This is an archive of past discussions about Palestinian enclaves. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 3 years ago34 comments3 people in discussion
Dragged this (before and after comments edited out) back out of the archive. I am assuming we do still want to look at these elements now the RFC is finished. If not, tell me, I will delete it all and we will start over :)
Beginning archive content
1. Archipelago reference moved after bantustan reference
Disagree, although open to use of the word subject to my points about re not implying that it is only critics who use it and not implying that most other terms are used uncritically. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Disagree, criticism ought in the first instance be in the names section and not just be limited to users of the word bantustan. If suitable sources exist, I prefer some sort of identifcation rather than the anonymous/throwaway "critics"Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Debolding of all alternative names ==> [See RfC above, which partially covers this question]
No objections, if archipelago place under bantustanKeep as to the policies mentioned (illuminating my ignorance) immediately below this comment. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It is customary to bold aka's, especially in this case where there is no clear commonname, so bantustan and probably archipelago.Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The objection is petty but that's okay if shifted to name section, but no further down, and it is not a complex footnote. The thrust of much POV editing is to move 'stuff' out of sight of the lead, on the assumption that in our times, people never read beyond that, and so shifting down proposals are often viewed as 'disappearing' acts, or desaparecido demotions.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
If this one is moved, then I see no reason why we cannot move all the rest of the footnotes/refs out of the lead and then the discussion becomes "Does the lead reflect what is in the body?"Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Only one of six notes in the lead after the bolded "bantustans" actually supports the notion that they are called bantustans (or a variation). The others are merely comparative - that these are like bantustans. Which is very important, but not what the article says. The lead needs serious work. I was going to take up the GAN but I am not interested when the lead's citations/notes are not verifying the content. Urve (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Urve: That occurred because of an RFC over whether or not bantustan ought to be bolded in the lead and all those (like a..) refs in the lead were added by myself in support of that argument (you would need to read the RFC to get it, the mess up above). The conclusion of the RFC was that they are referred to as bantustans and it should therefore be bolded as an alternative name. There are plenty of suitable references in the article itself. There was also a discussion about not having refs in the lead and having them only in the body but that didn't proceed at the time, maybe it should now (otherwise we would have a couple dozen refs sitting there).Selfstudier (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the refs used for that sentence are not correctly used. They should be the ones that specifically say widely called bantustans, not ones that use the term. nableezy - 21:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Cites in the lead are fine. As long as they actually support what is being said. These almost entirely do not. There is a side question as to whether it is synthetic to call the analogy "popular" anyway, but that is secondary to source-text integrity. Urve (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Urve: thanks for pointing this out – it has now been fixed. The other refs were supporting the first clause in the sentence, not the second clause. I do think it looks a little ugly having so many refs side by side in the lead – a number of them could be consolidated. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The popular thing came from a closer, who chose to summarize the debate in that fashion. He was essentially referring (I think) to the "like a../ referred to as../ "compared to.." references which are plentiful, so I think it is not absolutely necessary to retain that at this point, the main principle is that they are referred to as bantustans apart from the popular comparitive.Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
After reading the article twice and looking over the criteria again, I'm not sure I am able to review this article as well as it deserves. I was worried it would be a quickfail on stability, but it is not in my judgement. I'm going to ask for a second opinion, and would ask the second-opinion-giver to fully take over the review. I hope this one can find the reviewer it needs! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, the quotes in the "Notes" section are so long and not even fair use (or necessary for the article) such that they're copyvio, but I could be wrong. Moneytrees (a copyright admin) might have a more informed opinion here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The quotations in the notes section are consistent with right to quote. They are used to provide thorough attribution in what is a complex and sensitive subject, without overburdening the main article with too many in line quotations. This practice is often used in high quality articles in controversial topic areas. In the Israel-Palestine area, see for example Balfour Declaration (FA) and Mandate for Palestine (GA). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there are several excessive quotes in the notes section. I understand that quoting large portions of sources in order to combat claims of source misinterpretation and misinformation is commonly done in controversial topic areas; however, the non-free content criteria needs to be respected, a lot of the quotes are excessive and I wonder how much of the information in them is needed. I would request the article creator trim them down. I personally don't think the quotes in Balfour Declaration are really ok either, but past attempts to remove them have been met with resistance so they've stayed. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide23:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The last sentence above is not quite right - the Balfour Declaration quotes were trimmed down to where they are now, but they stayed because there was consensus for them to stay. It was discussed in a few different places, perhaps most notably at this ANI thread which included comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long." This is in line with our non-free content criteria guideline examples which state "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."
I have just been through the quotes in this article again in light of the above. There is not excessive quoting from any one source, and no quote is more than a paragraph long (the majority are 1-3 sentences, and the longest is 277 words). I will review them in more detail, to see which we can trim further.
A. C. Santacruz, thank you for the nudge. I have now been through all the quotations one by one, and cut them down. The longest quote is now under 150 words; that is less than half of the 367 maximum length of quotations referenced above. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I pinged Ganesha811 on their talk page, and they will definitely not be returning to this review. Accordingly, I have returned the nomination to the pool of those awaiting a reviewer without any loss of seniority—it will be one of the oldest unreviewed nominations, and thus likely to be picked up reasonably quickly. The next review will take place on a different page from this one. Pinging nominator Onceinawhile, so they know what is happening. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 2 years ago67 comments5 people in discussion
Overall: We are mostly finished as far as my review goes. The NPOV check remains, but as I said, I will ask another editor to consider that. I'm waiting for final comments regarding the NPOV issue.
Pass/Fail:
Hello Onceinawhile, this is my first Good Article nomination review. Since the topic is controversial (subject to WP:PIA), I will keep particular attention on neutrality; I of course would encourage other people to also propose their remarks on the article.
Images (criterion 6)
I'll start from the simplest and least controversial part: images. I've substituted one image from jpg to svg version.
AllonDrobles.jpg: I think it should be public domain as PD-UN-doc (we shouldn't restrict copyright where not warranted) as it was published as part of a UN transcript of a conference and it appears in the French version with a UN logo.
From the history of the article, I can conclude that the article has not been recently subject to edit wars and is fairly stable (plus it has 500/30 protection due to ARBPIA), so the article passes this test. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Text (criteria 1-4)
Collapsing implemented comments for readability - General remarks, first third
General (initial) remarks
The first thing that struck me (which point was also made during the first review of the article) was the length of quotes, but these have been appropriately trimmed and even larger quotes are used in other GA/FAs, so I'm fine with the explanation and their usage. I am also satisfied with the breadth of coverage, though I'll have to admit that I don't have particularly deep knowledge of the topic, so some professional might say that something's missing/something was coatracked. Earwig did not detect any plagiarism from what I could see, but I believe the text uses too many in-text quotes, which could be easily paraphrased. Unfortunately, the person/people who were writing this text do not seem to notice that some of the sentences are written as if Google Translate was used, so there will be a lot of sentence rewriting so that the text is in English. I can also say that on the first look, the text did not have some serious NPOV, V or OR issues, which bodes well for the nomination, but I might find some issues when drilling down in the article. Please ping me when you are done with the first portion of corrections (there are quite a lot of them), so that we can proceed with the following parts.
First third
Lead
As well as the comparison often drawn between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as bantustans and figuratively as the Palestinian archipelago, among other terms. --> The enclaves are often compared to the nominally self-governing black homelands created in apartheid-era South Africa, and are therefore pejoratively referred to as "bantustans" or figuratively as "the Palestinian archipelago", among other terms. (adapt the markup to the text; wikilink some part of the sentence to "Israel and the apartheid analogy")
Onceinawhile comment: This sentence was subject to a very long-winded debate on the talk page about eight months ago, so I am keen not to impact the stability of the article by changing it too much. In particular there were a number of editors strong against labelling the term bantustan as performing only a pejorative rather than descriptive or other normative function. The syntax could certainly be improved though. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, I haven't read the RfC. In this case, remove the "pejorative" label (though it would be consistent to include it due to it appearing in the body). Other than that, my rephrasing follows the spirit of option B, it's just less awkward, so it should stay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile comment: Done although I am not entirely convinced, I have followed your proposal word-for-word. I agree it is less awkward. I separated out the final clause (re archipelago and other names) into a new sentence, as it seemed to confusingly imply that these other names were somehow related to South Africa. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The "islands" first took official form as Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord; this arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; no such transfers were made Run-on sentence, split into two or three parts; some contrasting conjuction (however/but...) should be put btw 2nd and 3rd part.
Para 3: awkward repetition of "bantustan" in two consecutive sentences -> delete "bantustan/" from the first sentence, as this will make the prose more stylistically correct and remove potential NPOV concerns (particularly that none of the two quotes given in i-j include the word "bantustan").
Para 1: 1. Please use single and double quotes consistently, and use them on all words if we are talking about labelling the territories. 2. spell UNDP in full, add the abbreviation in (parentheses). 3. If you quote something, do not paraphrase the quote - use the exact same words. Or else remove the quotes and then paraphrase. I'd rather you did the latter.
Onceinawhile comment: I have gone through and fixed the " vs '. Now the only place were ' quotes are used is when we have a quotation embedded within another quotation. I have fixed UNDP. On the final point - please could you let me know which paraphrasing you are referring to? I couldn't find it. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The quote that goes "Israel has systematically segregated Palestinians communities into a series of archipelagos (referred to variously as isolated islands, enclaves, cantons, and Bantustans) under an arrangement referred to as 'one of the most intensively territorialized control systems ever.'" (in the original, it's "The State of Israel has systematically segregated Palestinians communities into a series of fragmented archipelagos (referred to variously as isolated islands, enclaves, cantons, and Bantustans) under a system that has been deemed “one of the most intensively territorialized control systems ever created.") - differences underlined. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile comment: Thank you for this. It looks like the quote actually came from p.54 (the citation incorrectly states p.15, which has slightly different wording vs p.54 – hence your markup); it also missed off the final word which was in the next column. I have fixed both these matters. DoneOnceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Para 2: 1. The spaces are often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans" while Israeli critics and others make the popular comparison to the territory set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa. The name "bantustan" is considered to have economic and political implications that imply a lack of meaningful sovereignty. --> The enclaves are often pejoratively compared to "Bantustans", particularly among those critical of the Israeli policy towards Palestinians, in reference to the territories set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa. The label implies that the areas lack meaningful political sovereignty and economical independence. (wikilink: Criticism of the Israeli government, "compared to" -> Israel and the apartheid analogy; move other markup features to the new sentence). 2. According to Julie Peteet - who is she (scholar, UN official)? 3. The quote of Julie Peteet should best be paraphrased.
