those things with a single word: security. And I think that would be correct as the rationale. I think of it like this: if I was to lock a few people in my basement for 50 years, giving them minimum sustenance, they and their descendents would hate me so much that I could never feel safe if I unlocked the basement. That was true in South Africa and they fixed it, albeit imperfectly. The same can happen in Israel but it needs great courage; the only Israeli leader who had such a character was Rabin. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I have been mulling this over, I think it isn't the case because in the time of the Allon/Drobes plans, Palestinians had not been locked in the basement for 50 years. Rather than fear of a future Palestinian pogrom, I think it is simpler, the objective now is to acquire the land without needing to absorb Palestinians as happened with the EJ annex.Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read everything but I think there is only one source about the (fragmenting effect of) the wall, I think we can do better than that as well.Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Economic and Social Council Session 60 Agenda item 181103. The right to food Report by the Special Rapporteur, Jean Ziegler Addendum Mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territories E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2 pages 3. (in English). October 31,2003. Retrieved 23 November, 2020.

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

Naming

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

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

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

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

Thank you Selfstudier. I am pinging everyone involved in the AfD here for their comments. A number of participants in that discussion raised views that seemed to be more focused on the name than the contents of the article, so clarification of views here would be very helpful.

@Jr8825, Nishidani, Selfstudier, Levivich, Shrike, AlmostFrancis, Tritomex, ProcrastinatingReader, Doug Weller, TimothyBlue, Yair rand, Chefallen, Bearian, Sakiv, Sir Joseph, Lee Vilenski, ImTheIP, Black Kite, Buidhe, NSH001, Free1Soul, Bondegezou, Tayi Arajakate, Hippeus, Nemo bis, Stefka Bulgaria, Johnpacklambert, Challenger.rebecca, Mehrajmir13, Vici Vidi, *Treker, Bolter21, Île flottante, GizzyCatBella, Huldra, and 11Fox11:

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The article as it stands currently is not remediable. Since the discussion is NC, I think our next step is deciding what the content of the article should be, and from there a title. Can you clarify where you see this article going, in that sense? Do you want to see this being an article like Area C (West Bank) but for areas A & B, and extend the content in that manner, as I understood from the discussion? Or are you trying to expand this to describe the fragmentation of the West Bank (ie, a neutral split of Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation as I suggested), or something else? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Any use of this term is a clear POV pushing with the clear implication that Israel is no more a legitimate state that was Apartheid South Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with user:Johnpacklambert if we want to start a remedy this WP:POVPUSH piece the first step would be a rename I liked the proposed Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule but I am ok with other proposals --Shrike (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That name sounds perfectly neutral, unlike this very unneutral name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That name is misleading; it sounds as if Area A is actually under.....Palestinian rule. But, as we all know; the Israeli army enter Area A whenever they want, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That title would turn it into a fork, if the content was only about that. But the content is not only about that it is about a process over time (and I think it should include Gaza).Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Respond to ping (thank you): I agree with PR above, the article needs a full restart. Folks who decide to take this on should be bold and rethink the article from the ground up. This doesn't mean you can't use some of the content, but don't be constrained by the current article structure or content. The article needs a lead that is concise and as clearly as possible tells the reader what the subject is and how it relates to other close topics. Once this is done you can determine the best title for the article based on what the consenus of RS use to refer to the subject.   // Timothy :: talk  14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should explicit reference to South African Apartheid be made in the article. The contexts are wholly unrelated and there is simply no way that using such vocabulary could be considered anything short of egregiously POV. Something like "proposed division of the West Bank" would be much more appropriate. Île flottante (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• The name must change, it is highly POV, endorsing Palestinian hard-line rejectionism of the peace process that sees any compromise as collobaration with the enemy and any self rule as some sort of puppet state. The present title appears to be a case study of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point in attempting to ram this rejectionist POV onto the main page. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• The current title "West Bank bantustans" as I think is missing a prefix "proposed". Apart from that it's perfectly ok. It summarizes the article and is used and called so more frequently by most of the sources, there seems no reason to rename it. Mehrajmir13 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I agree with everyone else above; the article needs a neutral title. Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule works for me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Well, you need a "neutral" title that explains disappearing land and displaced Palestinians. "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" is just a description of what is left after that and doesn't address the direction of travel at all.Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  A neutral title for an article that explains disappearing land and displaced Palestinians would be "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I know you are still stuck on the idea of a fork but there is no fork here (Gaza is not in the WB for a start). Same problem as the other one, bits of Palestine disappear with alarming frequency, whether by way of demolition for settlement expansion, in order to build an industrial park, parks, nature reserves, antiquities sites or whatever other imaginative excuses can be dreamed up.Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't know. The phenomena you are describing, where over time "bits of Palestine disappear" is called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". The "Fragmentation" section of that article talks about Palestine losing its geographical contiguousness. Alternative names for "areas of the West Bank controlled by Palestinians" include "enclaves", "canons", and yes, among a minority, "bantustans". Choosing that last one doesn't comply with NPOV. "West Bank bantustan" or "Bantustanization of the West Bank" (or similar) is no more neutral than "Areas of the West Bank given to the Palestinians by Israel" or "West Bank land grants from Israel to Palestine" or "Israeli modernization of the West Bank". Let's move past the word "bantustan" and stop trying to convince everyone that it's some neutral, not-totally-value-laden word for the thing it purports to describe. Consensus will not develop for Wikipedia to adopt the apartheid analogy in Wikivoice. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have stated at several points that I am not hung up on the word per se but that does not mean I am going to endorse some half baked Israel MoFA position. Israeli acquisition by force of Palestinian territory 1967-2020 and beyond How about that?Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Israeli acquisition by force of Palestinian territory 1967-2020 and beyond" is called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". WTF? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You just saying it is doesn't make it so. And it obviously isn't. (See, I can just say it as well).Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The word that summarizes the history of, and relationship between, Israel and Palestine, is "occupation". What Israel did and is doing to Palestine is called "occupation". It's not "conquest", "annexation", "acquisition", "expansion", "administration", "modernization", "ghettoization", "rape", "genocide", "apartheid", or "bantustanization". Although all of those words have been used by some serious scholars in some serious works, none of those words will be used to describe the situation in wikivoice; instead, the word is "occupation". This is the word that is most commonly used, and it is the word that has consensus. That's why the article is called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the technical term in international law is not 'occupation' but Belligerent occupation, which was achieved by conquest, and followed by Knesset measure for annexation, with acts of acquisition in those cases where people whose property was occupied were indemnified, while settlement expansion took place under a territory governed by a military administration which oversaw the ghettoization of Palestinian communities, along lines which the chief architect, Sharon, explicitly likened to the bantustanization pursued by an apartheid South Africa. All of that terminology is standard in sources and the exercise above which tries to make the terminology on a pare with terms embodying hyperbolic smears (genocide/rape) is simply a piece of sand-in-the-eyes rhetoric to cast terminological guilt by association. This is true also of your throw-away insinuation that 'bantustan' is a minority view, in the face, if you have read the article, of the historical evidence that the Bantustan model had a seminal role in informing Israeli planners' notions of what to do in that territory. A minority view presupposes a majority view that most authorities do not consider these enclaves similar to bantustans. Where is the evidence for that? We have repeatedly asked for such evidence, and none is forthcoming. To the contrary, the overwhelming evidence is that it was a major consideration of policy planners, and therefore an article on it simply adopts the name no one in Israel's governing circles seemed to have problems with.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, except that's not the article we are talking about and you seem to have totally forgotten about the "displaced Palestinians" I mentioned in my initial remarks. Not to mention "process", after all Israel didn't occupy a bit, then another bit and so on, did it?Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what bits are you talking about the land that Israel acquired was the whole area from the Jordan during six day war Shrike (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

When I don't say "fork", you say I'm "stuck on the idea of a fork". When I don't say "displaced", you say I "seem to have totally forgotten about the 'displaced Palestinians'". I'm amazed at your ability to read my mind; to know what I've forgotten or can't forget, even when I don't say anything about it. Palestinians are displaced because of the occupation. Their displacement in or from the West Bank is discussed at... you know where. If we want to have a spin-off article about Palestinian migration in the West Bank, that title seems OK to me. If we want to have an article about Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian control, that title seems OK, too. If we want to have an article about both, it's called "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". That's the parent article. If we want to have an article about that, plus Gaza, it's called "Israeli–Palestinian conflict". The one thing I know is that we should not have an article title "West Bank bantustans" or "Bantustanization of the West Bank", because those are not neutral words. I think the best neutral alternative for "bantustan" is "area", even better than "ghetto", "enclave", or "canton". Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, from my point of view, Israel displaces some Palestinians (inside land it has already occupied) and takes a bit, calls it a park, rinse, repeat (settlement, firing zone, whatever).Oh this has all the maps/plans up through 2013. 67 and after starts on p.7.Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Since we are just going in circles, I suggest we call a halt at this point.Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: I think individuals that have made their thinking clear should step back and wait a while; this thread is less than a day old, there is plenty of time to give other editors a chance to contribute. New input can help break the loop.   // Timothy :: talk  19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• What disappearing land? It was never under control of Palestinians. It was controlled by Jordan then by Israel. It was Israel who gave the Palestinians some of the land. Shrike (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Shrike, stop with the bullshit propaganda please. As citizens of Mandatory Palestine they could live and work anywhere within 28,000km2. Now they have 2,143km2, and some of them live in enclaves of just 2km2 which they can't leave without crossing an Israeli checkpoint. Have some empathy and humanity. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Onceinawhile, Its you who should stop with propaganda also please read WP:FORUM Shrike (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. What propaganda? You wrote a misrepresentative statement, I followed up with facts. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Onceinawhile, Quite the opposite you probably mixed my statement with yours Shrike (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Israel did not 'give the Palestinians some of the land', Shrike. Under international law, you cannot 'give' foreign territory back to the occupied people. The land is supposed to revert to them after the occupation ends. There are far too many erratic assertions here that show total unfamiliarity with the history of the area, and indeed with the article under discussion. Has anyone read it beyond the title? Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You can take that to your favorite forum, Shrike, I'm sure they will appreciate it there.Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here are some ideas (most are probably bad): Proposals for discontiguous Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank (too long), Plans for disconnected Palestinian autonomy, Disconnected Palestinian autonomy plans, Swiss cheese Palestinian autonomy, West Bank leftover autonomy, Israeli-supported West Bank enclaves, Swiss cheese West Bank maps. I don't like the "Bantustan" word (which, for the record, is not pov) because most Wikipedia readers aren't familiar with the South African Bantustans. Article titles should not contain technical lingo that most readers don't understand. ImTheIP (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bantustan is not a technical, but a historical term. No one raised from the 1960s on would not recognize it. Of course if we are writing for younger post 1990 generations, the same would apply. We have articles about 'Mandatory' Palestine, where the meaning of an idea of a government under mandate would be wholly unfamiliar. Encyclopedias only instruct if they do not dumbdown.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not "technical" but it is an analogy; attempt to transfer insight from one context (South African Bantustans) to another (West Bank fragmentation). "West Bank archipelago" is also an analogy (the West Bank isn't islands in a sea) but better because more people know what an archipelago is than what a Bantustan is. ImTheIP (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a long-running programme on national television on Sunday here which has a small segment devoted to common phrases or expressions or words in Italian. It is prefaced by street interviews, where a journalist questions passers-by about the meaning of words everyone uses or hears. The norm is that the m ajority cannot give an accurate or even vaguely accurate definition of the words. Linguists know this is generally true. Recognizability does not translate into understanding. I asked my neighbor this morning about archipelago and he said it was a long thin stretch of land surrounded by a sea. He thought it implied territorial contiguity. I'm reading the 20 volume novel series by Patrick O'Brian. Now that is a world bestseller, and even for someone like myself with philological interests, it contains more than two words every page for several thousand pages. I look each up, but I doubt whether the millions who have enjoyed those novels do so with the 20 vol. OED at their elbow. Since Bantustan is linked in line one, a click and two seconds clarifies it instantly, and since it was the standard term for the model consciously adopted by Israeli planners, conserving it is a matter of textual fidelity.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2020

