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)

@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 (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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)