Onceinawhile comment: Done I removed the word pejorative per the comment further above; also it was not in the sources given and it was duplicated in the subsequent clause above critics. I also added the "but not exclusively" in reference to the talk page discussion on that topic, and the breadth of usage that we have in the sources. On Peteet, I gave her background and paraphrased part but not all of the quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Para 2 (quotes): 1. Sharon didn't seem to say that. It was others who said that the best summary of his views was the advocacy for a Bantustan-like entity, but it doesn't seem that Sharon himself referred explicitly to the areas as "Bantustans" or to the plan as "Bantustan plan"; 2. James Baker - use this link, as it is more accessible while containing exactly the same text; 3. Amos Elon's quote is not present within Levy's article - it seems you might have wanted to quote this 4. Gorenberg does not himself use the word. The passage containing the word says Allon’s answer was an updated version of his plan. He had realized, he later explained, that Palestinian autonomy under Israeli sovereignty “would be identified as…some kind of South African Bantustan.”, so it's Allon who's using the quote. 5. Avi Primor's quote seems pretty much irrelevant, so I'd propose to delete the quote and simply cite the Haaretz article, which does an indirect comparison with Bantustans; 6. Benvenisti's article is good for the purpose of the article, but the quote is irrelevant, again. It doesn't even contain the word "bantustan" despite it appearing 6 times in the article. 7. It would make sense, from an NPOV standpoint, to name the folks who oppose the labelling of Palestinian enclaves as bantustans as well (Michael Kinsley, for example, see Polakow-Suransky, 2010, p.235) - find those folks, too. 8. You can add some organisations, too, such as UN.
Onceinawhile comment: Hi @Szmenderowiecki: with respect to your point 7, on this article's talk page a huge amount of effort was put in over many months by numerous editors (with a wide range of apparent political viewpoints) to find all the relevant sources on this bantustan-label topic. In all that talk page work and debate, no reliable source was found to provide a meaningful argument against the term. Your suggestion is a good example of this – (1) the quotation of Kinsley in Polakow-Suransky is actually from an opinion piece in Slate (the online magazine which Kinsley founded), which was subtitled Jimmy Carter’s moronic new book about Israel; and (2) the quote given is then cut off – the full quote is "Palestine is no Bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews." So even if it was more than an opinion piece, its equivocation means it cannot be construed as Kinsley arguing that the term is wrong. Putting this aside, the article tries to avoid this issue by not providing any argument as to whether or not the term bantustan is appropriate. Personally I would be happy to add in such a debate, but coherently-argued "against" sources have not been found by any of the editors, and I do not want to create a one-sided view. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
1. If we can cite Amos Elon, Schiff and other journalists and political commentators, I think Kinsley's opinion is relevant too, since we speak of "bantustan" used in various contexts referring to the Palestine. That said, I've reached to the full article and I can agree with your conclusions. Anyway, I think citing the article will do nothing bad, as quite a few pieces are opinions or book reviews (as Kinsley's piece happens to be, too). I'm disappointed by Polakow-Suransky's sleight of hand, though.
2. I've reviewed the talk page and I can state that the pro-Israeli editors have repeatedly failed to produce a list of scholarly resources, but I can't say for sure they simply don't exist. As for a reviewer, it's super important for me to understand that NPOV is preserved before I put the imprimatur of GA status. For now, I only have an indication NPOV is preserved; but given the abundance of pro-Israeli outlets and positions, and the possibility that there might have been filibuster efforts on behalf of editors opposing the article additions (no accusations made here), it is extremely strange there are only two sources (both not of the highest quality) referring to the concept, barring those appearing in the second discussion of Archive 1, which do use "Bantustan" in various contexts (and which I'd ask you to mention in the "Names" section, as they belong there, even if the authors associate the usage of the term with the far left or Israel-haters: [1], [2]). They are admittedly not top-notch but IMHO are good enough for this exact purpose (the first is a peer-reviewed article while the other has been reputably, though not academically, published); I also believe that it doesn't matter that they don't have their own WP articles yet.
Onceinawhile comment: I just read the Proquest article linked in the comment above. The relevant references used by the author are "Palestinianfacts.org" (ref 22), an unreliable anti-Palestinian propaganda site now removed from the internet, and Wikipedia itself (ref 23). Any sources which cite Wikipedia are unusable, per WP:CIRC. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
2a. I think I should ask Shrike, Wikieditor19920 and 11Fox11 to provide more sourcing (among the "many" they claim exist) that would provide a pro-Israeli point, and then adapt the text accordingly (if they don't, I will have to dismiss their comments about POV and move forward with the nomination).
3. As for point 1 for Para 2 (quotes): I've also seen the discussion about whether Ariel Sharon actually referred to the areas as Bantustans. I'm still not convinced, however, that he certainly did that (and that's quite a strong claim); though I'll admit there's high probability it happened. It's more or less the same likelihood as with the reported usage of bantustans in context of Palestine by Moshe Dayan. Since we don't have certainty, I would still suggest to remove it or to state that he probably used this phrase too, based on third-hand accounts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile comment: Done 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. For 1 (Sharon) I added the word "reportedly". On 8, a UNDP report is quoted in the paragraph above, and I am keen not to overload the section. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Szmenderowiecki: thanks for bearing with me during this process – it has taken me longer than I hoped. I am pleased to say that we are down to just one last topic (phew!) - this point 7 above that we discussed three weeks ago (with related discussion on these sources at Talk:Palestinian enclaves#NPOV Balance). I believe your proposal was to add Kinsley and Havardi,. I have to admit I am struggling to figure out what to write about them and how to write it. I was wondering whether @Shrike: might be willing to draft something for consideration? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think Kinsley and Havardi could be listed among the other people already present in the article. It might get too long, but then GAs don't require perfection, and that list seems pretty relevant IMHO. I am open to any proposals offering specific remedies, particularly from those who claim that problems still exist in the article. The review is still open, so maybe something new will appear in the process. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Para 3: The process of creating the fragmented enclaves has been described -> add "also"
Allon Plan: In his view, not to give back to that country Palestinian land outside of the territory proposed for annexation for Israeli settlement would leave Palestinians with an autonomy under Israeli rule, a situation that would lead observers to conclude that Israel had set up an arrangement akin to "some kind of South African Bantustan". -> In his view, if Israel did not give back the Palestinian lands that were not supposed to be annexed for Israeli settlement to that country, it would have to leave Palestinians with an autonomy under Israeli rule. This, Allon argued, would lead observers to conclude that Israel had set up an arrangement akin to "some kind of South African Bantustan". (Move this sentence to the very end of the paragraph - we should first describe the gist of Allon's plan and then the motives behind it).
1968 Jerusalem plan: 1. The masterplan defined the need to ensure "unification of Jerusalem" and prevent a later division -> The masterplan set the objective of ensuring the "unification of Jerusalem" and preventing it from being divided in the future. 2. The plan called for Jewish neighborhood construction in stages beginning shortly after the war with Ramot Eshkol, French Hill and Givat HaMivtar "closing the gap in the north of the city. -> The plan called for the construction of Jewish neighbourhoods in stages, which started shortly after the Six-Day War. In particular, the new settlements of Ramot Eshkol, French Hill and Givat HaMivtar closed the gap in the northern parts of the city. (Also, watch out: you're using "neighborhood" and "labour" in one article, so stick to either Commonwealth English or American English). 3. Then in the 1970s through early 1980s, in the four comers of the annexed areas, Ramot and Neve Ya'akov in the north and Gilo and East Talpiot in the south. The third stage included Pisgat Ze'ev in 1980 and "the creation of an outer security belt", Ma'ale Adumim (1977), Givon (1981) and Efrat (1983) on high ground and beside strategic roads in the Palestinian area. Har Homa (1991) and attempts to achieve a link between this neighborhood and Ma'ale Adumim, known as the "Greater Jerusalem" plan. -> The second stage took place in the 1970s and early 1980s, when Ramot and Neve Ya'akov in the north and Gilo and East Talpiot in the south were built. The third stage included Pisgat Ze'ev in 1980 and the creation of the so-called "outer security belt", which consisted of Ma'ale Adumim (1977), Givon (1981) and Efrat (1983), built on high ground and next to strategic roads in the Palestinian area. The most recent endeavours included the construction of Har Homa (1991) and the so far unsuccessful attempts to connect Ma'ale Adumim with other Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. (given the location of Har Homa, it is extremely unlikely they wanted to go from there to Ma'ale Adumim).
Para 1: 1. Just to reduce ambiguity, I'd propose to replace "their [settlements] main architect" to "its [policy] main architect". 2. across the full depth what does it mean in English?
Para 3: Masterplan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 1979–1983, Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem, 1979, authored by Matityahu Drobles(s) -> Masterplan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 1979–1983, authored by Matityahu Drobles and published by Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization in 1979. (wikilink Matityahu Drobles; besides, is his surname really written with double s?)
Para 4: Plans including the Allon, Drobles and Sharon master plans as well as the Hundred Thousand plan, never officially acknowledged, were the blueprint for West Bank settlements. Plans, including the Allon, Drobles and Sharon master plans, as well as the Hundred Thousand plan, which has never been officially acknowledged, were the blueprint for the West Bank Jewish settlements. (add internal link to Hundred Thousand plan); convert parenthetical referencing to normal reference.
