Talk:Palestinian enclaves/Archive 2

LRB article from 3 weeks ago
Very well written article at:

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

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


 * I posted that on the Israel talk page, the Apartheid section, they weren't impressed, wonder why.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will take a look when I have time. Bookmarked. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thrall is the most objective, unpolemical but intensely realist analyst of the I/P realities we have today. That article teases out all of the equivocations that inflect the discourse and shows what a shambles these fine distinctions many sources make really are. The essence of his article is in two remarks:
 * "It is not difficult to make the case that Israel’s actions in the West Bank amount to apartheid. Israelis and Palestinians in the same territory are subject to two different legal systems. They are tried in different courts, one military, one civilian, for the same crime committed on the same street. Jews in the West Bank, both Israeli citizens and non-citizens who are eligible as Jews to immigrate, enjoy most of the same rights and protections as Israelis in the rest of the country. Palestinians are subject to military rule and are denied freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement and even the right not to be detained indefinitely without trial. The discrimination is not just national – by Israelis against Palestinians who lack citizenship – but ethnic, by Jews against Palestinian subjects and citizens alike. While Jews in the West Bank, citizens or not, are tried in Israeli civil courts, Israeli citizens who are Palestinian can be sent to military courts. A 2014 report by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the largest and oldest human rights group in the country, noted that ‘since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens or residents of Israel … no judgment was found in which the request of an Arab citizen to transfer his case from a military court to a court in Israel was accepted.’"
 * "millions of Palestinians continue to be deprived of basic civil rights and subjected to military rule. With the exception of those six months in 1966-67, this has been the reality for the majority of Palestinians living under Israeli control for the entire history of the state. South Africa’s apartheid lasted 46 years. Israel’s is at 72, and counting."
 * In short, it is no longer a radical, leftwing marginal POV to state what has long been obvious. As he shows, the apartheid strain in Zionism is rooted in the 'left'-Zionist tradition, which indeed started the apartheid separatist settlement of Palestinian territories. Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've only one objection to what he writes. I.e.
 * "It is not difficult to make the case that Israel’s actions in the West Bank amount to apartheid."
 * Clearly Thrall is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. And that's to the good, since it would be tragic for an acute mind to waste his time trying to wrangle some realism and respect for the current scholarly consensus from the chronic defensive POV protectionism so entrenched here.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I have to clean up my desk now as I accidentally took a gulp of water before reading your last paragraph...
 * I also thought the following was very insightful: A Palestinian in Ramallah ostensibly lives in one of the 165 Palestinian Authority-governed enclaves that together make up less than 40 per cent of the West Bank. But she, too, is subject to a single Israeli authority, not a separate West Bank regime... Zulat, a new think tank headed by the former chair of the liberal Zionist Meretz party, Zehava Gal-On, published a report entitled ‘Whitewashing Apartheid’. In a section on the consequences of de jure annexation it performed a whitewash of its own, arguing that apartheid in the West Bank is currently practised not by Israel but by a separate regime: ‘Even if we annex only one square metre, the state of Israel will be relinquishing its democratic pretensions and abandoning its 53-year declared intention to end the conflict, reach an agreed settlement with the Palestinians and cease ruling over them.’ Even annexation, however, ‘does not necessarily make Israel an apartheid state but rather preserves it as a state operating a regime with apartheid characteristics in the occupied territories’. By this standard, apartheid South Africa was a democracy – like all democracies, an imperfect one – operating a regime with apartheid characteristics in the townships and Bantustans. Those Bantustans, incidentally, had their own flags, anthems, civil servants, parliaments, elections and a limited degree of autonomy not unlike that of the Palestinian Authority.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Drink tea rather than water (fish fuck in that, as the boozers of my youth would have said) when reading stuff fueled by ample slurps of endless cuppas. There's only one thing I dissent from in your copy and paste:surely 'Zulat' as a name,. in that context should be 'Zulut'? Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When I posted it, the response was "a criticism is not a fact", I guess that must be the preferred method for dealing with awkward facts, just dismiss it as "criticism" and the people positing them as "critics".Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the comment above from Selfstudier is an elegant explanation as to the sensitivity around the "critics" language we have been discussing at this article; we should not use it to undermine the use of the term in Wikipedia's voice. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll just remind you of WP:ASSERT. Noting that a comparison is critical - which is not only common sense but how it is described in sources - is not taking a side on the matter, nor is it "undermining" the validity of that criticism. The idea that we have to assert as fact something because you and two other editors strongly believe it to be true is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. This is what myself,, and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, and which, unfortunately, has been waved off by the three of you by insisting that you are right, and your edits reflect WP:TRUTH. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV and frankly comes off as POV pushing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 'gang of three' have read several dozen sources and actually edited the page, as opposed to kibitzing repetitively on minutiae on the talk page. Shrike habitually drops a one-liner on talk pages, a vote, but rarely if ever engages in a logical analysis of texts and inferences, or what his interlocutors say in response. That is their right, but I can see little palpably cogent in any remark he has made here. Your remark above ignores the fact that all thought is intrinsically critical, and that critical thinking will be, ineludibly, part and parcel of any interpretation, pro or con. To try to swerve the lead into some POV that suggests analysts of the West bank fragmentation are 'critics' is to push an innuendo that subjectifies the analytical work done, and implies that it bears primarily a negative or hostile thrust. Well, no. Even a Zionist planner develops his models by critical thinking which will accept or dismiss or refine other proposals according to what, in their lights, seems to be a viable policy option. Many Israeli politicians were 'critics' of the various Allon, and Sharon proposals, such as Shimon Peres and Teddy Kollek. The problem here is not pushing some POV, but in getting POV pushers to grasp the history of the topic, and assess carefully, if they read them at all, the mass of sources adduced to throw light on the topic. I for one asked you to read up on the references, and you pleaded lack of time, if I recall correctly. But you have used a huge swathe of time to argufy on the talk page. Your personalizing our divergences in the caricature above is gratuitous.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Brevity in talk page comments is a positive, not a negative. "Critics" isn't innuendo, it's a fact reported in reliable sources that the bantustan comparison is typically drawn by critics, bar a few isolated instances of Israeli politicians using the term in another context nearly half a century ago. Contrary to your repeated claims, you are not the only one informed on the subject; I presented you with a NYT article aptly summarizing the debate over the term and calling the comparison one typically raised by critics, and you dismissed it out of hand in favor of a book by Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic and one of those critics as if somehow he is authoritative but the NYT is "too biased" to offer an objective take on the matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was trying to explain the thought process.Your response felt like an attack, which misrepresented the nuanced discussion we have been having. We have been building an understanding of each other, building on our different perspectives, and I thought it would be helpful to provide more color. Now I feel that outreach has been thrown back in my face. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the thought process. And it is flawed. Please see my explanation above. If you see my comment as an "attack," then I regret that because I think we can achieve improvements through collaboration. But on the other hand, I didn't exactly find Selfstudier's remark "elegant," to be honest I found it a bit belligerent. If there's something wrong with how I'm interpreting the arguments above, I'd be happy to hear a clarification, but it sounds like the concern over noting something is a criticism (which is, in fact, a criticism), is that it is "diminishing it" and it is preferable to present this criticism as an objective truth, because you believe there's lots of evidence behind it. If I'm wrong, that would be the greatest news in the world, because debating against that line of argument--which is not compliant with NPOV--is not something I look forward to over the next few weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How do I get myself on the list of critics? That's a place I definitely want to be. Is a sps acceptable?Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor. For the nth time, you are just chatting. It's intensely repetitive, unresponsive, unfocused and boring. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to engage with your comment because I think it is moving us forward - you have explained your thinking clearly. Just as you think my thought process is flawed, I believe the opposite to be true. To illustrate, there are three long form versions of our respective positions here (I have extrapolated them for effect):
 * 1. The enclaves are frequently referred to as bantustans.