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

---

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

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

• Comment: Excellent proposal Shrike, I could not think of a better proposal myself, and this will stop part of the ongoing disruptive editing revolving around this page. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• No "Area in question" has not yet been determined, it is currently under discussion, interrupted by this rm. If the area is WB, there is already an article for that, so it is not that and this RM is ill-posed. In addition, the article is not just about an area but about a continuing process from 1967 to the present day.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Slow down @Shrike: I don't think it's possible to get consensus by rushing into one (suboptimal) proposal. We literally just started the discussion above - let's wait to hear from everyone, and then we can decide on what might be a better name to propose. This one obviously doesn't work. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Stonewalling to keep this disruptive title is not an option. What was rushed here is the current title which is highly disruptive. The suggested title is much better than the current one. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is highly disruptive, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, endorsing hard line Palestinian rejectionist POV while utilizing a pejorative ethnic term. In contrast, the suggested title is neutral and descriptive in that it clearly specifies the area in question, past, future, and present. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding a prefix "proposed" to the title is enough to make it meaningful and precise. Mehrajmir13 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Slow down no rush while the discussion is occurring above.   // Timothy :: talk  17:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  TimothyBlue, Like you see the discussion above doesn't lead to anything [1] Shrike (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply To editor Shrike:: the discussion is less than a day old; there is plenty of time to let others join. There may need to be an RfC, which is one reason I proposed discussing the lead and how this fits in as distinct from the existing articles.   // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not the proposed title. I don't completely rule out some other title, but not this one. The key point is the smaller and smaller territory being allowed to the Palestinians, and the impossible conditions being imposed on them. This RM should be closed until a better title emerges from the discussion above. As others have said, no rush. --NSH001 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - seems to be a pretty straightforward title for an article describing the parts of the West Bank that are under Palestinian rather than Israeli control. I would be on board with "slow down" but this group of editors has been discussing this for weeks already 11 days already (though it's felt like weeks) here and at the AFD that closed with no consensus, and really IFAICS no other viable title alternatives have been proposed. I don't think there's much to be gained by further "pre-discussion". Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, "but this group of editors has been discussing this for weeks already"?! Would you care to check when the article was created? "Weeks" is a literal impossibility, as I don’t see anyone here with time machines. Even for the few days this article has been around, there has been limited real discussion from the delete voters (I remember your stonewalling comment at the AfD in particular). We need to build consensus, and rushing will not get us there. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but I must remark that the frantic urgency of editors who, dissatisfied with the outcome of the deletion process, now rush to change the wording is disconcerting. The proposal is unacceptable because the article does not deal with 'Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule'. It deals with (a) the development of the concept of a Bantustan solution from the 1960s to the present day, and over that period for almost three decades the Palestinians did not have a squidgeon of rule over any of that territory. (b)As a descriptive term this would mean that the article refers to Area A AFTER 1995 where (limited) Palestinian self rule might be said to exist. But the article in no way refers to Area A. It refers to all of the fragmented Palestinian areas of the West Bank, including Areas B and C, where Palestinian communities, despite ethnic cleansing, are still the object of Israeli management processes of fragmenting village from village. (c) It is a violation of WP:Crystal because it assumes an outcome of some final peace negotiation (dragging on now for some thirty years) which will allow Palestinians to 'rule' themselves. This article does not deal with an outcome, but an ongoing process, and the various kinds of proposals advanced by Israel to (re)locate Palestinians in restricted, disconnected sections of the West Bank. (d) Since it is an evolving process based on an explicit model for comparison, South African Bantustans, the proper title must refer to 'bantustanization', for even if we accept the analogy, bantustans do not exist in the correct apprehension of that term so far.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  ... but I must remark that the frantic urgency of editors ... No, actually, you didn't have to remark on other editors at all; you could have, and should have, commented on edits instead of editors, instead. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If you read both the article itself and the gravamen of my objections with the minute sensitivity to form you devote to niggling at my opening sentence, perhaps you might have come up with something conducive to an intelligent discussion of the issue. In the AfD and, in this overture to a name change, I see no informed reasons given for the name change, just specious lockstep flag-waving and concerns about image damage. So be kind enough to focus on the core fact that the article uses 50 high quality sources discussing the idea of bantustanization among Israeli policy makers. None of them write of Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian Rule. See WP:COMMON NAME for clarification why the former fits our custom, and the latter not only fails source wise, but is misleading in referring to quite a different reality than the general one covered here.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support unlike the current title it is not an obvious POVNAME. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  False. The proposed title has little or nothing to do with the topic of the article (reason in itself for rejecting the proposed title). It's POV because its function is to hide and obfuscate the reality on the ground. Reality is often unpleasant, but that's no reason for hiding it, especially when we have more than 50 top-quality sources, most of which talk about bantustans and the long process of bantustanization. We go with what sources say, not the feelings of individual editors. --NSH001 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Bearian, I consider that an unacceptable attack. Please retract it or explain yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The use of "Bantustan" conflates racism, Anti-Zionism, and Anti-Semitism; it smacks of Apartheid and is disrespectful to everybody involved. More specifically, it's redolent of an archaic racist theory that Palestinians are descended from Africans. It's an epithet, like using the N-word or calling Elizabeth Warren "faux" in my book. I'm sure that's not the motive, and I'm sure you haven't read up all on that, but it is how it's communicated. I have 13+ years of editing on Wikipedia that has consistently been free of bias and, except as disclosed, free of any POV. As I stated in the original AfD, I have a long record of being neutral on Palestinian/Israeli issues. If anyone has to apologize, it is you, for attaching my good reputation. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I share Bearian's concerns and didn't see his comment as an attack of the motives of the article writers. Jr8825 • Talk 02:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bearian, you made an unsupported accusation of racism, which is unacceptable. I have read a huge number of sources on this terminology and not one, not a single one, has implied what you have stated in your first sentence. Surely if there was any merit to your smears above, we would be able to find a reputable source which makes the same claim.

PS - are you seriously implying that one cannot be a strong Zionist whilst having a negative view on penning Palestinians into tiny enclaves. What on earth do you think Zionism means? The implications are mind-boggling. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Jr8825 the problem is that your concerns are unsourced. So they might be wrong. Why do you think it is that you can't find any reliable source which supports your concern here?

No, the concern about anti-Semitism is not unsourced. 1 2. It's quite frustrating when every time a point is made that editors disagree with, they feel the need to attack it and suggest that it is invalid. Jr8825 • Talk 11:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Jr8825, I have read those articles, and neither of them directly criticize the use of the word bantustan. You are making an unfounded extrapolation to apartheid, which is obviously a much wider concept; this is known as a fallacy of division. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I'm taken aback by your suggestion that it's an "unfounded extrapolation" that 'bantustan' isn't part of the apartheid analogy - this is self-evident! It's a term that directly comes from the aspect of apartheid South Africa seen as being closest to the West Bank, which is why it's used. I would love to dig in and do more research so I can contribute directly to the article itself, but unfortunately I have a number of high pressure deadlines approaching in my politics degree. However, I did found these relevant quotes from what initially strikes me as an very good article (Peteet, J. (2016). The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid. Anthropological Quarterly, 89(1), 247-281.):

"It is imperative to tease out the elements of comparison and highlight similarities as well as differences. The term apartheid carries enormous moral weight and fairly automatic condemnation, leaving negligible moral or intellectual space for argument or debate. Indeed, concerns about "balance" and "objectivity" were not as apparent in the South African case. Here is an area where the power of comparison crystallizes."

"With the enclaves, a new spatial device has emerged. The enclaves contain a population expelled but still within the territory of the state; they are neither camps, detention centers, nor Bantustans. Although certainly lodged in the same analytical field of other spatial devices of containment, they are unique spatial formation that we have yet to develop tools to conceptualize"

"comparisons between enclaves and Bantustans confront and illuminate demographic and economic difference: the former are designed to separate, control and immiserate, so as to create the conditions of voluntary migration; the purpose of the latter was to segregate society along racial lines and contain a labor force. In effect, both spatial devices contained the surplus humanity generated by nationalist settler colonial movements." Jr8825 • Talk 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jr8825, thanks for that, it is a good article. To clarify my view, the "unfounded extrapolation" is that criticism of the apartheid analogy is the same as criticism of use of the term bantustan. The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car. The same is true here. You provided two sources where people criticized the apartheid analogy with respect to Israel and the Palestinian territories. That is not the same as providing a source where someone has criticized the use of the term bantustan with respect to the West Bank. The conclusion, again, is that no reliable sources appear to exist supporting any of the supposed claims of POV when using this commonly used term in relation to the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: the article does effectively say that unambiguous use of the term Bantustan is insufficient. It's an article about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the apartheid analogy, which is why it's discussing bantustans in the first place. It's not criticising the analogy or the term 'bantustan' by saying that it's incorrect or wrong. It's notes that they have valuable analytical strength, but also the weakness of leaving "negligible moral or intellectual space for argument or debate", preventing more nuanced, accurate analysis. It refers to the areas as "enclaves" (the correct, neutral terminology) and points out that it is far too simplistic to call the areas simply bantusans, (so yes, 'bantustan' is a point-of-view framework, not an unambiguous fact). Our article calls the areas bantustans in wikivoice and doesn't "tease out" the strengths and weaknesses of the comparison. And, as Bearian pointed out, the "enormous moral weight and fairly automatic condemnation" needs to be handled with care and accuracy, as it does open to door to overly simplistic attacks that end up in anti-Semitisim. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Jr8825, I have read the article (by Professor Julie Peteet), which I think is excellent. She writes "Indeed, the enclaves are a default space – the land left to the Palestinians – whose intent and effects are commensurate in some respects to Bantustans. The terms "enclaves," "cantons," "Bantustans," and "open-air prisons" are used by Palestinians and outside observers to describe these spaces." She then goes on to point out the similarities and the differences, and says that the Palestinian arrangements are unique. But at no point does she claim there is anything POV about the comparison; in fact her tone is that it is entirely reasonable comparison, albeit like every analogy, the Palestinian situation has some unique differences. So this confirms, again, that no reliable sources appear to exist supporting any of the supposed claims of POV when using this commonly used term in relation to the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile I agree, it's a very good article. The whole problem here is that it's a big jump from saying the "intent and effects are commensurate in some respects to Bantustans" to saying that the West Bank is a Bantustan and framing (and entitiling) an encyclopedic discussion of the enclaves as a history of the development of bantustans. Note that I didn't say it was an unreasonable comparison, I've said all along I personally sympathise with the points that are made. I've been saying that we shouldn't call an article 'West Bank bantustans' and our treatment of the topic should cover the way in which it is not like a bantustan as well as the ways in which it is like one, as well as other comparisons that have been used and a treatment of the factual development, separate from the analytical lens of 'bantustans'. Any analytical lens is a POV, inherently. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jr8825, I think we are agreeing here. As to what we should call the article, I would caution against getting too focused on the analytical precision. The Venetian Ghetto, the archetype of all ghettos, has differences with every other place commonly called a ghetto. The Pogroms in the Russian Empire, the archetypal pogroms, have many differences with every other event commonly called a pogrom. Our policy here is WP:COMMONNAME and that is the framework which we should use to conclude on the right title here. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

True, all sources (analytical lenses) have a POV, NPOV requires a balance of sources. The balance of sources we have so far says that bantustan and bantustanization are perfectly reasonable terms to use although I don't think it is necessary to use them at every turn. I don't see that there is anything preventing you from adding sourced commentary about what bantustans are not if you think that's useful or anything else for that matter, that's just normal editing. In the matter of an alternative title, we are currently in the middle of an rm waiting for it to finish in the absence of an agreement outside of procedure.Selfstudier (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This article has nothing directly to do with the Apartheid analogy, it is about disappearing land and displaced Palestinians and the way that is achieved. The fact that you seem to think that that is Apartheid is of interest but not germane.Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course the term "Bantustan" is directly connected with the apartheid analogy. Jr8825 • Talk 16:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bantustan#Usage in non-South African contexts is straightforward evidence that it is not necessarily the case. It is true that some commentators may make that connection but that is not specifically what this article is about.Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What that unsourced, POV tagged section says is its connection with apartheid has meant that the term is now generally used in a pejorative sense as a form of criticism. This correlates with my understanding of the term's use - and it certainly doesn't back up your suggestion that term is used in a way that's separate form the connotations of apartheid. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I just did a quick JSTOR search and have added a source to support the statement in that article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I have also made it plain in several places that I prefer the word "bantustanization" as it not only has authoritative high level sourcing to back it up it is the simplest way to express what this article is about. If there is another word that does the job I will quite happily use it. That is yet a step further from bantustan alone which appears to suffer not from the alleged association with apartheid (the crime does not require bantustans and South African apartheid is only an instance of the crime as defined) but from the association with geography instead of a process (as in enclave versus enclavization).Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would consider it antisemitic to propose changing the title Nazi ghettos to Areas of Eastern Europe under Jewish rule. Wouldn't you?