Onceinawhile comment: I have done the first sentence here. Please could you confirm what you mean by "add internal link to Hundred Thousand plan", and which parenthetical reference you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Para 1: According to the former deputy director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's department for Africa, Asia and Oceania, then ambassador and vice president of Tel Aviv University Avi Primor, writing in 2002 According to Avi Primor, the former ... Oceania, who was an ambassador and vice president of the Tel Aviv University at the time of writing.
Para 2: PLO leader Yasser Arafat -> unwind PLO abbreviation, write PLO in (parentheses); "Plan for West Bank and Gaza Strip" -> add "the" in front of each entity.
Para 3: "Published in 1983, the "Ministry of Agriculture and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization, Master Plan for Settlement for Judea and Samaria, Development Plan for the Region for 1983-1986" aimed at building settlements through 2010 by attracting 80,000 Israelis to live in 43 new Israeli settlements in order to raise the total settler population to 100,000 and for whom up to 450 km of new roads are to be paved" -> the "Master Plan for Settlement for Judea and Samaria, Development Plan for the Region for 1983-1986", co-authored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organisation aimed at attracting 80,000 Israelis to live in 43 new Israeli settlements (for which up to 450 km of new roads were to be paved) in order to raise the total settler population to 100,000 by 2010.
Para 5: 1. In 1984 elections, Labor and Likud, on opposite sides of the debate over territorial compromise were forced into coalition and any thought of land for peace tabled - that's not exactly in English. There should be a comma after compromise. 2. Second sentence: remove first quotes; Rabin -> Yitzhak Rabin. Split into two parts (second part: Additionally, the Israeli settlements ..., italicise de facto. 3. "but 15 years later" - comma after later; 4. Last sentence should be split in two. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Para 2: 1. by the end of 1999 the West Bank had been divided into 227 separate entities, most of which were no more than 2 square kilometres (0.77 sq mi) - a. if you abbreviate miles, you should abbreviate kilometres for consistency; b. most of which were smaller than 2 km^2; 2. c.1005km2 -> c. 1005 km^2 (use Convert template); 3. last sentence - split the last part of the sentence from the rest: "In fact, no such transfers have been made to date".
Para 5: 1. "Road map for peace" -> road should be lowercase; 2. "Bantustan model.In March 2002" add space; 3. "In March 2002, Israel began Operation Defensive Shield and commenced the Israeli West Bank barrier which frequently deviates from the pre-1967 ceasefire line into the West Bank." From what I read construction of the barrier started in June 2002, so it's misleading to couple the two; also, add comma before which.
Para 6: 1. It emerged that in private Sharon indeed had openly confided, when as Foreign Minister for the Netanyahu government, to a foreign statesman as early as April 1999, that he had in mind the Apartheid Bantustan example as furnishing an 'ideal solution to the dilemma of Palestinian statehood'. -> It later emerged that in private, Sharon had confided to a foreign statesman as early as in April 1999, when he was serving as Foreign Minister for the Netanyahu government, that he believed the apartheid-era Bantustan provided "an ideal solution to the dilemma of Palestinian statehood". 2. When d'Alema, at a private dinner he hosted for Israelis in Jerusalem in late April 2003, mentioned his recollection of Sharon's Bantustan views, one Israeli countered by suggesting that his recall must be an interpretation, rather than a fact -> When Massimo D'Alema recalled the discussion during which Sharon explained his preference for Bantustan-like Palestine, one of the guests, who attended a private dinner the Italian Prime Minister hosted for Israelis in late April 2003, countered by suggesting that D'Alema's recollections must be an interpretation rather than a fact. (D'Alema must be capitalised throughout; few people rid the footnotes, so we should mention D'Alema's name, too). 3. You don't need to quote D'Alema's answer - paraphrase it. 4. Another Israeli guest present at the dinner deeply invpolved in cultivating Israeli-South African relations Another Israeli guest, who was present at the dinner and who was (deeply) involved in cultivating ties between Israel and South Africa, ...; 5. "into three fragmented entities" -> needs colon.
Onceinawhile comment: Done 1, 2, 4, 5 all complete. On 3, the D'Alema quote is only seven words, and given the subject of the sentence is about precision I think it is elegant for us to be precise too. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Para 8: to minimize the amount of land on which a Palestinian state would exist by fixing facts on the ground to affect future negotiations -> you mean something like fait accompli politics? The current wording is pretty awkward.
Para 9: remove quotes, paraphrase all of them, also: These findings were discussed with the Israeli government; the Israelis "never challenged those findings" -> These findings were discussed with the Israeli government, which never disputed them.
Onceinawhile comment: Done First quote shortened (I didn't completely paraphrase it, because Rhodes is already paraphrasing Obama so better to stay as precise as we can); second quote paraphrased as suggested. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile comment: Done Both acronyms clarified. I have left the remaining quote as it is only 6 words, and therefore difficult to accurately paraphrase without copying. The rest of the reference to Svetlova is a paraphrase. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Trump peace plan: there's no particular reason for which to highlight Cohen's quote -> introduce back into text by rephrasing it; The plan in principle contemplates a future Palestinian state, "shrivelled to a constellation of disconnected enclaves, following Israeli annexation," while a group of UN human rights experts said "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." -> The plan in principle contemplates a future Palestinian state which would be, as the Financial Times describes, "shrivelled to a constellation of disconnected enclaves". A group of UN human rights experts also sided with the opinion, saying that "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." Similar opinions were expressed by Daniel Levy, former Israeli negotiator and president of the U.S./Middle East Project, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory Michael Lynk.
Onceinawhile comment: Done Also I moved the Cohen reference into the subsequent section, as it was primarily focused on annexation. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Netanyahu annexation plan: Para 1: since you've already summarised Netanyahu's quote, it makes sense to get it in a footnote for reference instead of repeating it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile comment: Done I reduced the paraphrase to remove repetition. I prefer to keep the quote because it is short and also important given it is the words of the plan's author. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Last third (Key issues)
Jerusalem
General remark: The section somehow feels not finished. For example, I can't see what is it about the Jerusalem Master plan 2000 that warrants mention here. Plus only relying on one person's opinion to present a "key issue" isn't something that I'd expect to see in a GA-class article. While Dumper provides an example of how East Jerusalem contributes to the fragmentation of the community, there should preferably be more voices saying that.
1. The Jerusalem Master plan 2000 reflects Israeli policy. The plan proposes the maintenance of a 60% Jewish 40% Palestinian demographic. -> The Jerusalem Master plan 2000, which proposes the maintenance of a 60% Jewish to 40% Palestinian demographic (in Jerusalem?), reflects Israeli policy. 2. Please paraphrase at least two of four Dumper's quotes and explain why Dumper's opinion is needed here (scholar, researcher, politician, UN official?...).
Onceinawhile comment: Done Thank you for pointing this out. I have carried out a major rewrite of this section, adding to and upgrading the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Settlements
General remarks: That sentence in a separate paragraph should be merged with either of the two, while the last (mentioning the plans) should in fact be the first; plus the fragment should be also expanded with some more information and insights into the situation. As far as I understand, there should more or less be a section describing the quality of life in the enclaves (IDK, poverty, corruption, Israeli policing, flight of young people to Israel proper/elsewhere, if such stuff exists), particularly since the influx of Jewish settlers, but I don't see it. I hope more information could be found on the first two topics, because I don't think these two paragraphs broadly discuss the "key issues".
Onceinawhile comments: Done I have reordered all these paragraphs and combined them into one, which I think reads well. We do have a comprehensive article covering the main topics around life in the enclaves: Israeli occupation of the West Bank (currently linked in the first section of this article under Names). I prefer not to duplicate that article here, given its depth and complexity. I could certainly add a small subsection in the key issues section, with a main article link above it, but I am not sure I would be able to do it justice. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Land expropriation: paraphrase Financial Times quote; italicise all newspaper names in the article (Financial Times, Haaretz...); Highway to Annexation which concludes add "that the"
Contiguity: Post Oslo closure and separation (hafrada)-> Post-Oslo closure and separation (hafrada); paraphrase Peteet quotes; italicise hafrada; paraphrase Benvenisti and Indyk quotes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile comments: Done I also merged two paragraphs which were quite similar in nature. I paraphrased Peteet, and most of Benvenisti. I left the final Benvenisti quote and the Indyk quote, because they were so nuanced that I felt I couldn't do them justice with paraphrasing. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Final remarks
After some thorough review, I feel that the Israeli/pro-Israeli viewpoint is not sufficiently present in the article. It is obvious that the Israeli govt does what it does, but I think that the Israeli perspective there is lacking (if to discount Haaretz, which is known for being "Israel's most vehemently anti-settlement daily paper"). For example, the version proposed did not offer any examples where authors and politicians said that the Palestinian enclaves were not Bantustans, and AFAIK there are quite a lot of folks supportive of Israeli policies. However, being a non-expert in these issues, I will refer the NPOV question to a second person so that they could analyse if I'm right saying that there are potential NPOV issues hiding in the article and hopefully that other editor, if they find it necessary, will propose some adjustments and remedies. I'm waiting for the corrections to be made, or discussed in case of problems, after which the article will be reviewed by another user. I hope you won't have to wait for another three months for the review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The only core NPOV issue here so far, unless I misunderstood the discussion that determined the default title, was whether the reality of 160 odd areas of Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank, now or in the future, situated between Israeli settlements, were to be called 'enclaves' or 'bantustans'. The choice of the former does not resonate with the South African analogy, the latter does and it was thought therefore that it was 'neutral' to employ the term pro-Israeli sources prefer. The title is what that POV prefers, the alt name what the majority of sources commenting on Israeli political and planning thinking had in mind. This is amply covered in the body of the text.
The gravamen of the second NPOV issue is whether those enclaves or bantustans are territorily continuous or discontinuous. Both 'enclaves' and 'bantustans' imply discontinuity in English (one enclave being separated from the other).