 * 2. The enclaves are frequently referred to as bantustans because they are similar to the puppet-enclaves in South Africa
 * 3. The enclaves are frequently referred to as bantustans by critics of Israel, particularly by those who wish to paint Israel as an apartheid state
 * I believe you consider 1 and 3 to be true, and you are not sure about 2 but assume that it is open to debate. As a result you think 1 needs qualification. Am I summarizing your position correctly? If so, then you need to show that there really is a debate around 2. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not disputed that "bantustans" is not an analogy that has been drawn in reliable sources. I do not know if frequently is an appropriate phrase. It is enough to say that the analogy has been drawn. On point #2, you have inadvertently illustrated the problem yet again. This is not "each one thinks the other is wrong so they both are wrong." I'm not here to debate whether or not something is true for the sake of the article. WP:FORUM. We are here to debate what reliable sources say and how to present it in the article compliant with policy. It is obvious that there is debate on this subject, and we have already determined by consensus that the phrase "Palestinian bantustans" is not a widely accepted term that satisfies WP:POVNAME. Reliable sources like the NYT have attributed the comparison to critics of Israel, because it is obviously a critical comparison. That is not a comment on their motivations or the validity of that criticism, it is an acknowledgement that a certain critic exists and comes from a certain side in a debate. It is disingenuous to claim there is no debate byu citing published works by participants in that debate who hold that view and acting as if that's the only voice on the subject. WP:CHERRYPICKING. Nishidani dismisses this as white noise and "chatter," which I can only interpret as a indifference to facts and policy, and contrary viewpoints. If you are seriously interested in collaboration,, I'm open to that, it's time to move the direction of the debate towards what actually matters here, which means acknowledge prior consensus on collateral issues to closed discussions and relying on what the sources have said, and not getting into ideological debates about which side is correct. We summarize disputes, we don't engage in them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with most of what you wrote. Please substantiate "It is obvious that there is debate on this subject" with sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I just provided a source, the NYT, and others are available in this page. 2) The burden is not on me to establish that a controversial view is not widely accepted, the burden is on you to show that it is. 3) This last point, #2, was already argued in the prior discussion and rejected by consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich thinks you need scholarly rs, not some throwaway comment in an NYT article about something else entirely. You must be quite desperate I would say. I remember you pulling out some old NYT article in support of some nonsense position on the Hamas Israeli ceasefire and trying to argue that it merited the same weight as more than half a dozen more recent scholarly sources contradicting it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Times article reads: But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” — could close the door to a viable state, forcing Israel to choose between granting Palestinians citizenship and leaving them in an apartheid like second-class status indefinitely. Your idea that this summary of the debate constitutes a "throwaway" comment is flatly false. Not only that, but you are still not understanding that the burden is on you if you want to claim a view is unanimous, and that is not illustrated by only presenting scholarly sources agreeing with your point of view. You need to present mainstream, objective, and unopinionated sources consistently using this phrase, and you have repeatedly failed to do so, in the last discussion and this one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per above, I am happy for us to follow the NYT language as you propose: "apartheid like second-class status" in the lead. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly so. The burden is on all of us to support our positions with sources. We agreed a while back to prefer scholarly sources. Now I am absolutely fine with abandoning that principle as the number of sources available in support of "our" position will rise exponentially in that case. So are we agreed?Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is language that appeals to you from the NYT article that is not currently covered, I am fine with including it, including the section you noted, but you can't pick and choose language you favor and omit points you don't. And Selfstudier, you are still not understanding how WP:ONUS works. No, that does not mean only one of us needs to show sources. It means that if you want to claim a view is widespread, you need to show evidence of that widespread use in non-opinionated sources. That means that you can show major news organizations, books, reports, and scholarly sources from all sides of the spectrum unanimously and consistently referring to the subject in that manner. A sweeping claim requires substantial sourcing. We have not even gotten close to that, and that's why the title was rejected in the last discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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