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Those sources deal with the concept of an apartheid situation in Israel but we are discussing an apartheid situation in the West Bank, which is legally not Israel. The 2 article is a strawman argument since it argues against the comparison within the state boundaries and ignores the West Bank. Also, it's published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who supports total control of 'Judea and Samaria', largely funded by Sheldon Adelson, who supports West Bank settlements and it's mission is to actively combat and delegitimize BDS; making it a propaganda vehicle. Alatari (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it's an Israeli academic counterview and I'm not endorsing it, just pointing out it exists. Robbie Sabel is a professor of international law at the Hebrew University Jerusalem. Many of those who unambiguously describe the West Bank as a Bantustan will similarly have openly pro-Palestinian positions. I thought the article J. Peteet on the comparative study of Israel/apartheid was a much better article. Jr8825 • Talk 16:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

All humans ultimately descend from Africans and of course the term 'smacks of Apartheid' because that's where Sharon lifted the idea and the situation is that of shrinking ethnic enclaves. Bantustan is nothing close to being called the F-word or the N-word. Alatari (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Jr8825How can you assert that when Ariel Sharon, the major architect of much of the present system, told Massimo d'Alema, Italy's Foreign Minister, and several others, as we document, that his plan was modeled on South African Bantustans? This is the essential sticking point for those who rebuff the use of the term as 'pro-Palestinians'. It is historically very much a product of the 'anti-Palestinian' Israeli political class.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• strong oppose, that title implies that the Palestinians actually are "top dog" in Area A, when we all know that the Israeli army enter whenever they want. The Israeli army are "calling the shots" (I think that is the expression?); the Palestinian "rule" is only as much as the Israelis want them to, Huldra (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: to all of you who say that we cannot use the term, as it is only used by one side in the conflict: well, if I recall correctly: Bantustan was never used by the white South African government/rulers; they used the name "Homelands". So....... are you now going to change the name of the Bantustan-article, as it, to paraphrase: "only reflect one side of the view"? Huldra (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am surprised at all who voted "support" with the justification that present name "is taking sides", as the Israelis spokespeople never use the word Bantustan; well, neither did spokespersons for the white South Africa: they all called them "homelands". (Yes, I'm old, and I remember it well). They removed all things called "Bantu", even Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970 was changed to Black States Citizenship Act, 1970. (Sounds prettier, doesn't it?) Should we mv the wikipedia article to it's "prettified", or "laundered" new name? Or change Bantustans into South African Areas under Black rule (to imitate what you want this article moved to)? Nope, I don't think so, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Fails all five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: (1) Recognizability the proposed title has zero google hits; (2) Naturalness: the least natural of all the options that have been proposed in the discussion above; (3) Precision: "Palestinian rule" is unclear as to whether this is de facto rule (Area A, possibly with Area B which is mixed control) or de jure (all of the West Bank) and whether it includes the Palestinian localities in Area C which have their own local governance structures; (4) Conciseness: many options above have just three words; (5) Consistency: no other articles in the encyclopedia with this title structure. Many better options than this rushed proposal have been raised in the discussion above. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a change of title - I agree with 11Fox11's view that the current title is disruptive and neither encyclopedic nor neutral (and also not obvious for readers). I don't particularly like this specific suggestion; my preference (which I discussed in the AfD) would be for Areas A and B (West Bank), matching our article on Area C (West Bank), with a rewrite of the content to match this title and make it more neutral and comprehensive as it's written like an argument right now. Failing this, the neutral title that probably most closely fits the current content would be Fragmentation of the West Bank, which, if neutrally written, could potentially be a worthy split from the main occupation article. I think any change is an improvement over the current term, which belongs in Israel and the apartheid analogy, so support Shrike's suggestion too. Perhaps it was for the better that the AfD was closed in a way I disagree with, as there is obviously a valuable topic to be covered here, but I don't think that changes the fact that this article needs a rewrite. Jr8825 • Talk 02:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Views or suggestions assume importance if they are buttressed by argument and facts. They have little significance as mere assertions of an impressionistic personal opinion. You ought to familiarize yourself with the topic. Area C is administratively totally different from area Area B. In the former Palestinians have no authority or rights whatsoever. In area B, the Palestinian authority does not 'rule'. It is obliged to coordinate any proposed decision of significance with the Israeli military, and if it proceeds unilaterally, its decisions can be revoked, cancelled, and the measures implemented rolled back. It is pointless to conflate in an article the descriptions of two systems whose legal and, administrative mechanisms differ radically. The result would be a structurally split content, two articles tossed into the one bin higgly-piggly, in which some editors (very very few editors in this area actually write significant article content) would then have to fix over the next few years.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't need the West Bank explained to me. We disagree on the correct approach to covering the content. I'm getting tired of the constant suggestion by supporters of the current article that anyone who disagrees with them is misinformed, an Israel apologist, or basing the argument on "impressionistic personal opinion" etc. I don't feel the need to characterise your knowledge as wrong or insufficient. Jr8825 • Talk 11:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A 'rewrite of the content??! So, an open admission that, whatever the sources state - and no switch-name supporter has challenged the obviously high quality sources as unreliable, or that the paraphrases are inaccurate, or that the historical content is false - we have to overwrite them, or ignore them because it is inadmissible for Wikipedia to document that the concept of bantustanization of the West Bank figured prominently in Israeli planning after 1967, and indeed was the explicit model approved by Ariel Sharon when he disengaged and caged the Gaza Strip, and then created a Separation Wall with separationist colonies in the remaining West Bank. In short, this topic has now a negationist cast. So welcome to the I/P version of Historical negationism The documented facts are not acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop mischaracterising my views, this is also what happened at the AfD. Whatever the sources state - and no switch-name supporter has challenged the obviously high quality sources as unreliable, or that the paraphrases are inaccurate, or that the historical content is false - we have to overwrite them, or ignore them. I clearly said nothing of the sort. Jr8825 • Talk 11:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not 'mischaracterize' your views. I quoted your statement, and then made an inference as to what the advocated rewriting of the content would mean if implemented. This is a fair inference in context because the text you insist must be rewritten has been written by a careful paraphrase (with notes showing for readers the source originals) of academic articles and books and a few mainstream quality items. Since no one is questioning the WP:RS highbar quality of the material, nor the historical facts they relate, your proposal assumes that there is something defective in the way those source sentences are construed. But you don't explain precisely what has gone wrong, just as you don't explain who is to take on the task of rewriting. Most editors commenting negatively here have no record, as far as I can see, of writing in-depth articles on the basis of the scholarly documentation, and the I/P area requires a deep familiarity with the topic I can't see here among the negationists. So, your insistence of a rewrite begs more questions than it answers.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course, since Levivich opines that the correct neutral title for the content would be the fragmentation section of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and User:Jr8825 concurs, the simplest solution would be to shift the whole article to the relevant section of that article, under the heading 'bantustanization'. I would have no objections to that. What I do object to is the practice of censorship of history which is evidenced in the present and preceding moves to chuck a scrupulously documented analysis down Orwell's memory hole, sheerly out of distaste for a word that Israeli planners have constantly commended as appropriate for the model they envisage for the West Bank and Gaza.-Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose current option - "West Bank bantustan" is common, used in WP:RS, initially used by Arial Sharon in planning stages, and is allowed under WP:POVNAME. "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" is not notable and it violates WP:naming principles of:

1) it is short

3) distinguishable and recognizable.