So, figuring out in what precisely consists NPOV is extremely difficult, since we have the pro-Israeli default term in the title, and the 'pro-Palestinian' alt name in the first para of the lead, and the text sums up the objective realities associated with both terms (which, apart from the difference in connotation, refer to the same reality - a discontinuous, broken chain of Palestinian 'settlements' with a projected (and at the moment de facto) Greater Israel. The best we can do is, as I think has been endeavoured, to describe the history of the idea, and the ways it has been implemented. I gather you think, perhaps I'm wrong, that more space should be given to Israeli arguments that the model for Palestinians is a net good all round?Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Not really. What I basically mean is that in multiple discussions in which editors whom I can reasonably assume to take the pro-Israeli side (consciously or not) have only been challenging addition of material, instead of finding material of their own (which is a very annoying thing, as I've personally experienced on Wikipedia). That, however, is no indication that the material is nowhere to be found; rather, it did not surface at all. I have to be sure that the article gives adequate balance to each side. That is not to say it must be 50/50, or that any of the main authors of the article here have done a lousy job finding sources (actually, with such a mass of good-quality sourcing, I'm more than satisfied with the coverage). What I simply do here is an extra precaution against the possibility that this article, as pro-Israeli editors may contend, has skewed coverage in favour of Palestinians, by insufficiently reflecting the pro-Israeli commentary on the history of Palestinian enclaves/bantustans (not the history itself, which, barring a few details, like the 2000 Camp David negotiations minutiae, has facts that can't be reasonably disputed). Hence the enquiry to find publications that might be worthy of addition to the article representing "the other side" for consideration. To be clear, it's not as if I demand that the Israeli perspective be more prominently shown if there indeed are no good-quality sources covering that (which I find personally a little puzzling). If no one responds with the list of articles for consideration in a reasonable time framev (say, a week), I will simply move on with the review, as I've stated (see point 2a).
As for the title, I wasn't speaking of the title at all. In fact, the move discussion and the RfC happened back in Dec 2020/Jan 2021, and I, as a reviewer of this GA article, have no power to override the conclusions of both the RfC and the RM discussions. Since both "enclaves" and "bantustans" are used in reference to the territories, they can be used interchangeably, though for NPOV considerations, we shouldn't stick to bantustans only or enclaves only - and that's only so much I can say. That's not a problem I was thinking of, though. In short, it's more or less the same as presented in the previous paragraph. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say thanks for your attention to detail, and for your continued comments and support on this. The article is looking much better already. I believe I have now implemented all but four remaining comments, for which I am going to clear my head to think through further. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Szmenderowiecki:, yes I have been busy gathering a number of additional sources to address the points (primarily the Jerusalem question). I have just resolved / responded to three of the four open comments, and will be addressing the remaining one (para 2) over the coming days.
In the meantime, I am conscious that the other editors (those you mentioned in para 2 part 2a above, and those who have been discussing on the article talk page) have not provided any sources. I am not sure how I can prove a negative, other than for us to keep asking them. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You needn't prove the negative (which you in most cases can't) and in fact, needn't worry about that, either. The time is running up, because I can't be stretching the review into infinity. I will simply leave a note to the second reviewer about the lack of response. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Before I transfer this to the second editor's opinion, I have a few remarks to leave for the second editor to consider.
The only potential issue that is left in the article is the balance of the points of view in the article, which I would ask the second editor to review. While some editors have raised the point of NPOV violations, I have unfortunately seen no specific remedies, or sources for consideration, which could somehow deal with what is said to be the article's problem, and that despite repeated calls to propose them. (The only one discussed was inclusion of Ross's quote, but ultimately the section was IMHO rewritten in such a way that better summarised the main article of the section, which is Camp David negotiations). What we are most interested in is whether RS sources, or, better still, academic sources, show the article's subject from a perspective other (perhaps positive) than is already presented. Personally, I am more inclined to the nom's arguments which said that this was not the case, partially because the sources used all seemed to be very good and partially because of lack of meaningful action of those saying that some problems existed.
All other issues have been resolved as far as my checklist went, but if any problems appear with any of the other points that I haven't captured, feel free to suggest the solutions for them.
Because the review has not received any feedback for almost a week since I was done with all points of the checklist, I believe it's appropriate to thank all editors for the input made to improve the article and to close my part of the review. Cheers, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile greetings, I will take over the secondary review and carefully read the prior discussions and talk page discussions. I am familiar with with WP:ARBPIA sanctions and Israel/Palestine editing in general. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
As a whole, I get a very good summary of the development of the various partition/enclave plans from a Palestinian perspective, but am missing the Israeli perspective on it. For example how it relates to hyper growth of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (which Israel doesn't consider to be settlements in the latter), security considerations with border fence/apartheid wall. The following line from Israel and the apartheid analogy aptly describes it, which you could copy.
The barrier has been called an "apartheid wall" by Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network. Israeli officials describe the barrier, constructed in 2002, as a security fence, limiting the ability of Palestinian terrorist groups to enter Israel and making it difficult for them to carry out suicide bombings.
I have more specific feedback below.
Missing sections/content
I generally get a good sense of the Pro Palestinian perspective on the Batustan term/analogies and criticisms of the various partition plans, but I do not get a good sense of what the pro Israel perspective is, except for specific quotes/responses here and there. To concreletely help with this I'd suggestion the following sections
== Bastustan analogy== section should adequately summarize why pro Palestinian activists/scholars use it, and why pro Israel supporters distance themselves from it (in most cases). It heavily relates to Israel and the apartheid analogy and that article would be a good guideline for a more neutral way of summarizing multiple view points. Another related suggestion in next bullet point:
Israel's foreign relations with Batustants and or apartheid South Africa. You could move the bit about Ariel settlement/Bisho there and further contextualize it, for example West Bank/East Jerusalem's lack of global recognition in 1987 was comparable.[1] Simularly, the quote from Chomsky about the similarities/differences would be more relevant here.
Settlements section already exists, but needs further expanding. A lot has happened in the Settlements since the year 2000.
Excessive usage of notes
While being sensitive to the fact that contentious topics benefit from notes, I concur with prior reviews that there is excessive number of notes and their lengths. Some of these would benefit from being content in the article directly, for example about the political connotations/implications of using canton/enclave over bastustan, is a very interesting topic, which is not present in the article at all. This quote hidden in a hatnote is one example.
Ariel Sharon...The latter indicates a structural development with economic and political implications that put in jeopardy the prospects for any meaningfully sovereign viable Palestinian state. It makes the prospects for a binational state seem inevitable, if most threatening to the notion of ethnic nationalism.' (Farsakh 2005, p. 231)
Given the length/numericality of the various plans, I'd move Palestinian enclaves#Key issues to be the 2nd section and perhaps rename it == Background context == or something to that effect, to elaborate what's at stake. Otherwise, I'm reading all of this, but not knowing why any of this even matters/is contentious.
Lede
It jumps right into Area A/B, without ever defining them. If it's not so important, you could rephrase it to something like:
The area of the West Bank currently under partial civil control by the Palestinian National Authority (Areas A and B) was composed of 165 "islands" under the 1995 Oslo II Accord. This arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; however, no such transfers happened to this day.
This paragraph is only mentioned once in the lede, with no further ellaboration beyond the linked note. It should be expanded, removed or at least moved into the body: The consequences resulting from the creation of these fragmented Palestinian areas has been studied widely, and has been shown to have had a "devastating impact on the economy, social networks, the provision of basic services such as healthcare and education"
Nitpicks
Greater care is needed with spelling of politician's names, for example Benjamin Netanyahu was spelled Binjamin, and Shimon Peres was spelled Simon Peres. I corrected some Hebrew spelling (and matched with provided Haaretz source), which is reasonable to not expect English editors to know
Avoid WP:weasel words/phrases. If there are disagreements/disputes over terminologies, state them clearly instead of hoodwinking that there's controversey, for example with West Bank vs Judeah and Samaria etc.. a hatnote could clarify at the first mention of Judea Samaria (or West Bank), that the former is the Israeli government's term for the same geographic areas.
The creation of this arrangement has been called[by whom?] "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century." just mention that Journalist Amira Hass says this. She's obviously a notable journalist on this topic.
This has been referred to as the "Bantustan option".: I mistakenly understood this as referring to Trump peace plan rather than all the different peace plans. Considering the source exists before Trump's plan, it cannot refer to that anyways. Should also clarify WHO's referring to these plans as the "Bantustan option".
There are some more things that I may add, but for now, these things stood in terms of the requirements of breadth, neutrality, layout/structure. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shushugah: thank you for these excellent comments, and for your edits that implemented a few of the comments already. I need to take a little time to digest how best to interpret some of the wider comments you have made. In the meantime, I came across an interesting article from David Remnick, editor of the The New Yorker, entitled "The One-State Reality: Israel’s conservative President speaks up for civility, and pays a price". It includes the following statement which explains why it is so hard to provide an equal weighting of “both points of view” in this article: Israeli politicians often speak of the country’s singularity as “the sole democracy in the Middle East,” “the villa in the jungle.” They engage far less often with the challenges to democratic practice in Israel: the resurgence of hate speech; attacks by settlers on Palestinians and their property in the West Bank; the Knesset’s attempts to rein in left-wing human-rights organizations; and, most of all, the unequal status of Israeli Palestinians and the utter lack of civil rights for the Palestinians in the West Bank. [My underlining.] The rest of the Remnick article is a very interesting read, of broader interest, despite being 7 years old.
In a similar vein, we should be cautious with terminology like "the Israeli perspective" and the "pro Israel perspective" on a topic like this one. It is like asking for "the Chinese perspective" and the "pro China perspective" on the Xinjiang internment camps; I know a great many Chinese people who are pro-China and not one of them supports what is happening in Xinjiang. I assume what you mean is the Israeli government "line" on the topic; unfortunately consistent with the Remnick quote above, I haven't managed to find an official line on this topic anywhere. I like your idea about using the lines on the settlements or the wall, but if such comments don't directly address the enclaves then we would need to be careful to use them only in their specific contexts.