 * (a) Norman Finkelstein is ‘a fired university professor who has a notorious reputation for bias on Israel-related matters’ Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (it was pointed out Finkelstein wasn’t fired. He has no reputation for 'bias' - as opposded to writing analytic monographs on bias in I/P reportage, being something of a factual record obsessive.)


 * (b), you have presented sources like books from Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic with an openly anti-Israel agenda, Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (It was pointed out that he has recently had his work published by the University of California Press and it is widely acclaimed as a exemplary piece of forensic historiography, proof he is not ‘discredited). I replied:'Why do you persist? I noted that by your own comments you know nothing about Norman Finkelstein, and you keep repeating the trash dumped on him by pseudomedia.’ Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

4 days later, insouciant to the disproof of his claim, Wikieditor returns to the point.
 * (c) . . a book by Norman Finkelstein, a discredited academic.’ Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This has happened multiple times. Levivich is quite a close reader normally, and I think I have some claim to the same pertinacity, however above, this evening, we talked at cross purposes even over the simplest semantics of plain English. So, without apportioning blame to any 'side', I think it fair to infer that a state of exhaustion, or a precipitate of attrition, has come to rule this roost, and that the sensible thing is to have all participants desist, take a break, do other things, and, when the (bull)dust has settled, return to the page and re-examine the issues again. Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Norman Finkelstein is not a professor at any major American university. He was previously a professor at De Paul University in Illinois, until he was denied tenure and removed from the university over a row over plagiarism with Alan Dershowitz, another high-profile professor. Finkelstein's strong and sharply negative views on Israel are noted by the ADL and his "inflammatory rhetoric" has been observed in reviews of his work and career.
 * Nishidani, the next time you want to publish a screed like this and call for a "cooling down," you better double-check your sources. I'd also suggest toning down your persistent claims that somehow you're the only one who's well-read on the subject, an ironic claim as you downplay biases in clearly opinionated sources (Finkelstein) and presume bias in widely respected and objective ones (NYT). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note: even as you call for "calm," you are utilizing the page title to suggest that another editor is "irrational." I am editing the title to indicate a neutral discussion on Norman Finkelstein as a source, which is apparently what your focus is here. What I can't fix is the lack of self awareness. I suggest you consider if calling another editor "irrational" really serves the ends of "calming things down." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please desist- This endless chat is disruptive, when not attritional. It is by way a well-known tactic in negotiations by one party to that geopolitical area, observed by Kissinger in his memoirs, and analysed in books and articles. I might actually write an article on it. And please don't tell me to read sources when you  begged off reading all those listed on the article, all of which the actual composing editors read thoroughly.  Nishidani (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Those arguments were rejected as not supported by consensus for the "bantustans" comparison being either widespread or unanimous. Apparently we're all idiots. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the best course of action would be to do an rfc and solicit feedback from as many unaffiliated editors as possible regarding how to structure the lede and article. Drsmoo (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to do so. I think we will get a clearer outcome if we continue some of the constructive threads we have had in recent days. For it to continue working we all need to be respectful of each others' sensitivities. I have found Wikieditor to be thoughtful and constructive when dealt with cordially, as is Levivich. And I am confident that we can get somewhere with Levivich’s source-based bottom up assessment. But we all need to commit to listening to each other – and to try to evolve our position and our words based on what we hear. Repeating things that we have already heard the counterarguments to, without acknowledging those counter-arguments, will take us in circles not onwards and upwards. Onceinawhile (talk)
 * Amen — that's a commitment I'm willing to make. Levivich harass/hound 21:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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


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


 * 1) Etymology (needs a rewrite)


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


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


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


 * 4) Analysis/Commentary - or similar. A large section, detailing normative discussions (judgement-based, relating to relative norms, morals/ethics) of the enclaves.
 * 4.1) Impact on the peace process: where I'd like to see an examination of how it is widely (universally?) considered by experts to have damaged the peace process by severely impacting the prospects of a two-state solution, and emphasis on just how significant territorial fragmentation has been.