I'll suggest an alternative of West Bank enclaves. From internet searches that name's first hit is to this very article and has many hits to WP:RS uses. Although the usage of that term has also been applied to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and thus will cause issues in the focus and design of this article. As for the current usage, it is indeed obvious for any reader who lived through and took part in anti-Apartheid protests. It is what I've heard since 2012 when Noam Chomsky mentioned Ariel Sharon's usage of the term in an interview on Democracy Now! and what Allister Sparks called them during his travels through the West Bank in 2013. Alatari (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support in general, but what is this article about? future hypothetical borders (then probably delete it per WP:CRYSTALBALL)? the current areas controlled by State of Palestine (known as A+B in the past)? simply Palestinian territories (A+B during 1990s to 2012)?GreyShark (dibra) 12:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, it is not so far primarily about future hypothetical borders. It is about the historical process of Israeli planning suggestions for fragmenting Palestinian c ommunities, with some of the suggestions eventually in part enacted. We simply do not have, save for this article, any in-depth coverage of this topic, which as the bibliography shows, is of intense interest to analysts. The WP:Crystallball issue emerges only with the suggested name change -Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule. It cannot be conflated with Palestinian territories, because that article refers to the whole of the West Bank (and Gaza), not to those parts Sharon and others have roped and fenced off for Palestinian use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Afd was nocon so it's not that one. A's and B's are Oslo irrelevancies so not them either. Try again, see if you can include Bantustanization in it (or an equivalent, Balkanization doesn't quite work).Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative - merging into Geography of the State of Palestine, probably ideal.GreyShark (dibra) 16:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Very amusing. At least that contains a reference to the area claimed (Gaza, West Bank inclusive EJ). This article is about Israeli accumulation by disposession of said (occupied) area.Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that, aside from some legal leeway and recognition, a properly constituted State of Palestine won't exist until Israel permits it, and the Palestinians accept the conditions Israel would impose for its establishment. The geography of that 'state' therefore is, as things stands, indeterminate and provisory.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support If this article is going to remain unmerged, we need to address some of the concerns brought up in the deletion discussion. Over 60% thought that this article was so unsalvageable that it would have to be deleted entirely. For starters, we are required to have a title that is at least an attempt at neutrality. The proposed change reflects more scholarship, instead of drilling in one specific POV. It would be a first step towards making this an actual article instead of a personal essay promoting a specific extreme bias. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No reasons were ever given as to why the article was, as you put, unsalvageable. And perhaps it was for that reason that the closing administrator chose not to delete according to the 60%'s wishes. On Wikipedia, consensus is based not on numbers but cogency of argument (at least in theory). (2) Names are chosen per WP:Common name, which is widely supported in RS, as opposed to 'Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule,' which has zero RS support, apart from its inaccuracy. What 'more scholarship' are you referring to? The POV in Bantustan is that of its architect Ariel Sharon, as much as it is of scholars and analysts who criticize it. When opposite sides concur as here in terminology, you get neutrality, per wiki practice. The slur that this is a personal essay is gratuitous. It is an impersonal summary and paraphrase of high quality sources. And this descriptive name for a process no more promotes bias than Nazi gas chambers promotes a holocaust. Why do so many support arguments fail to confront the evidence, or snub logical analysis of the article's evidence? Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The requirement for a title is NPOV within a range dependent on whether the title is "descriptive" or is a "name derived from reliable sources" and here it is self evidently the latter while the proposed title is obviously the former. Not even a choice. If the article contains "specific extreme bias" you should edit it out or at least point it out so that something might be done about it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support in that the proposed new title is more neutral than the current one. --Maryam.Rosie (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Striking per 500/30. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not a fan of the current name, but this RM is premature (and kind of poor form to initiate an RM right after the AfD vote concluded) as discussion is ongoing. The point of the article, aiui, is to describe "minus-state, autonomy-plus" proposals for the West Bank. Thus, the title "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" is a misnomer because it only addresses the current de facto situation. ImTheIP (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose dislike the current name, RM is premature, article scope unclear, proposed name does not even remotely reflect the content of the article. Per my comments above, first step is to decide what the article should be. Since the answer to that is unclear, it's difficult to decide on a neutral title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair comment. Oncenawhile started the article so (s)he can elucidate the originative intent and their follow-up edits. Several other contributors so far should discuss their perspectives in adding material. As for my contributions, I've always been interested in the genealogy of concepts (and not in the Israel =Apartheid argument, which is nonsense), that is why I added the bit from the great Toynbee who, as the world's foremost comparative historian, noted as early as 1931 that the process of Zionist practice would, under the British mandate, demand in terms of structural logic a corresponding segregation model for the Palestinians not too different from the one the English permitted in South Africa. That is where my interest lies as a contributor to this page.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Elements of this article are covered in WP but spread over multiple articles as random disconnected things and so not a fork. They are brought together under the well sourced conception that they are part of a plan whose intent and purpose is best demonstrated by proposals of Israeli governments that although never signed off on, nevertheless have been pursued in practice and provide the direction of travel even now. If you take a look at this article it speaks of a (leaked) post-Trump plan scheme that...well read it, that's the best thing. So what name should be given to the process itself (dispossession, displacement, compartmentalization), as well as the result? The well sourced bantustanization works for me, as does territorial, political and economic fragmentation, Balkanization doesn't quite work, enclavization, I don't know, I cannot readily see easy alternatives. Even if there is a title not including the word bantustan or bantustanization, those words will still appear in the article because they are integral to it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the Palestinian areas of the West Bank are bantustans means that Wikipedia is in effect taking a side in the Israel and the apartheid analogy debate. If there is no consensus on what the ultimate outcome should be just yet I think the proposed change should be made as an interim solution pending final consensus. Personally I'd prefer that this article become a section in the Israel and the apartheid analogy article but in any case, this article's name means that Wikipedia is now openly taking a side in a contentious political issue.--RM (Be my friend) 18:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A question. As documented, Sharon designed a good part of the emerging system, and sources state his plan was further implemented by Peres, Olmert and Netanyahu. Sharon said the model he put in place (the first move being the evacuation of settlements from the Gazs Strip and complete military control over all entries and exists) was modeled on SA's Bantustan. Why then is it violating Wikipedia's neutrality to use the preferred term of the architect for this fragmentation, i.e. bantustans? Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the source on Sharon saying that seems a 2003 Haaretz article which says that Sharon told Massimo D'Alema something of that nature about 3-4 years prior, so 2000-1999. Sharon is very well-known in Israel as having flip-flopped in his views on the viability of the settlement movement after he became Prime Minister (he once said that the fate of Gush Katif is the fate of Tel Aviv). He actually admitted it and said "what you see from up here you don't see from down there" ("up here" referring to the Premiership). Notably when Sharon disengaged from the Gaza Strip he also ordered that the IDF withdraw from the Gaza-Egypt border, which firmly proves he had no intention of controlling all entries and exits. He even openly criticized Israel militarily ruling another population and said it was unviable long-term as Prime Minister. In any event, Sharon, Peres, Olmert, and Netanyahu all have had pretty different ideas, there is no set policy that they all followed.--RM (Be my friend) 19:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have just come across "geo-political ghettoization" Alina Korn compares the terms ghettoization and bantustanization. Ronit Lentin (18 July 2013). Thinking Palestine. Zed Books Ltd. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-1-84813-789-9. Might work, although bantustanization has far better sourcing and I don't really agree that WP is taking sides, it is the sources that are taking sides (if that's what they actually are doing).Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The source you cited is very clearly slanted in favor of one side. The author you cited, Ronit Lentin, is known for her highly pro-Palestinian views, including supporting a one state solution and right of return. Some sources, those pushing a point of view favorable toward the Palestinians, talk about bantustanization, but I could just as easily dig up a pro-Israel source denying the things that these sources say. You can say "this source says that there is bantustanization going on" within an article but to put it up as the title is very clearly taking sides in Wikipedia's voice on the matter.--RM (Be my friend) 19:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Lentin is not the author, she is the editor. Alina Korn is the author I cited, you may look her up. Every source has a POV and I think virtually every source we have has been described as anti-Israel and POV as is the custom hereabouts. I am still waiting for the POV of the "other side" to appear, assuming that it exists, since it is by no means clear how the facts outlined in the article can be effectively denied. But if you can easily dig one up, let's see it (or several, preferably).Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source explicitly denying that bantustans exist. From a right-wing Israeli publication, so in other words from the opposite end of the spectrum. Though they do outline some common arguments. For a more balanced take on it, see Shaul Arieli's pieces in Haaretz, he's a fierce critic of the settlement policy but insists that the settlements have failed to create the conditions for the annexation of territories deep in the West Bank, that relatively few settlers live deep in the West Bank, and a withdrawal would still be a fairly easy affair - Shaul Arieli - Haaretz. His writings contradict a lot of what the sources that push the idea of there being bantustans in the West Bank insist. Then here's Anshel Pfeffer, who argued that Netanyahu never intended to annex anything - There will be lots of annexation talk from Netanyahu but no action and Netanyahu himself arguing that settlement activity slowed under his watch - Netanyahu: settlement construction slowed on my watch - which contradict important parts of the bantustanization narrative. In any event, you're missing my main point. The use of such a highly loaded term as "bantustan" in the title of an article is taking sides in this debate.--RM (Be my friend) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, some of that is useful (Israel Hayom is not RS) and will be added. You, like every support editor I have queried, refuse to reply as to why, if Ariel Sharon who really kickstarted this process called it the creation of bantustans,we cannot use his term. Why did Ariel Sharon explicitly use the analogy, the model and act decisively on it? It's a bit like wanting to change Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater to 'Cascade-above' because the Kaufmann family wanted the house beneath the cascade. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

See my reply to you above.--RM (Be my friend) 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I did and you didn't answer my question. You cited articles about Netanyahu and settlements. This is not about settlements for Israelis, but about territorially discontinuous areas marked out for Palestinians. One could write an article on Netanyahu and settlements. They expanded substantially under his watch from 2009-2014, and have increased incrementally ever since, whatever one article by Pfeffer states. So could you please tell me why the word chosen by Sharon for his model, which was implemented, i.e. Bantustan, is not neutral?Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not that response, right below where you initially asked me your question. I answered you there.--RM (Be my friend) 20:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. reread. But I didn't take this as a clear reply. Like most politicians, there is an egregious record for Netanyahu doing so, Sharon could veer. However your comment is not based on what sources say but on your impression of the period and the political actors. The sources in our article are by esperts who disagree with you. I disagree with much of what I read but I can't allow my perceptions of source inadequacy or oversights to influence my selection of material. It's RS therefore I quote it (as the Matthew Levitt book on Hamas), and if I can't find other sources that challenge his views, too bad. The Hamas article must carry that reliably sourced (dis)information until some authoritative source balances it or challenges it. So here. Jands on content editors have this problem every other day.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My comment is based on things I've read about Sharon, not to mention a video of him where I clearly remember him talking about how unviable rule over millions of Palestinians is. Then there is the fact that he took an action contrary to the idea of bantustanization when he ordered a withdrawal from the boundary between Egypt and Gaza, as a key part of bantustanization as described is control of entry and exit points. What Sharon thought in circa 1999 or 2000 is simply irrelevant to what he did in the mid-2000s.--RM (Be my friend) 20:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those, I am going to study them and see where we go from there, I appreciate you think it is "loaded" and you are entitled to your opinion, I don't agree. Speaking only for myself, I have indicated that I could live with that, or with "territorial, political and economic fragmentation" or even with "geo-political ghettoization" which is sort of growing on me. Got a problem with those as well?Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So long as you present it as "this or that person says it's fragmentation/ghettoization" as opposed to firmly stating in Wikipedia's voice that it is fragmentation/ghettoization, no problem. In any event, my main beef is with the title, though the entire article is hopelessly slanted and really could use alternative POVs.--RM (Be my friend) 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, the problem we have is that noone has been able to provide alternative point of views. I really want to add them. But where are these sources? The David M Weinberg column you linked to is obviously not WP:RS given he is government PR, but even if it was it does not take issue with the term bantustan. It mentions it once in passing and moves on. Later, when he addresses the key components, he confirms they are all true. "Critics push back against this, arguing that the envisioned Palestinian state nevertheless constitutes structured discrimination against Palestinians because their territory will not be maximal or fully contiguous. Nor will it be sovereign in the fullest meaning of the term because Israel will maintain security control of the total territory and of the borders between the entire envelope and surrounding Arab countries. Well, yes, that is true, and always will be... As for "enclaves" of residential settlement and agricultural lands that will be "isolated bubbles" inside the other sides' territory, well yes, there will be several dozen enclaves, both Israeli and Palestinian."

So we have an official Israeli propagandist agreeing with all of this, and not once claiming that the term bantustan is unacceptable.

On a separate point, I will repeat something i said above: objections and concerns with the word "apartheid" cannot be extrapolated to equivalent concerns with the term bantustan. The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car. The same is true here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't link the Weinberg column because I thought it'd be a good source, I did it to prove a point. It was in the context of a debate where someone else had linked a blatantly biased pro-Palestinian book. I didn't expect anyone to take it seriously. Though Weinberg goes on to point out key differences as compared to the apartheid system of South Africa, illustrating the right's point of view. I do think you should check out some of the other sources, particularly the writings of Shaul Arieli. In any event, in this case "bantustans" is almost universally used when comparing Israel to an apartheid state. The link between bantustans and apartheid is so fundamentally ingrained that in this case I don't see how it's possible to separate the two. Bantustans were historically one of the main foundations of the apartheid system in South Africa. The vast majority of people reading this and seeing the word "bantustan" will automatically link that to apartheid. And let's be clear, there are significant differences to the current autonomy setup in the West Bank as compared to the bantustans of South Africa. In any event why not use a less loaded term? Why not try to think up a more appropriate term? Why use such provocative language?--RM (Be my friend) 22:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to suggest alternative titles and your response was that I had to attribute them and then you said the whole article is slanted so I think we have nothing further to discuss. I will read your sources though.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My main argument is that you should not present a contentious political argument in Wikipedia's voice. By all means, post all the sources calling these places bantustans, but don't just flat out say "these are bantustans", say "this source says they are bantustans" and then present an alternative point of view. And above all don't use such a provocative title.--RM (Be my friend) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

One more time, is the title "Geo-political ghettoization of Palestine" acceptable? Yes or no?Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No, but "Alleged geo-political ghettoization of Palestine" might be, though that's an extremely convoluted title. The point is, presenting the idea that Israel is "ghettoizing" Palestine in Wikipedia's voice is abandoning the neutrality that is supposed to characterize Wikipedia. Putting something like "bantustans" or "ghettoization" in the title is taking a side in the debate.--RM (Be my friend) 23:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that "bantustanization" and alleged aparthied inferences is actually not really the problem here. You just don't like the thrust of the article at all, whatever words are used, that's about the size of it. Well, it's all properly sourced and policy compliant except for possibly lacking some alternative viewpoints which we will remedy.Selfstudier (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No matter how well it's sourced, the title is absolutely unacceptable. And yes the POV needs to be substantially changed. I'd be happy if the name was changed and substantial modifications were made regarding that issue, though I question why this article even needs to exist in the first place when we have Israel and the apartheid analogy and Israeli occupation of the West Bank, in which this can fit in as a section.--RM (Be my friend) 00:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You can question it if you like, it was questioned ad nauseum at the afd, the material is distinctive and more than substantive enough to warrant it's own article and there are other reasons why it should exist. Doubtless we will have the usual series of afd nominations and all the rest. Far be it from me to advise you on what to do, if there is such concern about the title, do an RFC instead of messing about with an rm proposing an entirely pointless name unconnected with the material, like in no time at all after an afd and in the middle of a discussion as well.Selfstudier (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Reenem: I just read your reply to me above; thank you. It seems you acknowledge that no source says the term is POV or non-neutral, and you seem to acknowledge that your extrapolation from criticism of the apartheid analogy is a fallacy of division. So it seems that your view is founded solely upon a feeling. A feeling that bantustan is contentious and pretentious, despite no reliable source saying it is. You know well that that is not how this place is supposed to work. So I find your argument disappointing.

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

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

As the noted scholar of history and antisemitism, Robert S. Wistrich has observed:

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

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

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

References

Add a sig, there's a dear chap. Let me see, do I go with a former US Prez and UN people or Wistrich. Wow, tough one.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Great question! Who is more reliable? A bunch of politicians and sundry representatives of despots and tyrannies, or a renowned scholar? --Chefallen (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at this RFC for reasons why I don't have a lot of time for Wistrich.Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to "go with" anyone. You are supposed to present both cases in a neutral and encyclopedic tone.--RM (Be my friend) 23:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That's wrong, NPOV requires a balance of sources, we're running at about 25 to 1 something like that, right now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's the quality, not quantity of the sources that carries the most weight and numbers count for little if there is a good scholarly reference (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), such as Wistrich, that says the opposite.