Congratulations Onceinawhile and Selfstudier for working to incorporate my feedback and improve this article. The restructuring of the layouts, and addition of a table to provide visual clarity are major improvements for the readability of an incredibly complicated topic! I am closing this 2nd nomination as successful! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
NPOV Balance
Latest comment: 3 years ago56 comments7 people in discussion
I feel that most of the sources one-sided pro-palestinian I propose to add following book [3]. The author talks about banthustan concept and then tells that such notion at page 62 is popular among far left I suggest to add this to the article when we discuss the term.
I suggest to remove long Carter Quote. IMO it give WP:UNDUE weight to one-sided book that was heavily criticized for its bias[4],[5]
Actually he does not say that the Bantustan concept 'is popular among (the) far left'. What he does is make a rather bizarre argument, that then contradicts itself in the sentence you want to add.
Jeremy Havardi actually says that people like Ronnie Kasrils, Meron Benvenisti, Jimmy Carter and Archbiship Desmond Tutu, Max Blumenthal and John Mearsheimer are engaged in a 'bigoted assault upon Israel'. These people are not examples of 'far-left' radicals. Kasrils was long a member of the Communist party when he was an activist, like many SA Jews, against South African apartheid; Benvenisti was deputy mayor of Jerusalem; Tutu is a Nobel Prize winning religious figure; Carter was the US President who made the agreement between Begin and Sadat; Max Blumethal is certain a radical, nothing evil in that. Mearsheimer is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and like Benvenisti a political scientist of the realist school. So they have nothing in common, other than, since 2004, remarking on the extraordinary historical and structural similarities between SA bantustans and the fragmented townlets engineered by Israel on the West bank by people known to be inspired by the SA model, a view that extends from the far left to notable centralists and moderates having different outlooks and backgrounds from several different countries.
So, that is a self-goal. One can't win an argument by identifying a small minority that use it as 'radical leftists' (except in hasbara disinformatsiya) to imply that everyone who developed or uses the argument is, by guilt association, a 'radical far-left' activist. Rather than 'refuting the anti-Israel Narrative', he has provided extensive evidence that the view is mainstream, entertained by major figures in the world of religion, politics, mainstream scholarly studies and of course, also by people 'on the left'.
The book is RS, but it's rather pointless citing the concluding tidbit about this being a 'far-left' emanation which infected the mainstream. It gained notoriety when Israel and Jewish politicians and political scientists of distinction wrote up the historic record of how the SA model came into effect. It can be used, but as a secondary reference to the broad span of notable people who entertain this viewpoint. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
As to the Carter quote, no. It is a very terse yet comprehensive summary of the designed fragmentation already in place by 2000, from a figure whose knowledge of the situation is intimate, because he was, as President, a political insider privy to negotiations (see the relevant wiki pages) endlessly misrepresented. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In your view those figures are mainstream the author doesn't say that. We may say that the term emanated from far left but entered mainstream discourse Shrike (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It is not my view that 4 of the 6 are 'mainstream'. There is no evidence in his book that the view 'emanated from the far left', to the contrary, so it cannot be used for that statement, since he lacks any authoritative credentials as a scholar of the topic, and documents the exact opposite of what he concludes.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks Shrike. Appreciate the collaboration here. A few thoughts:
Harvadi does not appear to be a professional historian, but a school teacher and director of the UK arm of advocacy organization B'nai B'rith. Having said this, his book is reliably published and I don’t object to its inclusion. I couldn’t see in there anywhere his own view on the bantustan terminology question though?
Carter is core to this, being a former US president (we mention most of the others during the relevant time period), and he is the only one who has written extensively on this subject. The source you provided – Havardi – comments on Carter’s work as an archetype of the commentary on this matter, and provides numerous Carter quotes, as do many others. So Carter is quoted by “all sides” of the political spectrum on this topic.
I suggest to the body of the article we may attribute his view.
The question is how it quoted and what the context. Carter was not on those negotiations he have no special knowledge of what happened there. Carter view can stay but it should be like Ross a short quote in the reference. Shrike (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I dont actually think that book is reliable, McFarland & Company specializes in sports publishing. The author seemingly acknowledges that the views he is opposing in this book are the mainstream. I dont see how that qualifies as needing any WEIGHT, and I dont see how the author has any expertise on the topic, and several much more reliable sources dispute entirely what he writes. nableezy - 17:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
My views regards the comments on sources: Mr Havardi is, as Onceinawhile correctly described, an advocate working for the Anti-Defamation League, but since we want to include the breadth of the usage of the word "bantustan" in context of Palestine, let his voice ring. Even if that's a non-mainstream view, among 10 examples of usage of bantustan as a description of the territories, we can include one or two per WP:BALANCE. Responding to Nableezy's comment, McFarland & Company, Inc. is an American independent book publisher based in Jefferson, North Carolina, that specializes in academic and reference works, as well as general interest adult nonfiction. It is certainly a well-regarded publisher.
Havardi makes the claim about the bantustan analogy being a far-left concept, but among the personalities involved in calling out the enclaves as "Bantustans", calling all of the people he mentions (as well as those cited here) far left is a stretch. Indeed, I wouldn't say that either Carter, Tutu or Mearsheimer can reasonably be even called left-wing (Tutu is a self-declared socialist, but his policies on the ground don't seem to be particularly characteristic of the left-wing politics). It is certainly Havardi's opinion, but I don't see any reflection of it in fact, so I have to side with Nishidani here.
I can also agree that neither Stone nor Dayan are left-wing, so this is a good reason not to quote Havardi's assertion. But we can surely quote cite him simply for the diversity of opinions.
Jimmy Carter's book: while the book itself has received pretty substantial criticism, I rely on the description provided in its own Wikipedia article, which is IMHO very well-written, and the best I can say is that this book is controversial. We don't require sources to be neutral, therefore, I advised to include the two sources in Archive 1 to the article. On the other hand, I'm convinced by the arguments of those saying that the full quote belongs (I haven't ordered its trimming). For one thing, it has a long but very good description directly pertaining to the topic from the highest federal official in US serving in the years when he could already talk about Drobles and Allon plans (the former appearing during his presidency), and it is quite common knowledge that ex-leaders are normally well-informed of the minutiae. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article is better with the full quote than the trimmed one, and thus should stay in the form it is now.
What interests me in particular, if you've actually started the discussion, is to find more pro-Israeli sources of similar quality to those present in the article, because they might be underrepresented but I don't know if that's indeed the case. I'm waiting for the list for consideration. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for you response. I will look into it. What about giving more space to Ross i.e give full quote and do a little trim to Carter. So their will be equal contrary to Carter he was part of the negotiations to the very least he should get the same space. Shrike (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I think trimming down Carter's quote is unwarranted, but Ross's quote, on the contrary, could be well expanded, I have nothing against it. Let's see the implementation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It might pass RSN, but this is considerably more on the popular publisher side of an academic v popular publishing house. And by the books own position, his is a minority view, saying the book argues against the press and the policy establishment. There have to be better sources for that pro-Israeli position. nableezy - 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Some might bridle nervously at the use of Finkelstein for this point. But he is far from alone. The Camp David breakdown has a considerable literature, little of it vindicating Ross's extremely partisan and simplistic story, for a personal story it is, one of vindicating Israel and blaming the Palestinians that consistently distorts a very complex reality (He was so biased he even heatedly reprimanded Israeli negotiators who were disposed to make territorial 'concessions' (Ehud Barak indeed dismissed many of Israel's best Oslo period negotiators from Camp David) that gave back more Palestinian land than he personally thought (he was supposed to be a neutral US broker) suited the 'needs' of that nondescript people (nondescript because in his book he denies that Palestinians have any ethnic unity other than a generic 'Arab' identity)). Compare for example, Myron Aronoff, 'Camp David Rashomon: Contested Interpretations of the Israel/Palestine Peace Process,'Political Science Quarterly, 124: 1 Spring 2009 pp. 143-167, which is a meta-analysis where Ross is somewhat primary, and has the benefit of the wisdom of detached hindsight and scholarly regard for historical sources.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
To meet Shrike's point, I have added from Aronoff Barak's dismissal of the Bantustan criticism which, together with Ross's point, is closer to NPOV. Barak's remark can be read as an Israeli POV, which was what was required (even if many Israeli negotiators disagreed with him). As Aronoff's essay shows, close historic analysis will tell you rather rather than national POVs, events like this are muddled battles not only between national camps, but inframural, with dissenting views among both Palestinian and Israeli politicians and negotiators as to what eiter nation required. If we were to become more historically literature, and faithful to scholarship, our articles would slowly erode the cheap binary I/P stereotypes of one POV vs another. The details always undercut such simplistic narratives. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, that's going a good way forward (the edit with Barak).
Regards Finkelstein, Norman is himself pretty controversial (so much as he was denied entry to Israel for some reason), and the account of Ross is from the first-hand negotiator in the process, so I don't see the problem here, though no one claims Ross is neutral. Since Ross's view, for at least some time, was pretty much mainstream, we should mention it and display it prominently. Now whether we should mention it as an account to which we oppose Carter's without any extra commentary or we provide some on his narrative from say, Finkelstein is another matter. Personally, I think some extra commentary is warranted, and Finkelstein is a good example. If there's any other piece of commentary supporting/opposing Ross's theses, I'm ready to evaluate it. Btw, use [6] this link for Finkelstein as it's more accessible. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't propose using Finkelstein. I don't thinking anyone has successfully challenged the extremely close 'forensic' historical work he has done for spin or misreportage. His accuracy is never under challenge. His 'attitude' is (even by Palestinians and the BDS movement leaders). Disliked intensely by both sides, and therefore, in my view, pretty close to neutral because he is writing to the facts, not to a POV constituency. His removal from tenure was political. He spend years in the wilderness publishing in small presses, but in 2017 the University of California published his minute history of Gaza's tragedy to general acclaim. That brought him back to the mainstream. The fact that he cannot set foot in Israel is neither here nor there. Neither can dozens of major mainstream academics, many of them Jewish. Aronoff, while more rounded than Finkelstein by noting also Ross's criticisms of Barak, concludes:
The analysis of Israeli and Palestinian narratives employed by Dennis Ross is an anachronistic national character approach that treats culture as if it were homogeneous for all groups within society -whereas it is always contested- and as static, rather than as dynamic.' pp.164-5
One could elaborate extensively on that, Ross's book being thorough ly 'orientalist' in its skew(er)ing of the adversary's 'Arab' mentality, which means he can't, just as most of Barak's critics within Israel also argued, grasp the reality of the 'other' he is negotiating with, or trying to 'figure out'.