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

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


 * I have been following it to some extent, not exactly but somewhat, in a way. I'm just about to get to Oslo, after that things are simpler because the Palestinians are recognized politically. You will doubtless appreciate there is quite a bit of interplay between different aspects, it is not so easy to divide things up neatly. One thing I found interesting was the way the settlement planning drove the peace proposals (and likely why none of them worked). That pattern reoccurs even after Oslo starts (Netanyahu).Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good start. Some kind of random thoughts:
 * I agree about having a history section that lays out the chronology (neutrally, without analysis). I'm not sure exactly how that history should be broken up (what are the major events/developments, what are the major dividing lines in terms of dates), but I think we could look at the sources and see what they treat as the major events or dates. Obviously everybody includes '67 and Oslo... what else? We could list short timelines for the various sources and see where they overlap (I bet there is a lot of overlap, i.e., different sources with the same major events/dates/etc.)
 * Same w/r/t key issues: what are the key issues exactly, and how are they organized? I see the "history" section of the article as the "just the facts", and "key issues" would be the thematic presentation that contains analysis. We could look at the sources and see what the "key issues" are. I don't think "contiguity" is one of them: that's not a "key issue", that's the issue: it's all about physical and non-physical contiguity, or the lack thereof, in other words, "fragmentation", the term used in the occupation article. (I still kind of view this article as the spin-off of the Fragmentation section of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article.) I think the key issues we'll find in the sources are things like settlements, roads, fences, walls, electricity, water, etc. (but that's my impression not yet having done a careful analysis of the sources).
 * "Geography" is a section I think most sources address and so should we: a description of the geographical layout of Palestinian enclaves and the West Bank in general, and how that geography relates to the enclaves or enclavization. I'm not sure if that's a "key issue" or if we should have some kind of "geography" lvl 2 section. Again I'd suggest looking to the sources to see how/where they present geography.
 * "Plans for fragmentation" v. actual fragmentation: I'm not sure that the sources present fragmentation or enclavization or enclaves as just something that is part of a peace plan, as opposed to a reality that already exists, as opposed to both. I think we should be careful about whether we are presenting "Palestinian enclaves" as an idea or as a reality or a mixture. Just a general comment as we move forward. Levivich harass/hound 18:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The changes made to the introductory paragraphs since the post RfC version are shown here. I don't understand some of the other changes, but perhaps we can explain them all here and if we can't reach an agreement we can have another RfC. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are "turning down the temperature" by reverting others and introducing as an alternative title a name that was specifically rejected by consensus, content that was not in the article previously. Rather than criticizing others and making accusations of edit-warring, perhaps you should dial back your most recent edit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Onceinawhile. I agree on condition that we revert back to the post RfC first para version. It's defective in prioritizing the rarer archipelago over the common 'Bantustan' and 'popular' should be replaced by 'common' since we are misleading people if they are to get the impression 'Bantustan' is a political, academic description, not an analogy widely known out there in the general reading public-Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you per MOS:BOLDSYN, but I think if we depart from the consensus version selectively we will be back into tug-of-war.
 * I didn't realize that Wikieditor is now arguing to expunge the bantustan synonym altogether, as when I was last at this page three days ago, there was no hint of such a suggestion and he and I had been talking for a number of days.
 * would you mind letting me know what has changed? The argument that the name in the article "was specifically rejected by consensus" seems new to me, given the discussion was only about the title.


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

Changes to the lead since the consensus version
Looking through the changes shown here, I see the following primary changes:

1. Archipelago reference moved after bantustan reference
 * Agree.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Not in version: [Proposal to expunge references to Bantustan altogether]
 * That violates WP:Lead summary style. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per wp:lead and consistency with sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is self evident by the article content.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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