And the fact that the sources using the term "Bantustan" in this article are overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian is exactly the point -- this is a biased term developed by and used almost exclusively by one side of a territorial dispute to demonize the other for political advantage. That there are few other sources who use it is precisely the point -- it is not generally used outside of anti-Israel circles, except for the instance, as in Wistrich, to note it as a propaganda term. It is therefore unsuitable for the article title per WP:POVNAMING. --Chefallen (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Chefallen, your statement about the sources which use the term is wrong. The term is used widely by neutral scholarly sources; the citations are there in the article for everyone to see. Anti-Palestinian sources don’t use the term, just as antisemitic sources don’t use the term pogrom. But even the anti-Palestinian sources do not claim that it is a non-neutral term. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wistrich on one of his predictable rants is not scholarly. What foolish statements? Oh, here's one, "temporary control"?? Since 1967, right? Now I think of it, maybe that ought to be in the article as well. You will need to do better than that, I'm afraid. And as I already evidenced above, this apartheid diversion (I actually agree with Wistrich there is no comparison with South African case) is not going to cut it either, this is all about the focus of the article itself which bears repeating, dispossession, displacement and bantustanization (or ghettoization if you prefer) in general since 1967 and continuing as we speak.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. per Huldra. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Hmm. Per West_Bank_bantustans#Oslo_Accords, perhaps fork of swiss cheese? Could move there, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Support WP:NPOV. Zoozaz1 talk 02:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support After reading this talk, it is clear to me that the current title is obvious POV pushing my those who think this encyclopedia is a place to right great wrongs. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose What Palestinian rule?! The West Bank is under Israeli occupation. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Current article title violates WP:NPOV, is blatantly non-neutral and unencylopedic. Drsmoo (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Thepharoah17. The West Bank is under Israeli occupation. JJNito197 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Summary of discussion so far: This is an attempt to summarize the discussion so far, for the benefit of any subsequent debates. Since I am “involved” in the discussion, please could other editors confirm if I am missing or misrepresenting any points.

Although the proposed title has been claimed to fail the five WP:CRITERIA, such policy matters have not yet been discussed as the strength of feeling in the discussion has centered around claims of POV on both sides:

1. Current title concern with the word “bantustan”. Some editors have stated a feeling that the term is POV. No sources describing use of the term in the West Bank context as non-neutral have yet been found, and the word has been shown to have been used widely including by protagonists on all sides of the conflict.
2. Current title concern that using the term bantustan in the West Bank is akin to saying there is apartheid in Israel (which there is not). Said to fail two fallacies: the fallacy of division and the “noncentral fallacy”.
3. Move from current title concern of double standards. WP:POVNAME (“Non-neutral but common names”) says that WP:COMMONNAME trumps claims of POV; we do not replace names like “X ghetto” or the “X pogrom” with alternate long-winded and obfuscating titles, if they are the common name. No counterargument given.
4. Proposed title concern that “under Palestinian rule” is POV as inaccurately hides the Israeli occupation. No counterargument given.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, more and less thus. The key problem is that people are voting to support a proposed name which, in the discussion, is widely recognized to be misleading (and therefore inadequate). Those who 'oppose' are not supporting the title as given, but saying the erratic one suggested as an alternative is inaccurate. Proper process would require a discussion of what title best fits the material in the article. I think 'West Bank Bantustans' is equally unacceptable, since it implies such SA entities exist in that area, confusing a process for a possible future geopolitical structure with an achieved reality on the ground. Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Afd closer suggested an RFC re the naming. Although I am not entirely clear how such an RFC would be worded, it might lead to a more productive discussion than this one. I would have thought it obvious that the proposed title is insufficient in nearly every respect, the idea seems to be essentially to try and turn this article into some other already existing article thereby demonstrating that the objectors Afd arguments were right all along and that this article is a fork, which it is not. I don't like the current title that much but not because of the reasons being given by the objectors above. I would prefer something with Palestine in the title as Gaza is just as much a bantustan/ghetto as any other place, the West Bank allusion is merely due to the fact that the only proposal officially implemented and only very partially at that, is Oslo but the article is clearly showing that the rationale both pre and post Oslo can be found in the earlier Allon and Drobles unofficial proposals that have been consistently pursued by successive Israeli governments. The process of displacement, dispossession and fragmentation/control predates Oslo and continues to the present day. The number of commentators across the spectrum that point to all this is notable.Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd ask you three to post less on this page; I feel you've been posting so much that it crowds out others' ability to engage in discussion. As of this writing, text added to this page: Nishidani 33.1k, Selfstudier 30.5k, Onceinawhile 23.9k, Jr8825 12k, me 11.7k, everyone else less. It was the same pattern at the AFD: Onceinawhile 23.7k, Nishidani 17.5, Selfstudier 11.5, Jr8825 10.7, me 8.7, everyone else less. Combined, that's: Nishidani 50.6k, Onceinawhile 47.6k, Selfstudier 42k, Jr8825 22.7k, me 20.4k, everyone else less. Three editors on one side of the debate are writing more than everyone else combined. This summary was unnecessary, and of course, as a support !voter, I disagree with these three oppose voters' summary of the support voters' arguments; that's why an uninvolved editor does the close. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, what matters is the content of the posts. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, that is an extraordinary piece of sleight-of-hand rhetoric! I eagerly await your editions of some of the Socratic dialogues (to compare the sublime to the ridiculousness of our forums), the Euthyphro to begin with. The ratio between the volume of Socrates' arguments and the laconic ripostes and judgements of his thoroughly self-convinced interlocutor(s) makes even my verbosity here look positively Carthusian/Trappist, compared to others. Congratulations. You have invented a novel voice in logic and rhetoric: we have an argumentum ex silentio in the canon, and you have now come up with its opposite, an argumentum ex amplificatione or should that be argumentum ex adiectione?. Whatever, it is barrel-scraping in lieu of cogently addressing the gravamen of the issue. Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support: The current title is extremely POV and makes blatant use of the inappropriate and racist Apartheid analogy. Île flottante (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope that this is only a formalization of what you argued earlier

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

and not a double vote. Please read the article, because it documents that the SA analogy has been repeatedly made by Israeli policy planners. There is something profoundly perverse in calling a plan one is drawing up and implementing a 'bantustan' model, and then having hysterics when historians, the press, and even wiki editors write it up according to WP:Common name, as if the bias were not in the thinking of those who invented the analogy, but in those who accurately report their thinking.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please present evidence aside from what Ariel Sharon allegedly said in private years before he became PM and carried out his famous policy change with regard to the Palestinians that Israel has called this a bantustan model. Especially since there's no great plan and different Israeli PM's have followed different policies. Also, historians and the press are far from unified, it's typically only those who have a pretty clear slant toward the Palestinians who use this. The "bantustan" argument is nearly universally used as an attempt by people who support the Palestinians to draw comparisons with apartheid.

Although I've already cast my vote I'd like to make one more comment. People here arguing that the proposed change is inaccurate due to the entire West Bank being under Israeli occupation seem to not get that there are different degrees of rule. I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say they are under Palestinian rule. The Palestinian Authority exercises civil and security jurisdiction over Area A. There are Israeli arrest raids but overall the Palestinian Authority exercises a vast degree of rule over them. These particular areas of the West Bank are under Palestinian rule far more than Israeli rule, even if Israel retains the power to arrest people in them. It's Israel's control of the areas surrounding them that is the main issue. In any case, I view the term "bantustan" as far more inaccurate, as the sole purpose of the use of that term is to draw up comparisons with South Africa, even if the comparison isn't explicitly stated in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 11:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As to people using the term bantustan on the US-Israeli side, three good examples are Ariel Sharon, Colin Powell and Martin Indyk. They are all considered "pro-Israeli".

Ariel Sharon allegedly used that term once and it was a vision of a plan he later turned his back on, not something he actually did. And what do you mean by US-Israeli side? You're acting as if the US and Israel are both a party to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no unified US-Israel front in this conflict. There is an Israeli side, period. The US is an ally of Israel and also a major giver of aid to the PA, and has at times pressured Israel into concessions to the Palestinians, depending on which administration is in the White House. I believe Powell and Indyk used that term in describing a potential noncontiguous Palestinian state, IE a possibility. Did they ever outright say that?--RM (Be my friend) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Much of this article is about the "potential noncontiguous Palestinian state", so exactly what they were commenting on. I don't know if your comments on the US-Israeli alliance are a joke or not, but they are ridiculous. US aid to Palestinians under Israeli occupation is well known to function as indirect support to Israel (if the US weren't providing those funds to sustain Israel's captive Palestinian population, Israel would have to under international law). And as to the concessions that the US has so successfully extracted, if you could point to a single one that would be fascinating news - we should probably alert the media. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Key word being "potential", proposed by some people, not "is." Maybe the US just provides aid to the PA because the existence of the PA is a key step toward a Palestinian state. Please provide proof that it's aid to the PA is only in the context of aiding Israel. And please refrain from hyperbole such as "captive Palestinian population", this is an encyclopedia. As for concessions, settlement freezes, both the official one early in Obama's term and the unannounced de facto freezes that have taken place since, are a good starting point. Or go back to the 90s when Israel handed some places over to the PA when Clinton pressed Netanyahu into doing it.--RM (Be my friend) 12:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, settlement freezes? That is your idea of a concession? OK, since I have clearly lost this debate I will now concede to you that I will stop breathing.... .... .... I have decided to start again. What a fantastic concession I have made. It should go down in history as a concession that Onceinawhile has made to Reneem.

Here is a chart of the settlement growth, if you could kindly point out where these freezes have made an impact that would be very insightful. By the way, I froze my breathing a number of additional times between this comment and my previous one; I do hope you appreciate these concessions I am making. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The US pressed Israel into not taking certain actions that the Palestinians see as negative. My central point still stands, that there is no "US-Israeli side" to this conflict.--RM (Be my friend) 12:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, this makes you a believer in fringe theories, which is entirely your prerogative. The mainstream view is crystal clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As to the nature of "rule" in the Palestinian West Bank, Israel controls the Paletinians' airspace, airwaves, internet, power, borders, population register, freedom of movement. The list goes on. Israel controls what matters, the Palestinians collect the garbage and other local level stuff; this was exactly how it worked in Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, and Ciskei. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all Israel is actually handing over control of power generation to the Palestinians. It controls freedom of movement outside Area A, aka the subject of this article, not within it. Borders, also outside Area A, irrelevant. We are talking about Area A, not the entire West Bank, and a title which blatantly tries to compare the autonomy setup in Area A with the bantustans of South Africa. In any event no, it isn't just garbage collection, it's total civil control. The Palestinian authority has full civil jurisdiction, it controls the police and courts, infrastructure plans, healthcare system, etc.--RM (Be my friend) 11:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, power requires fuel. Even if the Palestinians are finally allowed to build their own power plant, the supply of fuel will remain entirely under the control of the Israelis. So there is no scenario under which Palestinians get real control of their power. Even wind farms or solar panels are impossible, because Israel controls ALL of the West Bank land where such things would be feasible. On freedom of movement outside area A, do you have any idea how small some of these Area A islands are? On police, who controls what kind of weapons they are allowed? Who controls the building of new police stations? What happens when they want to move from one tiny Area A island to another? On infrastructure plans, major infrastructure (pipes, roads, electricity lines, internet etc) all needs Israeli approval. On the healthcare system, hospitals need supplies, all of which require Israeli approval.

The building of new police stations is entirely under Palestinian control in Area A, as infrastructure permits are under Palestinian Authority control there. Pretty sure solar panels and wind farms can be built in Area B. As for moving between Area A, there is Area B which is joint Israeli-Palestinian control (as well as full PA civil control) and Area C, which is under Israeli control, though in practice there are currently few checkpoints deep in the West Bank. In any event Israel controls the surroundings but the comparison to South Africa, which is what is intended by the inflammatory term bantustans, is lacking.--RM (Be my friend) 12:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, I ran out of time earlier and lost my half-drafted response. I find your continued attempt to minimize the occupation with your personal unsourced musings to be deeply distasteful, and wholly anti-Palestinian in effect (I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent). Again, ignorance is not an excuse for obfuscating the suffering of others.

On solar and wind in Palestine, dozens of scholarly articles have been published; it is clear that the land needed to make it economic (both large expanses of unbuilt space and ideal wind and solar conditions) exist only in Area C, and together with the import restrictions mean these technologies cannot solve the Palestinian energy dependence on Israel.