There are numerous other sources one could use. One early one, Jeremy Pressman, 'Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?,'International Security , 28:2 (Fall, 2003) pp. 5-43 is balanced in its analysis of spin on both sides but does remark:'In this article I argue that neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian version of the events at Camp David and subsequent talks is wholly accurate. The Palestinian version, however, is much closer to the evidentiary record of articles, interviews, and documents produced by participants in the negotiations, journalists, and other analyses.' But, that's from 2003, and we probably need later historical studies.
We're looking for specific mentions of the 'bantustan' interpretation of what Israel offered. Many sources cite the 90-91% restitution of the land occupied, but fail to mention how that is mapped. The maps point to discontinuity, whereas the land size 'offer' looks 'generous'. Pressman comments on this narrative:-
on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was not forthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections.'p.16
The difficulty lies here. POVs are one thing, even in history. We control them by close data analysis. Both Ross and Barak must be represented for denying that bantustans would be the result. But a huge mass of analytical material states that Palestinians read the proffered maps, not in terms of sq.miles, but continuity/discontinuity. We can hardly say Ross and Barak are misleading. All we can do is provided the data (in perhaps a footnote) and tweak the contrast we already have in text, between the continuity vs discontinuity narratives.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please include it in proportion to the prominence of their explanations. I will see, based on the arguments presented here and the implementation in the article, the new version, possibly including such sources. I'd like to remind you, though, that the topic is not about calling the areas "bantustan" but the Palestinian enclaves in general, including their bantustan aspect. Therefore, while you didn't want to include Finkelstein, or Pressman, I think that their commentary, if it can be included in the article (and it certainly can), should not be hidden from the view of the readers.
As for "hiding in the footnote", I don't think the discontinuity and the continuity theories should be presented differently just because what appeared in fact was fragmentation. That is precisely, in my view, the question of neutrality - we briefly present the main arguments of the negotiating sides in an equal way (Ross on the one side and Carter on the other) and we briefly present the prevalence of scholarly positions on the topic (because there is a separate article for Camp David). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not reluctant about using Finkelstein/Pressman or any of a score of other scholarly studies on minutiae relevant to the issue. What I was doing was citing them to show aspects of the larger context digging up stuff that readers of the talk page, and editors, might find useful. The problem with the Ross/Carter contrast is that most expressions I have checked of the Israeli POV (Ross) consist of curt dismissals. I simply cannot recall, or find even now, a close analytical refutation of the enclave/Bantustan argument in 'pro-Israeli' sources. Carter cites, by contrast, details on the ground which, in his view, means that the enclaves are effectively bantustans. I.e. he doesn't assert or dismiss, but draws out the implications. That was my reason for being uneasy with an expansion of Ross. With due diligence we may well find a source presently that counters the inferences and details Carter outlines, and that, indeed, would fit a balancing statement. Cheers (and by the way, thanks for the meticulous review). Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Shrike, Nishidani, and Onceinawhile: The nomination process has been stagnant for five days. I would like to get some input on the questions that remain unanswered. Also, courtesy pinging other editors who have participated in this discussion: @Wikieditor19920, El C, Levivich, and Drsmoo:, to suggest any new ideas that you might have while reading the discussion and the GA nomination, in particular as regards the unanswered questions and some suggestions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There are other several points that need to be addressed IMO:
1.Situation before First Intifada there was free movement of people and goods as far as I know.
2.Explain that checkpoints is a security measure to stop Palestinian terrorism
Thanks Shrike, I am fine for you to add these points. A couple of notes:
1. The terminology "free movement" is incorrect. Freedom of movement usually implies a person can live in the different areas. What you are correctly referring to is that between 1972 and 1989 Israel issued a general exit permit for Palestinians to allow them to work in Israel between 5am and 1am (see Israeli permit regime in the West Bank#History). They were not allowed to stay overnight. If we mention this we should point out that this mirrored exactly the model the South African bantustans - see e.g. Bishara & Usher describing the situation today: "...even more restricted than in the bantustans of South Africa, where at least you could travel to work..."
2. We would need to balance such a statement with an explanation of how the checkpoints have evolved. Per United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: "It is becoming apparent that the checkpoint and obstacles, which Israeli authorities justified from the beginning of the second Intifada (September 2000) as a temporary military response to violent confrontations and attacks on Israeli civilians, is evolving into a more permanent system of control that is steadily reducing the space available for Palestinian growth and movement for the benefit of the increasing Israeli settler population."
Onceinawhile, fair enough. For now, I'd ask you to finish the rest of the points of the GA review (or discuss them in case you don't agree). The NPOV question is important, so maybe we should finish other points to concentrate on the possible NPOV issues, if any indication of these appears in a reasonable time. Thanks for reminding about my request. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I must have missed it, what is the source for the Fox News/Ross thing? Re "the map", there was no final map presented (only an earlier map reflecting what the Palestinian side said was the Israeli offer), the map by Ross is a map according to Ross version of events, this should be clarified (either the Ross map is not mentioned or we need to mention both maps). The idea here is not to rewrite the Camp David article according to one narrative or another, if so we can then give over more space to Taba/Clinton parameters as well (this is relevant context for the competing narratives at Camp David).Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
A general comment, when we say we look for the other side of the argument, we need to be clear which argument we are talking about, it is not a case of pulling up this or that narrative for one negotiation or one event that occurred, in the first place there are always competing narratives and the article generally points them up when these exist. More importantly, this article is mainly about the development of enclaves/bantustans over a long time period from 67 to currently so what we want is sources discussing that not the minutiae of one or other peace negotiation.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I get it, but I'm not speaking of negotiations only. Your last point about the fact that this article is mainly about the development of enclaves/bantustans over a long time period from 67 to currently so what we want is sources discussing that not the minutiae of one or other peace negotiation is precisely what I have in mind, and we agree in this respect. As I said, the factual basis is in general not disputed. What was disputed here on talk is the absence or underrepresentation of commentary that would be favourable to these events (and there certainly is such commentary, as is with the case of refuting/trying to refute the apartheid analogy). This is the commentary that I labelled as "pro-Israeli", and it's this commentary that I am waiting for. (I won't be waiting for too long, though).
Re map: as far as I can understand, Ross was referring to the "generous offer" and comparing the old map to the new one. No final map appeared because the talks failed, of course. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
For Camp David specifically, apart from Aronoff (briefly cited in the article) there is the earlier 2004 analysis, Waging Peace Israel and the Arabs, 1948-2003 by Itamar Rabinovich. Both of these (and there are others) are scholarly interpretations of what went on, not just the Ross/US version of events. If we want to make a meal out of Camp David, then the Fox News/Ross stuff is not it so either it has to go or we need an expansion with proper sourcing of all sides and not just the so called "orthodox" version.Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we would be best not getting lost down that rabbit hole. The lead section of 2000 Camp David Summit says Reports of the outcome of the summit have been described as illustrating the Rashomon effect, in which the multiple witnesses gave contradictory and self-serving interpretations.; I think that is the overall tone that the relevant section in this article should take as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I copied over that bit + refs from the Camp David article, then we only need to figure out what else we might need beyond that from the other material that follows it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
If we want to keep the Fox/Ross, then apart from it needing a source, we will need to expound further on the other POVs ie revisionist, eclectic and so on per Aranoff/Rabinovich. It would be simpler to just remove the interview material which gives undue preference to that particular POV (orthodox). Even the percentage ref is problematic because the sides did not calculate %'s the same way (they still don't).Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The source for the interview is here: [7]. Unfortunately can't find the Fox News interview.
