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)

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)

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 (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 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)

Requested move 24 November 2020

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)

• Support This most neutral name per WP:NPOV --Shrike (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  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)