I wonder what “few checkpoints” means to you? An abstract concept, easy to type from your keyboard? Doesn’t matter does it? I have not heard the number 59 being described as “few” before, nor do I think it is appropriate to ignore the flying checkpoints not included in that figure.

Perhaps to follow your logic we should rename the article prison cell to Areas of a prison under prisoner rule. Prisoners have no control over their borders, airspace or communication either, but they can dish out their own justice, they have to clean up their own garbage, there are "few" "internal" checks, and there are plans to let them generate their own electricity one day with Peleton bikes. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile No matter how strongly you feel on the matter, people will disagree. And I'm not going to stray too far into a debate on this issue as I want to keep this debate focused on the core issue and I don't want to clutter up this page with endless debate about the occupation, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. But my central point is that the name "bantustan" is absolutely unacceptable and most users seem to think so. To be clear I don't think the proposed name change is perfect, it's just far better than what it is now. I personally would rather this article just become sections of the occupation of the West Bank and Israel and the apartheid analogy article but if we are going to have it, we need a new name. Very few people seem to like it. How about a compromise if you're unsatisfied? Perhaps "enclaves" as someone else suggested, or areas under Palestinian "autonomy" instead of Palestinian rule? Personally I like "autonomy" the best. We can go back and forth on whose right and wrong but the key point is that the proposal isn't perfect, it's simply better than current name in our view.--RM (Be my friend) 02:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, I agree, we should stick to the point. I have said right from the start I am open to a compromise, hence this. I am considering Lembit's proposal.

PS, it has not gone unnoticed that you have made no attempt to deny the consistent anti-Palestinianism that has been pointed out.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, denial of the occupation is anti-Palestinian racism. Please do some research before making these unfounded claims which undermine the dignity of these people. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody denies the occupation, we just deny that it's proper to use the term "bantustan" here. And please argue substance rather than descend into accusations of "racism" and "undermining dignity".--RM (Be my friend) 12:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, misrepresenting the situation of the Palestinians is absolutely anti-Palestinian racism - the perpetuation of apologist propaganda for human rights abuses is a key part of what allows them to continue. Ignorance is not an excuse - we carry a responsibility not to harm other people's lives with our words.

If you would only focus on supporting your comments with reliable sources, we could avoid this. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. You clearly have extremely strong opinions on this matter. However, it is your opinion, and you don't discuss things by calling differing opinions "racist" or "apologist propaganda" or by accusing other editors of helping to allow human rights abuses to continue.--RM (Be my friend) 14:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Take care, if your wordcount keeps rising, Levivich will be after you.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If by "will be after you", you mean "will ask you to post less", then yes, that's true. But RM is nowhere near 40k, whereas the editors who are over that and who I asked to post less have declined my request. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A couple of editors have already pointed out that Palestine is occupied, if it is not how then to describe the condition of the Palestinians? The occupier rules, not the occupied.Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Denial of the occupation is pure anti-Palestinian racism. Ignorance is NOT an excuse. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Being occupied and having a large amount of autonomous rule over your territory even if under military occupation is not mutually exclusive. Military occupation exists. And the Palestinians also have a wide degree of autonomy in Area A and somewhat less in Area B. These territories are occupied and they are also to a large extent under Palestinian rule. In any event it's a far better way of describing it than with the apartheid connotations "bantustan" generates.--RM (Be my friend) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, a more elegant solution than this wishy-washy bullshit would have been an apology. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said. How about you actually argue the points rather than dismiss things you don't like as "wishy-washy bullshit?"--RM (Be my friend) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, yes I was referring to the fact that you already moved your position by not repeating the offensive claim of "under Palestinian rule far more than Israeli rule". I have just provided you further information above. I strongly suggest you stop making these unfounded racist assertions; a little research would go a long way. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I was going to suggest editing the article, preferably with suitable sourcing, to back up what appear to be mostly personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose : while the current title is bad, an unnecessarily clumsy descriptive alternative is suggested. IMO time to consider other proposals. I suggest West Bank Palestinian enclaves or Palestinian West Bank enclaves, whichever fits English grammar better. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

• Support move. The current title is far from neutral, nor is it in such common use as to override the neutrality policy (see WP:NPOVNAME). I would be open to considering other names besides "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule", but the current name has to go. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

This discussion will hopefully be closed soon; after that point, if there is still interest in discussing the other one, anyone should feel free to reopen it. --JBL (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Simple. We should name it with something completely neutral, such as enclaves or my favorite, areas under Palestinian autonomy. We should then put forward both sides in the article itself. So the claims of people claiming that they are bantustans and those who deny it should be equally represented. Actually the side arguing that these are bantustans is already well-represented and we need more alternate viewpoints (the current article almost reads like something out of Electronic Intifada). As for bantustans in Israeli thinking, pretty much nobody uses that term (what Ariel Sharon allegedly said in private notwisthanding) except for some people on the Israeli left when it comes to criticizing the right's proposals (which the right itself doesn't describe as bantustans).--RM (Be my friend) 11:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, you are not the sole arbiter of neutrality. I take it you want to wait for the rm to be closed, right? Meantime, if you want to do something useful bring your sources forward and edit the article.Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It is fortunate because RM’s post is replete with misrepresentation.

• “We should then put forward both sides in the article itself. So the claims of people claiming that they are bantustans and those who deny it should be equally represented. Actually the side arguing that these are bantustans is already well-represented and we need more alternate viewpoints” => RM has ignored all requests to bring references in which people claim that bantustan is a non-neutral term. Noone is objecting to having such references in the article, if they exist. I have been looking for weeks and have not found any.
• “As for bantustans in Israeli thinking, pretty much nobody uses that term... except for some people on the Israeli left” => Colin Powell and Martin Indyk are nobodies then? Daniel Levy, Gershom Gorenberg, Avi Primor, Ze'ev Schiff, Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar are nobodies too? Many words and phrases are not used by the far-right, including “Palestinians are a real people”, “Human rights”, and “the occupation”; but they are used by the rest of the world and are real things.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Reneem. That is dodging the question (and this whole thread is an egregious illustration of sidestepping). The point is not balancing claims, but documenting the fact that key figures in Israel had Bantustans in mind. The current article doesn't source Electronic Intifada but a lot of peer-reviewed historical scholarship, quite a bit from Israel. Ariel Sharon was the major figure in going beyond makeshift tinkerings negotiated with Palestinians to the unilateral implementation of a policy he thought was bantustanization. If Israeli leaders had no qualms about calling a spade a spade, neither should we. Whatever title is to be adopted, wikipedians should not have foremost in mind euphemisms designed to bury history out of respect for a taboo insisted on by official Israeli public discourse, which regards (this has multiple dopcumentation precisely re this point) any analogy that might resonate with the SA nexus unacceptable and, irony of ironies, 'racist' if not indeed anti-SemiticNishidani (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Except that there's no evidence that Israel is pursuing a policy of bantustanization. Sharon allegedly said something years before he became PM in private and you take it as if that must mean his entire policy, years later when he noticeably flipped his views, was bantustanization, when he withdrew from Gaza, including the Egyptian border, and was planning something similar in the West Bank called the Realignment plan. Israeli leaders have never outright publicly stated that they intended to create bantustans. There is no official public discourse that openly refers to bantustans.--RM (Be my friend) 13:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Bit like the "official public discourse" on occupied East Jerusalem, occupied WB, occupied Gaza and occupied Golan, then ie non existent. So what?Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support move Current title fails WP:POVTITLE and is anti-semitic to boot. I prefer the the name "West Bank Palestinian Enclaves" as it is shorter and more to the point, but anything that does not use the word "Bantustans" is a tremendous improvement.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule - Is it exciting? No. Invoke a lot of passion? No. Is it accurate? Yes. I say go with the descriptive title for now, we can devote a whole paragraph to how the areas are viewed by a lot of commentators as bantustans. That said, I see nothing inherently anti-Semetic in criticising the Israeli state for a policy decision, which is essentially what the "bantustan" label is. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Indy beetle, “...under Palestine rule” is denial of the occupation, which is anti-Palestinian. If the proposed title has been written accurately there might be less passionate opposition here. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile Citing a pro-Palestinian blog on Medium rather than an actual source and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of racism is not proper debating.--RM (Be my friend) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A quote from Saint Augustine for you. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I do wonder whether those supporting the proposed title have read the article West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. The "Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule" per that article are exactly Area A (B is shared, C is Israeli control). So the proposed title covers Palestinian Area A. But it is self-evident by inspection that Area A is neither the subject nor the focus of this article. So not only is the proposed title "descriptive", undesirable in and of itself, it is not accurate either. It is quite simply, wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I do wonder whether some editors have read the support comments along the lines of, "Well, the proposed title isn't perfect, but it's better than the current." I also do wonder if it is going to take an noticeboard report to get certain editors to stop bludgeoning every support !voter, and stop making accusations of "anti-Palestinian", racism, etc., at those who disagree with them. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Equally I wonder whether some editors have read the oppose comments which show clearly that the proposed title is non-neutral and fails all five policy criteria for article titles. Those comments also show that whilst the current title has faced claims of non-neutrality, zero sources supporting this claim have been provided. I am shocked at the one sidedness of your last sentence; you didn’t notice the multiple baseless aspersions of antisemitism being thrown around? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The proposed title is less non-neutral than the current: that's my opinion and the opinion of some other support !voters here. It's another way of saying the proposed title is more neutral than the current. That the proposed title isn't perfectly neutral is, in my opinion, no reason to oppose, so long as it's more neutral. We can always move it again. I don't actually see any aspersions of antisemitism being thrown around. That is, I don't see anyone accusing an editor of antisemitism. Some editors think the title is antisemitic, as do some sources; I disagree. I don't think criticism of Israel, even criticism that calls Israel an apartheid state, is antisemitic. (It's not NPOV and we shouldn't say it wikivoice, just to be clear, but anti-Israel is not always or necessarily antisemitism. There are Jews who call Israel an apartheid state.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it? Which is closer to the truth, that the Palestinian “islands” in the West Bank function like the original South African bantustans, or implying there is no Israeli occupation in these areas. The first is question of the degree of similarity, the second is an outright lie. Just like your statement above about what “some sources” think of the title of this article - an outright lie. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding sources stating this isn't hard. BBC reporting on US considering groups using apartheid rhetoric as being antisemitc. This academic expert book on antisemitism describes the aparheid rhetoric as an antisemitic canard, and notes the viewpoint of: "The singling-out of Israel as an “apartheid state,” therefore, is a form of incitement and in itself may be an expression of racism". The title of this article is manifestly not neutral, to the point that it utilizes rhetoric considered to be a canard by some experts, and should be changed. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@11Fox11: Your extrapolation fails two fallacies.

• The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car.
• The noncentral fallacy is the mistaken argument that "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member." Characterizing Martin Luther King as a "criminal" is an example of this, since he technically broke a law against peaceful anti-segregation protest.