That's really not RS, is it? "HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct? ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.HUME: Right." Seriously? I can cherry pick, too:) We need a scholarly interpretation of this interview or at least a third party, if one can be found. If it is notable, some commentator will have picked up on it, somewhere, let me see if I can find something.Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Then the day after that, a third party review that includes a Palestinian response disputing the Ross/US version of events, Hassan Abdel Rahman, the Palestinian representative in Washington since 1994, at a forum sponsored by the U.S. Institute for Peace:
Some in this town say, 'Well, the Palestinians deserve it. They brought it onto themselves, because they were offered a very generous deal in Camp David, and they rejected it.' And this lie has been perpetuated so often in this town to the point where it has become a fact or appears to be a fact,"
As for the expansion, I would like to see the implementation to see if what you propose is any improvement, though in my opinion, the balance is more or less preserved. The problem is, if we remove the orthodox viewpoint, I see it as giving undue weight to the revisionist opinions (which, as the name suggests, are not necessarily the mainstream ones). If there are three, instead of two viewpoints, we should include the third one if it has enough prominence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Aranoff gives the nod to the third school of interpretation, the eclectic. The revisionist view is attributed to Malley/Agha, not to Carter who is talking about the subsequent Clinton parameters not Camp David. There is a fourth "school" attributed to Shlomo Ben Ami, a bridge between orthodox and eclectic. So our version is presently POV in favor of Ross/US(Clinton) version (the orthodox).Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: do you have a source explaining the historiography in this way – i.e. the four schools? It would be a good addition at the main Camp David Summit article. We could then summarize it here, bringing out the relevant excerpt relating to the enclaves for each of the four positions. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
It's in Aranoff, already cited in the article (previously and again in the bit I copied over from Camp David, ref needs fixing up for consistency). Under the heading "Schools of Interpretation" (he makes use of Rabinovich 4 schools framework (I have this, too) for his take on it). I will see if it can be broken out in the way you suggest.Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The only mention of bantustan/enclave/contiguity and such in Aronoff is the sentence we already had in the article to begin with, viz "He (Barak) calls the revisionist charge that he offered noncontiguous bantustans "one of the most embarrassing lies to have emerged from Camp David." The principal details of the 4 schools are little to do with this and I don't really see how we are adding value to this article by including yet more of the "orthodox" position than was in it already. It kind of feels as if we are casting around for "pro Israeli" things to put in the article and while I have no objection to that it needs to be on topic.Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I echo the sentiment that the best course of action for the article would be to populate it with more neutral and mainstream scholarly depictions of the enclaves. This would be an improvement over the article’s current state: a collection of cherry picked sources that were chosen because they happened to use the term “bantustan” somewhere.Drsmoo (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
We added a bunch of them during the months of discussion that we had before, do you have any more? Happy to add them if you do. The cherry picking argument was made previously and quite rightly dismissed, 50 years worth of "bantustan" refs is not cherry picking, its a trend.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t recall it being dismissed in any substantial way. Do you mean dismissed by the editors who did the Cherry-picking? Certainly it hasn’t dismissed by the parties who’ve said this article is non neutral. Also, clearly there are sources that have made that analogy, however, contrary to what you’ve written previously, it isn’t the common name. The overuse of the non common name, resulting from cherry picking from the smaller and less neutral pool of sources that use the term, is why the article is in its current non npov state. Drsmoo (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any pertinent sources? As for the rest, you have a short memory, go back and look at the lengthy discussions on these matters, bantustan is an altname. What do you mean by overuse, metrics please? Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: Just to show you the current environment on this page haha. Regarding metrics, Palestinian enclaves is used exponentially more often on both JSTOR and Google Scholar when compared with Palestinian Bantustans.
'
JSTOR
Google Scholar
"Palestinian enclaves"
112
501
"Palestinian bantustans"
19
80
Palestinian enclaves
2,810
18,500
Palestinian bantustans
724
4,080
"Palestinian enclave"
77
284
"Palestinian bantustan"
39
115
Palestinian enclave
2,945
16,000
Palestinian bantustan
509
4,070
However, in this article, "Bantustan" is found 118 times, while "enclave" is found only 58 times. This is a complete inversion of usage among scholarly texts, and reflective of the POV and cherry-picked nature of the article. Drsmoo (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
A couple of quick clarifications. Bantustan is found only 47 times in the main article, and the remaining usage is in the footnotes. A frequent function of the footnote quotations is to provide clear support for any sentence which might require it, so it is natural that there are more footnote quotations using the term bantustan than there are for enclave. Secondly your statistics above do not reflect the many months of discussion on the relative frequency of these terms, which carefully parsed the actual scholarly usage. Your statistics don't do it justice - the versions in quotations used an infrequent version for bantustan usage ("Palestinian bantustan(s)" is not that common as the adjective Palestinian is usually deemed unnecessary from the context) and the versions without quotations greatly overstate the Palestinian enclave(s) numbers (enclave is too generic a word; many of the articles in the non-quotation-marks enclave searches you reference above do not relate to this topic). Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no objection to changing some usage of the word bantustan to enclave where that works. Of course, it would be even better if you would produce some of the scholarly sources you are referring to containing the words Palestinian enclaves and we could include those. In all of the prior discussions we repeatedly asked for these to be produced and none were, for months on end.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The stats show what they show (I was able to reproduce these), but these mean little alone. I mean, the article name reflects the prevalence of the term, but I have only seen two articles that we could call scholarly that would support the viewpoint. Please paste the links/citations to the relevant sources for consideration here and stop quarreling with each other. I need the former, not the latter.
As for changing bantustans to enclaves... so long as we don't refer to the areas as bantustans only or enclaves only, and so far as we don't distort the quotes, I am in general OK with that, so you may proceed with these changes. The sources are more important, however. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
NPOV RFC
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
I mostly agree with @Drsmoo notion I think the article is unbalanced and hence I propose to start RFC to hear community input from uninvolved editors mostly who doesn't usually operate in this area about whatever this article meets WP:NPOV policy and if not what should be done to fix it. I of course don't need anyone approval to start such RFC but I first like to hear from @Szmenderowiecki about this idea. Shrike (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Which previous discussions and which points? You need to identify the issues involved that you think have not been adequately resolved. Normally, there is a discussion containing them, I don't see one here.Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Shrike, I am sceptical of the idea of starting an RfC in order to determine whether NPOV is preserved, as this RfC would not solve the potential POV problem but simply instead say there is one, which is not the point of RfCs. The objection you and a few other editors raised, was not that the editors who were the article's main authors misrepresented the sources (or, where they did, it was not a major NPOV problem but simply not noticing the explanatory footnotes), but rather that the article presents few sources looking from the perspective which is other than critical of the Palestinian enclaves
The problem with this argument, however, is that for the duration of the article's existence, I've seen only two examples in talk that would somehow qualify as sources (and one of them is of rather dubious quality). Instead of making the RfC and using up other editors' time, I'd rather propose once again to look in the list of sources that would qualify for inclusion, as other editors and I have requested since at least 24 October (I think three weeks is more than enough to look into Google Scholar or JSTOR and paste a few of them). If you believe some extra input from the outside is needed (I will refer the article to the second reviewer anyway), you may ping whomever you consider good enough for the role, but remember about canvassing. If the problem persists for some reason, some input from WP:NPOVN might be needed, and only after that would I consider an RfC (though I believe by that time either the problem will be resolved or this GA review will be suspended).
The problem that most of the sources that discuss this issue only want to show one side of the coin and have a clear agenda so I am not sure if neutral article could be written about that. But even if accept that there are still problem with the article like WP:UNDUE quote of Carter without any counterbalance the Ross quote was removed. Shrike (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Shrike: the subject of this article has been written on in detail by some of the world's most eminent sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists. They are sourced and cited in this article. Your attempt to poison the well with your first sentence is shameful.
Thank you for acknowledging that the "other side of the coin" does not appear to have published any reliable sources. This was the case during South African apartheid too - the pro-apartheid side did not publish serious research on the good things about the regime, and academia was mostly anti-apartheid. The same is true of other academic topics today - those who are pro-climate change or anti-vaccination rarely publish serious research supporting their views, because they are not defensible outside of rhetorical podiums and political arenas. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added the Ross's quote back in citation after it being thrown out for some reason.
As for sources: we don't need the sources to be neutral, but we do need them to be usable. If you say there are no good sources for consideration, I will refer the review to the second editor because I'm done with the rest. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile has anticipated what I would have written. It is almost impossible (I've searched and searched) to find 'balancing' or positive quality literature on the enclaves/Bantustan or ghettoization precisely for the reasons given by Once. There is no dispute in sources 'pro-Israeli' or not, that the historic record of planning has consistently aimed to impose on Palestinians a fractured congeries of piecemeal zones. All sides agree that that is the geophysical and political reality that has emerged. The only significant dispute is whether those 150+ zones are to be called 'enclaves', 'bantustans' or 'ghettoes.' Enclaves won out in the RfC as 'neutral' because Bantustan evokes the apartheid analogy, while 'ghetto' creates problems in Jewish historical memory, but the POV remains exclusively in the title, nowhere else, since 'enclaves' is no less problematical, since it is widely viewed as euphemistic window-dressing. Well, consensus has determined that is to be the default term, so we stick with it. Once can't question the neutrality of the article Ghetto by noting the lack of academic sources that present in a positive light 'the other side of the coin', the perspective of the ghettoizers.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is stopping anybody from adding any material that is reliably sourced and related to the topic of the article. If you think this article is lacking some source and material, add it. You dont need an RFC for that. nableezy - 02:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Camp David, Clinton, Carter etc
The "Ross quote" is included in cite 78 and the Palestinian response in cite 79 and neither one specifically addresses any of the enclave issues. Carter is speaking of the Clinton parameters not specifically about Camp David although the two things are related, his view as a President clearly has value and he addresses the contiguity issue directly. If there is a source disputing what he says I would be interested to see it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
...As it stands now, the United States proposal would: 1) divide a Palestinian state into three separate cantons connected and divided by Jewish-only and Arab-only roads and jeopardize the a Palestinian state’s viability; 2) divide Palestinian Jerusalem into a number of unconnected islands separate from each other and from the rest of Palestine;...
If we want to relitigate these events then we ought to do it at the relevant articles rather than trying to do it in this article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Settlements
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If I were going to expand upon this part, besides the straightforward providing of up to date demographic data, then what I personally would be looking at is the kind of developments discussed here, and here in the sense that these show the current continuation of the plans described in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
If and when something is added, then by all means contest the sourcing. This is just a discussion following the GA reviewer comment "A lot has happened in the Settlements since the year 2000" Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Footnote a
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Footnote a seems out of place: how does it expand on the first sentence? Seems to me like it should be integrated to footnote b. JBchrchtalk16:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Page 76 of the Amnesty report released yesterday[8] states as follows:
As mentioned above, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that “Arab citizens of Israel” is an inclusive term that describes a number of different and primarily Arabic-speaking groups, including Muslim Arabs (this classification includes Bedouins), Christian Arabs, Druze and Circassians. According to the ICBS, at the end of 2019, the Druze population stood at approximately 145,000, while according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Circassian population totalled 4,000 people. Considering the number of those defined as Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs together, the population of Palestinian citizens of Israel amounted to around 1.8 million, that is some 20% of the total population in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem. Today, about 90% of Palestinian citizens of Israel live in 139 densely populated towns and villages in the Galilee and Triangle regions in northern Israel and the Negev/Naqab region in the south. The remaining 10% live in “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Ramla, Lod, Jaffa and Acre. As will be seen below, this has been the result of deliberate policies by the government of Israel to segregate Palestinian citizens of Israel into enclaves as part of the wider goal of ensuring the Jewish settlement and control of as much of Israel’s territory as possible.