I am still waiting for a source which states that the use of the term bantustan for these areas in the West Bank is non-neutral. Perhaps someone should should mention this news to Colin Powell, Martin Indyk, Daniel Levy, Gershom Gorenberg, Avi Primor, Ze'ev Schiff, Meron Benvenisti and Akiva Eldar.... Onceinawhile (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Funny how you argue the fallacy of division when right above you were comparing the situation in the West Bank to the bantustans of South Africa, implying that they were similar to what is going on in the West Bank. Anyway, Powell and Indyk are not Israelis, thus irrelevant. Moving on, Wikipedia's job is to be neutral. Politicians express their opinions but many will disagree just as strongly. It's Wikipedia's job to present both in a neutral term. I could just as easily bring up a bunch of right-wing Israeli politicians as a source to argue that we should rename the West Bank article "Judea and Samaria". Would that be acceptable? The people you've brought up mostly have one point of view, being on the Israeli left (Benvenisti in particular was in cuckoo land by the standards of most Israeli Jews due to his advocacy of a binational state), and they should have their views quoted in the article, but Wikipedia should not back up their views with it's own voice.--RM (Be my friend) 08:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not the editors who are comparing the West Bank situation to SA's bantustans: it is the literature. And you should read up who Meron Benvenisti, for example, was: a brilliant geographer, deputy major of Jerusalem, and a scholar of distinction. His views about a binational state compared to what most Israelis might think are irrelevant. (b)As to your point that Israel does not explicitly compare the enclaves to Bantustans, that is ridiculous. Were it to do so, it would incur immediate legal problems and be subject to international sanctions (c) it refers rather to this institution as hafrada which is as literal a translation of 'apartheid' as one can get. (c) The 'trick' consists in saying, almost comically,, that the Hebrew term means 'separation' (civic, geographical and 'racial') whereas apartheid means, um, . .apartheid (in Afrikaans), 'separation'(civic, geographical and 'racial'). (d) Every one rushing in here to scream POV! appears to be concerned that Israel might have its reputation tainted by the implications. Well, the Palestinians in their 'pens' would probably been equally put out or off by the fact that NPOV is always raised re descriptions of Israeli actions, but very rarely when their realities are described on Wikipedia. (e) Just as we distinguish 'developing nations' from 'developed nations', meaning the former make plans or strive to take the road towards, but are not yet, 'developed' (industrialized) nations, so one should distinguish between 'bantustanization' (a process with a goal, not yet achieved) from bantustans, an achieved reality. The flaw in the title lies here: it should be 'Bantustanization/enclavization' of the West Bank'. One decisive difference is that bantustans were underwritten by the leaders of those pseudo-states, whereas Palestinian leaders have yet to endorses the creation of these satrapies (f) 'It's' in the last sentence should be written 'its'.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Some literature, not the literature. Usually it's literature pushing a particular point of view. The bantustan argument is nearly always invoked to compare Israel to an apartheid state. I could just as easily argue that "West Bank" should be renamed "Judea and Samaria", cite some right-wing sources, and claim the literature is saying the same thing to. And for the record, I actually speak Hebrew, "Hafrada" means "separation", it means the need to divorce the Palestinians. Nothing about keeping the Palestinians in enclaves since it could just as easily mean a unilateral withdrawal from most of the West Bank as Sharon was planning with his Realignment plan. Basically the need to disentangle the populations. And no it should not be "bantustanization/enclavization", it should be a totally neutral term with the allegations of bantustanization included in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 11:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You must be reading a different set of sources given that you wrote "... is nearly always invoked to compare Israel to an apartheid state"; that is simply not true. Of course some sources do that, but not most, and definitely not "nearly always". I understand how those with a defensive mindset could assume that, but most of the sources in this article are not focused on that at all. To use my fallacy of division analogy of a car and its wheels, most commentators who use the term are writing about these islands / fragments (so the wheels) and are not passing judgement on Israel itself (so the car). This is why I have found this conversation so frustrating - too many editors so focused on ensuring the brand of the car is not damaged, when the article is not about that at all.

And as for the statement that you "could just as easily argue that "West Bank" should be renamed "Judea and Samaria"" based on right wing sources, that is again incorrect. West Bank is the WP:COMMONNAME. What do you think is the WP:COMMONNAME here?

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Can this please be closed?!

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

Would you be comfortable with (after this closure) a one week RfC where everyone is asked to state their preferred names, ideally with explanatory justification and supporting citations. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes that sounds good to me.--RM (Be my friend) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that in principle although I am not exactly clear as to how we get from here to there? I don't think we three are enough to close this, we need more agreement, don't we? I don't think you can specify an end date for an RFC, there needs to be a resolution ie a consensus in order to close it, you keep going till you get one or everybody gets bored and someone shows up or is asked to come close it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile Let's ask someone to close this. It's gone on long enough and I want a speedy resolution to the naming dispute.--RM (Be my friend) 13:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Reenem, OK. I think WP:RFCL is the best place. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose per Onceinawhile. starship.paint (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV concerns

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

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

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

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

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

1. 1. Pre-1931
   2. 1931-1948
   3. The 1948 war
   4. 1948-1967

 This concept began in 1967 with the Israeli takeover of the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

1. 1. What a small group of officers advocated for in 1967
   2. The attributed opinions of two ministers (out of dozens and dozens of ministers who served during this period)
   3. The attributed opinion of Avi Primor
   4. The 1984 Ariel/Peres thing

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

5.It omits intifadas in the body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Look. At few of us don't hang round forums and articles. We read the historical literature for hours every day. This is, so far. about the concept of Bantustan and bantustanization in Israeli thinking and outsider impressions of interim measures. Most of the above is specious nitpicking that, to illustrate, reveals you have little practical grasp on what writing historical articles involves. If you have an Israeli historian, now teaching at Oxford, like Avi Raz, writing in a book about a subject he is a peer-reviewed expert on, what a small group of officers thought about bantustans in the 1960s, to suggest citing this is WP:Undue is frankly puerile. What's your premise, we need to legitimize the item's presence by multi-sourcing? No. Given the scholar's expertise, his workplace, the peer-reviewed book he wrote for, you accept it, because it directly addresses the topic of the article. Nearly every point you mucked up above shows unfamiliarity with hands on construction of complex articles.

If as the above article is not to your likes, take some time off, as most content editors here do, research the material covering the points you wish to be mentioned, and write an article that meets all of the criteria you mention above.If you don't want to do the background reading to create an article, then read all of the sources used so far, over 60, and give us the version of the article you would write on that basis. We did this at the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Three people undertook to give their different drafts to the community so admins could decide between the two. It went on to be an FA article.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to balance this POV but the sources were removed see Talk:West_Bank_bantustans#Recent_addition-Shrike (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Tried and failed, for the reasons given in that section. If you think talking about bantustans is an extreme left wing clique's anti-Semitic hangup symptom. Ariel Sharon will be turning in his grave. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Its the sources that thinks so. --Shrike (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources don't think. Is that polemical stuff indeed supposed to reflect back on the editors like myself who contributed to this article. When you started The Jew Among Thorns I reformatted it and doubled its content Was there some fiendishly clever motivation in my doing that? rather than the simple fact that I wasn't following you but noticed it and have a large shelf of books on children's literature and on anti-Semitism and follow those topics?Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I see now AlmostFrancis and Shrike are now teaming to revert stuff out. When you can't argue a point, that's the violent option, create an edit-warring atmosphere and then shout WP:Battleground. It's what socks do, and several are on this page.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Shrike. Arnold Toynbee was one of the greatest historians of the last century. He wrote a long review article for Chatham House in 1931. It is not a primary source, it is a secondary source, and is self-evidently germane because he foresaw that something like South African segregation would inevitably arise in Mandatory Palestine. He was wrong in timing. Something like a Bantustan, a later development of segregation, arose after 1967 beyond Israel's armistice borders. That is interesting as background. It does not reflect on Israel, it reflects on what he thought Great Britain should do to guarantee Palestinian rights! One of history's ironies. The objection that this is primary means you and the other editor don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. The only objection would be that it does not mention specifically 'bantustans' but their embryonic predecessors in the SA system. Whatever, cancelling it impoverishes the article, and investing huge amounts of time creating a silly unfocused ruckus of objections that don't stand up to a minute's scrutiny is disruptive. How this place expects to retain competent content editors with so much superficial politicking frigging around with talkpage pettifoggery is beyond me.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please support teaming up and any socking accusations. I have never worked with Shrike as far as I know and am not a sock puppet of anyone. If you can't support I ask you to strike your comments.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoever you may be, to judge by [this edit] you shouldn't be editing here. Editors who rewrite text without reading the source are on extremely dangerous ground. You rewrote to 'Many Israeli proposals for the conflict have involved noncontiguous areas of Palestinian control. The source quoted states: 'all foresaw Israeli control of significant West Bank territory, a Palestinian existence on minimal territory surrounded, divided, and, ultimately, controlled by Israel.' Deliberate source falsification is extremely disruptive because it causes editors undue extra work if caught, and is something which, if reported, gets sanctioned. You're lucky I don't report people. Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is the second time you have implied I am a sock of someone. The next time I will report you to AE. I would prefer however you just strike out your accusations and we mover forward on content.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead should follow the body and does not need citations. The body makes note of multiple Israeli peace plans involving areas of control by Palestinians. Three of the plans in the list, Allon plus, Camp David, and Ariel Sharon's, all called for Palestinian control is some areas. If I had written "sovreinity" or "statehood" you would have a point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, And when someone readd your edit then they teaming up with you? Please drop you WP:BATTLE mode Shrike (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please take some time to reread what you write. The above remark is incomprehensible.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that edit does not at all reflect the source and is verging on tendentious editing. We'll get back to it I guess, it's not that critical right now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it has to be reverted. For the moment, one only notes that, notified here of his distortion of the source, the offending editor hasn't stepped back in to correct the mess they created. That is one index of the problem with this editor.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

1RR

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

Onceinawhile, You link talk page edit , so please clarify what edit is revert and to what version he was reverting Shrike (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This really belongs on a user talk page, but can you please identify the two edits I reverted. If I have stepped over the line of course I will revert.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, edit 1, edit 2. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell your second diff is an edit not a revert. Is there a specific edit you believe that was a revert of, sorry for the trouble but I couldn't find one.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Motro, Shari (2005). "Lessons From the Swiss Cheese Map". Legal Affairs: 46–50.

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

Your inference that since Legal Affairs is a journal no longer published all of its content, ipso facto must not have been peer-reviewed? is a non-sequitur. She was a participant mapmaker in the negotiations, an IDF insider, before becoming a professor of law in one of the foremost schools of law in the United States. Secondary sources do mention her paper (Caplan 2010). As to the rest, read Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD,WP:PRIMARYCARE. Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No my point was that it was a general interest magazine and not a journal so was not peer reviewed, "A magazine of Yale Law School" was the masthead. I could be wrong but I looked and did not find any evidence of peer review, but the magazine did win journalism awards. Richmond is in the mid 50's for Law so not foremost at all. I am not sure what (Caplan 2010) is supposed to be about but if it is secondary source then we should use that. Unless it is Lincoln Caplan and then maybe not :).AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It is listed under Legal Publications by the Faculty of Law of the University of Richmond (b) The authoress has two pertinent qualifications, being an IDF insider witness and designer of the maps used in the Oslo negotiations, a professor of law and expert in her field and well published, bookwise and with articles for the mainstream press.(c) you are guessing from the anecdotal reconstruction of what happened re the said map that, since it does not have the appearance of a standard legal article, the venue must be classified as a 'general interest magazine', which implies a broad public would be reading the technical reports of a rarified law faculty. That is a caricature. A memoir of a crucial moment in a key historical process does not need peer review: all that is required is attribution. Lastly, this is an Israel ex-IDF officer's account of what happened, devoid of polemics, criticism of the parties, but simply putting the record straight. In that sense, there is no controversy about it, and indeed it incidentally buries some hostile perceptions about Israeli duplicity in that process, and therefore is above the usual polemical elements. This is the third time I have noticed a desire to rid the page of material that tells to Israel's account, bizarrely on the grounds that the details tell against Israel - another indication of how confusedly people unfamiliar with the topic read sources. We were asked to balance the putative POV imbalance in favour of the Palestinians, and when I for one scoured sources to find balance, it is rejected by those who complain of putative pro-Palestinian partisanship. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I called it a general interest magazine because that is what it called itself diff. Do you have some reason to doubt them or for that matter Motro herself? She freely admits in the source that she merely traced lines and had no understanding of what she was doing, so "designer" is clearly false "I know, because I had a hand in producing the official Oslo II map, and I had no idea what I was doing." As far as I can tell, she was a sectratary during the negotiations and helped with translations not terms, so was not an officer and would not have any insider information on the negotiations.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

How helpful of you to confirm that the source is widely cited. Another one is here: Antrim, Zayde (15 April 2018). Mapping the Middle East. Reaktion Books. p. 367. ISBN 978-1-78023-954-5.

I am confused about which sources you consider acceptable. You don't like Israeli army sources, you don't like Palestinian sources, so what is acceptable? I haven't seen you bring any sources so far. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible disruption

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

Revert Regarding Quote

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

The source that was quoted doesn't say "many". I should have written in the edit summary "The quote refers to particular plans" (plural instead of singular), and I made a dummy edit to correct that, but it still doesn't support saying "many" in wikivoice. An entirely separate objection is that the quote was not attributed. Yet another separate objection is that quoting one writer is undue for the lead; same point as #NPOV concerns #1. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The source says "all", that covers many (which is not quoted, it's prose) more than adequately. Revert please (you may add attribution, I don't care about that). And don't make up reasons post fact in order to cover up your mistakes.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The source says "all" but it's still referring to all of the particular, listed plans, not to all plans, and not to "many" plans. (Damnit now you're going to make me type it out.)