Can anyone see where the "deliberate policies by the government of Israel to segregate Palestinian citizens of Israel into enclaves" are sourced in the report? This is obviously a very different thing from the legally-enforced segregation in the West Bank, as all Israeli citizens have equal freedom of movement.
Could you please copy/repost your post to the Palestinian citizens of Israel talk page at the bottom, the 1.8million seem to tally with those we have been looking at there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course I0m a digital numbskull but has anyone else had the problem I have, using a laptop in a pub which when I google the report and call up the full pdf yields only the Arabic version, and resolutely refuses to allow me to access the Enbglish document? Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC).
Once's link works, but the mystery remains as to why the site google gives if you search for it namely here, which is the English page only gives you the Arab text. A google misdirection?Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
True. I had tried that. Inside the dropbox is Arabic. The scroll down tab to the right doesn't work, and Arabic remains the default choice and cannot be changed. It is extremely odd, since the page link states that it is 'en. Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
This tired slipshod language, even in sources, has never made much sense. Here it intoduces the views of Meron Benvenisti. I don't think anyone familiar with his life and curriculum could call him anything other than a liberal in political terms, which however has no purchase in terms of Israeli politics. I think that kind of descriptive cliché pointy, as if any criticism of the occupation must be grounded in leftwing attitudes, rather than a broad culture of democratic sensitivity to human rights, which is not 'leftist'. Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
'Leftist'/'rightist' descriptions, when not explicitly endorsed by the subject's known record but rather established by reflex newspaper opinionizing by third parties, should be dropped from articles, particularly if the person whose views are described has a wikibio. I.e., numerous papers will describe anyone opposing the occupation as a 'leftist', and anyone justifying it as a 'rightist', regardless of context. This is unencyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
No practiced writer or editor follows sources obsequiously. We exercise judgment in selecting what has encyclopedic cogency, ideally. That is just Korn's corn: I see the epithet 'leftist' anytime a journalist is required to mention a view critical of, in this case, Israel. I for one have never seen anything identifiably 'leftist' left in Israel, let alone abroad in so-called 'left-wing' parties. The term is a polemical buzzword to alert the reader that what follows is suspect. Benvenisti was not a 'leftist' but a liberal, and to confuse the two is to succumb to a known 'American' talkshow/Republican cliché confusing the two (merging the traditions associated with Karl Marx with those that flow from John Stuart Mill).Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The label "Israeli left" is just a convenient way to describe a certain political stance and the people which profess it. It's not some kind of innate characteristic. You may think that he's not a true leftist but for the reader it's convenient as it gives some context using familiar terms. Anyway, it doesn't matter too much. Alaexis¿question?18:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
My impression is that "Israeli left" is frequently used as shorthand for Israeli revisionist historians, e.g. the New Historians. I think it would be WP:OR to reject the descriptor if it's used by RS on the basis that editors think it's inaccurate for a specific historian – since that would inherently involve a judgement/assessment of an individual's views by wiki editors. However, I think there may be a MOS:JARGON case for avoiding "Israeli left", if Nishidani's argument is that it's a term which carries a connotation/association that would be understood by those familiar with the literature/field, but which a layperson would not get. What would you suggest as an alternative phrasing? Jr8825 • Talk18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(a)Many researchers and writers from the Israeli left used it in the early 2000s,[31] (b)for example with Meron Benvenisti referring in 2004 to the territorial, political and economic fragmentation model being pursued by the Israeli government.[32]-
(a)Reflects the source:
As the closure of the West Bank and Gaza intensified, researchers and political writers from the Israeli left used the term ‘bantustanization’ to describe the process to describe the process that the Territories had undergone.
(b) is WP:OR when it writes 'for example’ because it illustrates (a) by citing Meron Benvenisti here (see also here )who is not mentioned in these contexts as a member of the Israeli left, irrelevant to any assessmewnt of his judgment, but as the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem (the most common denominator in google books). His presumed place on the Israeli political spectrum is immaterial to his views. Calling him a leftist means using a universal descriptor that cancels the fact he was a Zionist, liberal or leftist as one wishes,Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Unbalanced tag
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
This article somewhat ignores the Israeli viewpoint, according which:
The Israeli-Palestinian peace-process was never fully realized for several reasons:
The outbreak of Second Intifada, suicide attacks, and the rise of radical Islamist militant groups
The Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007 showed that an Israeli retreat does not necessarily bring peace and prosperity to the region - exactly the opposite - it led to thousands of rocket attacks against Israeli citizens. The PLO no longer represents all Palestinians.
Vague statements such as "The "islands" first took official form as Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord. This arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; however, no such transfers were made." seems to skip these points. Tombah (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Simply adding unbalanced or neutrality tags to numerous well-established Israel-Palestine conflict articles without very specific reasons for doing so is not at all constructive. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I sincerely hope there are very good reasons for contesting the neutrality of an article that has been through GA review and had a very large number of eyes on it firstly in its creation and then as GA. So far I see no such reasons, what I see is opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Such aimless tagging itself has often served a merely tactical function: to signpost to readers that an article is unreliable overall. As Self notes, this one has undergone serious external scrutiny so one needs strong grounds for tagging, which in any case, should focus on specifics, and not be generic. The hasbara rubbish posted above as an objection is immaterial to the topic: bantustanization is not linked to some failure in the peace process, since the processes described have persisted, and thickened before and through the peace process period, which died a decade and a half ago, after which Bantustanization became even more intense. Political talking points, hasbara or spin from Palestinians is the kind of stuff we should be avoiding. Encyclopedic articles must privilege what is known to have happened over POVs. Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
You need sources demonstrating a connection between topics, not personal opinions. You also need to have attempted to correct any issues. Since neither of those things are here, I am removing the tag. This article also has gone through GA review, and no such issue of imbalance was ever demonstrated. nableezy - 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Need map of Areas A and B
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
We have File:Oslo II Accord map of Area A and B.jpg (caption: "Area A and B under the Oslo II Accord"), which is "Official map of the first phase of the "Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement", Areas A and B (with C being defined as the rest of the West Bank)" according to the Oslo II Accord page. But all I see on it are a ton of individual islands, not any explicitly identified "Area A" or "Area B". And the image itself is so small in resolution as to make the text on it useless. Can someone who actually knows what the two areas actually comprise make a map like File:Allon Plan.svg that illustrates them? DMacks (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
1) The light red / dark red is confusing – Area C should be a very different color
2) It doesn’t have a source and it doesn’t match with the official map that DMacks links to above. To answer DMacks’ question, on the official map, brown is Area A and yellow is Area B. I believe some parts of Area B were converted into Area A over time, but don’t have a source for it.
FWIW, the distinction between Area A and Area B has limited relevance in practice.
Thanks for your (plural) explanations! I agree that this map is what I had in mind but the choice of color (contrasting vs similar) is at odds with the described relationships of A and B (similar, part of one stage of process) vs C (a separate later stage). DMacks (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality Dispute
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
This article reads like a white paper from a Palestinian rights organization - it appears to be primarily premised on the idea that the situation it's describing should not exist. While I'm personally sympathetic to that argument, it's not at all consistent with WP:NPOV. The neutrality of the article has been repeatedly disputed here nn the talk page and dismissed without convincing arguments. Factual accuracy does not make an article automatically NPOV, nor does the inclusion of some skeptical or moderated voices, and being granted GA status doesn't ban editors from disputing its neutrality. I have added a neutrality dispute template to the top of the article, and it should not be removed until consensus is demonstrated directly. GeoEvan (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the tag. This article has remained substantially stable since it was promoted to GA almost two years ago. Consensus can change, but any change would need to be clearly demonstrated. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Once beat me to it. GeoEvan, you need to support an NPOV tag with an explanation of why you believe it is in violation. It is not enough to merely restate that you think it is in violation. Zerotalk03:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I did give a summary of what the problem with the article is - it's a bit of a stretch to remove the tag before even engaging in further discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list all the things wrong with this almost entirely POV article right now, so I guess I'll have to throw in the towel, but I remind you again that there are several other headings not far above mine on this talk page also disputing the article's neutrality. That is not at all what I would call a stable consensus. GeoEvan (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The most recent one I can see was 16 months ago by a now-banned user. If it was unbalanced, someone would have brought a source showing a different mainstream point of view not appropriately represented in the article. That hasn’t happened.
Almost everything in this conflict is debated, and those “uncomfortable” topics (on both sides) which cannot be credibly debated face efforts to downplay them. This is one of those latter topics. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The world desperately needs an accurate, objective, source of information on the enclaves right now. The following statement is included as fact when it comes from the co-founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). “The consequences of the creation of these fragmented Palestinian areas has been studied widely, and has been shown to have had a "devastating impact on the economy, social networks, [and] the provision of basic services such as healthcare and education.”(k) 2600:6C46:547F:E920:60F4:6C92:4D63:802D (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
That's from a journal, and judging from the rest of this article, the statement appears well founded. Do you have any source that contradicts it? Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Trump peace plan map in the lead?
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Trump peace plan map should be taken out of the lead and the only image there should be the map of the existing situation. It's more appropriate to put the Trump map in the actual section that talks about it, since it's just one proposal out of many. Evaporation123 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It is the only US-sponsored peace plan which had an official map showing the enclaves. Putting it side by side with the Oslo map provides a useful understanding to readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
How about putting the Trump peace plan map below the Oslo map, and noting in the caption that it is the only US peace plan that had an official map? Otherwise, the average reader might not understand why that specific map is in the lead region Evaporation123 (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
Alt text added throughout Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