What the source says p. 347

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

What Selfstudier wrote in the lead Special:Diff/990978874

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

"Many Israeli proposals" is not what the source says. That's why I reverted that edit, and I stand by it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I have tagged your edit as requiring a quote for verification, what you wrote there is not in the source, afaics.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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

The editor has by way of reversion, (re)inserted material apparently not in the source, this having been previously discussed above. Essentially, this is disruptive editing and needs to stop.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

So then you must think that whomever added this content in the first place is also engaged in disruptive editing, by inserting material not in the source? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I am talking to you.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier restoring the pre-existing text when you think a new change violates policy isn't disruptive. It doesn't indicate support for the existing text, just opposition to the change. Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I am persuaded by Selfstudier's arguments that the paragraph fails verification. It appears there is unanimous consensus on that point here, and I wouldn't want one of my edits to be seen as re-inserting false material, so I have removed the paragraph. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Noted that your response to a request for verification of a sentence added by you, which you now accept fails verification, is to remove an entire paragraph and three rs, thus continuing the pattern of disruptive editing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The sentence wasn't added by me. I reverted your edit. Who added it in the first place? What did it say originally? What changes did you make to that paragraph since it was added? When I reinstated it by reverting your most recent edit, whose version did I reinstate? These questions have interesting answers.

Anyway, I'm just trying to satisfy your concerns. You said that when I reinstated the content, I was reinstating content that failed verification. So I removed the content. You think that was an error, also? Why don't you just propose what you think the paragraph should say instead of continuously accusing me of various misdeeds? Surely it's better to have the failed-verification content out of the article while we discuss it? Or what do you think should be restored to the article?

I make one revert and this is how much of a big deal you make about it? Damn. I think you could be a bit more tolerant of people reverting your edits. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I am tolerant of people reverting my edits, check for yourself and see how many times I revert anyone. Disruptive editing is not my forte. In any case, it is not I who is at fault here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Good removal. The lead is for summarizing the body and not for plopping in our favoried POV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have added this in, with the bantustan piece from a the penultimate sentence before the main quote, which is linked concretely by the intervening which states “Though the language may have changed slightly, the same structure that has characterized past plans remains.”

With respect to the suggestion of including this in the main body, all of these plans are already referenced in the main body of the article in the context that we have it here. If we were to create a separate subsection called “The concept in Israeli peace plans” it would be entirely duplicative. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: the text you've re-added still doesn't follow MOS:QUOTE because the author isn't named in the article text. My concerns about the statement still aren't addressed – the lead should summarise the rest of the article (the development of fragmentation and its impact) in wikivoice. The view that proposals were designed to create a Palestinian state "ultimately controlled by Israel" isn't a unanimous interpretation, so should be kept in the article body. Jr8825 • Talk 03:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825: the sentence is not about the motives or why they were designed like this. It is simply saying that these features (irrespective of motive) have been consistent through a long series of Israeli proposals. And those facts ARE in the body of the article. Please could you help me to understand exactly what part of this you think is not in the main body? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I put this back in the article body for now so it doesn't "disappear". We can return to the question of what goes in the lead at an appropriate time.Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The only reason there is a quote in the text is because the original text, which there was actually nothing wrong with and did not need attribution was queried and so the quote was put in as proof. I am quite happy to go back to the way it was originally before the spurious complaint was made.Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There was no reason that content should be in the lead and not the body. Please try and add it to the body and which point we can build a lead that follows the body.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, except that's not what you said to begin with so I am having some difficulty accepting good faith on your part.Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Which is right?

In the lede, the first sentence says

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

but the last sentence in the lede says

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

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

The first sentence's wording is definitely a bit WP:CRYSTAL, given that the article is mostly about the various historical and current peace proposals. Jr8825 • Talk 02:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed it, the contiguity business will be discussed in the article body in due course as there are different issues involved with that besides mere physical contiguity of the terrain.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2020

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

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

---

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

• Support - I think that name makes (more) sense. Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I would have thought that if the Gaza strip is often described as a Palestinian enclave then that is a good reason to suggest Palestinian enclaves rather than a reason not to. That apart, I'm not really sure of the modalities here, multiple rm discussions at the same time might not work out too well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A name I think would suit everyone far better.--RM (Be my friend) 04:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I suggest we convert this rm into an informal rfc discussion which can if necessary be converted into a formal rfc at some point. Editors could, if agreeable, suggest 3 alternative names in a preferred order plus a sentence or two:

Palestinian + one of 1) bantustanization 2) ghettoization 3) enclavization and if not 1) then 1) to be aka'd in line 1 of the lead as is the custom for common alternatives. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You have already had an informal discussion for over a week, which clearly had led to nowhere due to entrenchedness. My suggestion, unlike "bantustans" and "ghettos", is neutral. You are free to oppose, but it would be helpful if you present your reasons. Lembit Staan (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The entrenched parties have been discussing this for far longer than that, there was an Afd discussion prior which I assume you also didn't notice. Anyway we can't have two rm at the same time whereas we can have an informal rfc at the same time as the rm while waiting for it to close. You never know, we might agree and if we can't we can go formal with an rfc, as was suggested by the afd closer, by then someone will have closed the existing rm. Meantime you should really knock this rm on the head as you were asked to. If you don't feel able to do that, I will go ask an admin to do it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

we can't have two rm at the same - please point me to the guideline which says so, and I will knock this rm on my head. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support – a neutrally worded alternative to the current title. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is already an ongoing RFM above and you open another one while its still going on? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment No idea if it is the right board but I asked to close this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2 RMs at once Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sharon in 1981

From Raja Shehadeh: "Israel’s Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon appointed in 1981 by Prime Minister Menahim Begin had other thoughts, and a very different attitude to settlements than Rabin. He was not worried about the presence of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and was planning to deal with us similarly to how the Apartheid regime dealt with the black majority. Indeed, that year Sharon secretly visited South Africa. While he was being briefed about the country, he told his aide that what he most wanted to know about was the Bantustans, how they are structured and administered. He was obviously planning for a similar fate for the Palestinians, those of us who were living in the West Bank and Gaza."[2] It would be interesting to find the original source for this. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Bantustans in the Encyclopedia of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

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

The index of articles is here.

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

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

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

All I see here is an editor clutching at straws and dredging up every source that uses the term and stuffing it into the article. A relative small proportion of sources use this highly POV language, as can be see in this NGRAM. However this is drowned out by Areas A and B, and even more drowned out by Palestinian autonomy. Sources using "Bantustans" are so few and far between that it shows up on the graph as a flat line in comparison to anything else. Another suggested, more neutral title, of Palestinian enclaves, is also much more popular than "bantustans", though still much less popular than "Areas A and B" or "Palestinian autonomy". 11Fox11 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Aha. Due to the strength of this new source I see we are finally discussing the topic we should have been focused on for these last two weeks: WP:COMMONNAME. Excellent.

We have some work to do though. Before using Ngrams results it is advisable to put the terms directly into google books, inside inverted commas. Searching in googlebooks for "Areas A and B" brings up mostly mathematics textbooks, and searching for "Palestinian autonomy" brings up mostly discussions about the legal form of statehood. (Also note that even if Areas A and B did produce precise hits for the West Bank areas, it refers to only a small section of the topic of this article). Unfortunately very few of the hits for those two ngrams reference the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Once, maybe you would like to "stuff" this that I "dredged up" into the article (and please pass a straw for me to clutch at):

Baroness Tonge, The Lord Rudd and The Lord Oates had no difficulty in using the word Bantustan(s) in a House of Lords debate re Trump peace plan. The Marquess of Lothian was more circumspect, "The proposed illegal land grab and the quasi-Bantustan configuration of what would be left would hardly meet the concept of a genuine Palestinian state." Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are dredging up The right honourable Baroness Tonge who quit her party after being suspended for comments deemed as antisemitic and has since faced calls for her removal due to more comments deemed antisemitic, then you truly are grasping at straws. The biased POV language here is obvious. It is also pejorative. I think that an appropriate proposal here would be to merge the article to Palestinian Autonomy, as it describes exactly the same thing. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

She is in good company. There should be an RFC soon, I look forward to your contribution.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No, she isn't. Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@11Fox11: I thought for a minute you were going to start having a sensible discussion here. But instead of continuing to discuss COMMONNAME, you now pivot to suggesting we should merge an article about a government with an article about a place. Merging all government articles with all place articles would be a major departure from Wikipedia norms, so I suggest you propose your novel idea at a broader forum like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography.

Seriously though, let's move on from the AfD question already. An article on "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century" is not going to be deleted.

If you and others of like mind can focus on the question of what is the best name for this article, we might be able to find a consensus position. But if you keep flailing around with ever more bizarre proposals we will not get anywhere. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability in lead

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

RfC: What is the best name for this article?

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

List of names proposed by participants in the discussion so far

List of names proposed by participants in the discussion so far

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

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

The following proposed names are the ones that have already been suggested by multiple editors across this talk page/RfCs/AfD:

• West Bank enclaves
• West Bank Palestinian enclaves
• Palestine archipelago
• Palestinian enclaves

Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the principal proposed name is the one it has now, not the ones that Drsmoo says. Since we are all adding our 2 cents to the discussion, I'll add that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC Comments:

• Palestinian enclaves Short, neutral and to the point. Also wouldn't mind Proposed Palestinian Territory. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Palestinian enclaves Most natural title, though I'll also support any neutral title, as the current title is non-neutral, and has been described as such in reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Palestinian enclaves best complies with WP:AT (recognizable, natural, precise, and concise) and other policies (V, NPOV, etc.). I guess its better than "West Bank enclaves" because it's broader; "Palestinian enclaves" would be a parent article of "West Bank enclaves". "Enclavization" is an awkward af word for our readers, it's not a common word, and the history of how the enclaves became enclaves can be adequately covered in an article called "Palestinian enclaves". "Enclaves" is broader than "enclavization" and thus better. None of the other titles hit AT and NPOV as well as this one, IMO. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting of the RFC

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

It's pretty simple, don't list names that were never suggested and claim they were. Also, don't have duplicate names. The point of any table in this context should be to list the names that are under consideration, with the goal of moving towards consensus. It should not be to create a muddled, incoherent mess with close to half the names listed never having been suggested, duplicate names, etc. Drsmoo (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion, the fact remains we now have an RFC with 2 tables? Should we allow other editors to insert their versions as well? Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that close to half the names on the first table were never suggested, that's a statement of fact. I initially simply struck through the names that were never actually suggested. That was reverted, which I believe is against wikipolicy. I then created a more concise table that lays out actually suggested names and their popularity. This wouldn't actually cause confusion, but any suggestion for a better method is welcome. Drsmoo (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection at all. Firstly, why? I hereby suggest all the other names. So they can be added now, as it is supposed to be a dynamic table, covering new suggestions as well as old. Secondly, you have missed a whole bunch of names which were suggested, presumably because you are only including names where the commenter spelt out every word in a searchable format rather than provided rationale for the names which are then formed here. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is also possible to do without a table entirely and let participants plough their way through the entire mess of discussions and there are doubtless other possibilities as well. I am fairly sure that Once was only trying to be helpful to participants when he created the first table not create a fuss over what ought to be in the table. The RFC cannot really go on until this is resolved.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it can Drsmoo (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it can't, the RFC itself cannot be the subject of a dispute. If you had added your table as a comment in response to the RFC rather than making it a part of the RFC then we could have continued.Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll modify it to a comment. Drsmoo (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The RFC has a ridiculous number of choices (almost 40!). That would have been good to lay out for a pre-RFC discussion. I'm rolling my eyes a bit, after people were saying "The first RM was launched too soon! The second RM was launched too soon!" that we're now launching the RFC without any pre-discussion about RFC formatting (the discussion was started after the RFC was launched). So my suggestion would be to cull that list of almost 40 down to like the most popular 3-4 options, as Drsmoo has done. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This idea of this is literally a "request for comments". I know how people love to "vote". The idea is that we listen to each other first, then we can vote in a subsequent discussion. Is a little patience really too much to ask? I guess you must be worried that people reading about the West Bank bantustans might see what Moshe Dayan had in mind when he proposed it half a century ago - we better hide it quickly, huh. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)