 * You can I think safely assume no consensus around "bantustan", a majority of the points. The discussion has been going nowhere and I see little prospect for any change in that regard. Most of the other things are I think, fairly inconsequential, some are due to it being Palestine, not just WB, not all plans are US-Israeli, that sort of thing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In theory that's correct, but with the lead under assault with doubts as to the propriety of so many words, expressions, data, and hence requiring refs, the ideal can only be approached when this article assumed some stability.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an incredibly ineffective way to develop consensus around wording. You should be presenting different versions of the sentence under dispute, and you just restored a version of the article that is the most problematic.
 * There is a overt effort at this page to 1) present the bantustan analogy as if it is an explicit truth, rather than a criticism, and to 2) attribute its usage to a wider audience than the sources support. None of you have responded to these specific objections and are instead hurling constant accusations of edit-warring, disruption, etc., even as you contradict the prior consensus on the issue of whether or not "West Bank Bantustans" was a widely used term. The consensus was not limited to the title -- the vast majority of editors saw it as unsupported by the majority of sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to "present different versions of the sentence under dispute" if you prefer. I will be happy to engage. My last comment prior to today was three days ago – I would be interested in your views on these two questions. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The first of your questions is legitimate -- not all critics of the enclaves do so by calling them bantustans. However, the phrasing Critics of the enclave proposals often refer to them as bantustans, comparing them to . .. etc. does not necessarily mean all critics call them bantustans. As to the second part of your comment, the answer is that all comparisons to bantustans are criticisms. The notion that a such a comparison has been used in "neutral" or "generous" manner is simply doesn't ring true with the sources or common sense, frankly. I have not seen any of the instance syou referenced where bantustans is supposedly a neutral comparison. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don’t believe that Moshe Dayan or Ariel Sharon’s uses of the term were in a critical sense? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote attributed to Moshe Dayan was purportedly made in 1967 -- I stand corrected, and clearly there are limited instances, reportedly, of this phrase being used unironically. However, I don't believe that's reflective of modern usage of the term. I cannot find Sharon explicitly using the term bantustan; I did find he's credited with proposing "autonomous enclaves," whatever that means. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for this. Re Sharon, Ha'aretz reported: "According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict." Our article currently clarifies: "When d'Alema, at a private dinner he hosted for Israelis in Jerusalem in late April 2003, mentioned his recollection of Sharon's Bantustan views, one Israeli countered by suggesting that his recall must be an interpretation, rather than a fact. d'Alema replied that that the words he gave were 'a precise quotation of your prime minister.' Another Israeli guest present at the dinner deeply invpolved in cultivating Israeli-South African relations, confirmed that 'whenever he happened to encounter Sharon, he would be interrogated at length about the history of the protectorates and their structures.'." Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the underlying accusation here is that the enclaves proposed in the mid 20th century were intentionally designed based on the bantustan model. Maybe that's possible. But remember, much of this article is dedicated to modern proposals, and the lead references modern usage of the term. I will concede I was wrong on my earlier point about it never being used in a non-critical sense, as apparently it's possible it was. However, I think we should be more focused on the modern trend, especially because the lead currently says the term is used "by way of" the modern Israel-Apartheid analogy, which is undoubtedly intended as a criticism (something noted in the first sentence of that page). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am ok with this. Shall we move to agreeing a specific form of words? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Critics of the modern enclave proposals have likened them (blue link to Apartheid analogy) to the bantustans of Apartheid South Africa set aside for black inhabitants. However, usage of the term "bantustans" to describe the areas has also been traced back to the 1960s including by Israeli military leader and politician Moshe Dayan, who reportedly suggested bantustans as an explicit model for the Palestinian enclaves. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Given the size of this I assume you are referring to what might fit into the main body, and then we deal with the lead summary afterwards?
 * I don't particularly like "Critics of the modern enclave proposals have likened them...", because this is more than just likening; it is frequently used as the actual name (many of our sources state this explicitly).
 * As a way of shortcutting this I would be ok with a version of what was proposed by Drsmoo this morning.
 * This would help by adding "frequently" or "often" (which we have many sources confirming) and the "typically by critics" formulation deals with the point that this is not always used in that way. So we could replace it with: "The entities are often referred to as bantustans, typically by critics,..." Onceinawhile (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you want to add a form of this to the "Name" section of the article (it could be merged into the existing second paragraph)? Once we have agreed how that looks, then we can move to the question of how to refer to it in the lead?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This was just my crack at summarizing the term for the lead -- if you think it's more fit for the body, I suppose that's fine. I just think that the current tone/wording of the sentence is not encyclopedic. "By way of," "popular comparison," is just not language I think should be used. Drsmoo's phrasing, IMO, was more direct and appropriate for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There were never a consensus version the article was constantly challenged for its serious POV problems and they still have not been solved -Shrike (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit was disruptive. You failed to pay attention to due process. Onceinawhile endeavoured to stop the chronic editwarring by going back to a version that had some temporal stability after the RfC, and opened up a discussion. So we start from scratch, and wait until some agreement on minimal terms is achieved. So stop just barging in, and upsetting the mediation.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , please note we are now having a constructive discussion here. Your last contribution was on 15 Jan, the exact day of the post-RfC version which then remained stable for the next two weeks. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This was just my crack at summarizing the term for the lead -- if you think it's more fit for the body, I suppose that's fine. I just think that the current tone/wording of the sentence is not encyclopedic. "By way of," "popular comparison," is just not language I think should be used. Drsmoo's phrasing, IMO, was more direct and appropriate for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There were never a consensus version the article was constantly challenged for its serious POV problems and they still have not been solved -Shrike (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit was disruptive. You failed to pay attention to due process. Onceinawhile endeavoured to stop the chronic editwarring by going back to a version that had some temporal stability after the RfC, and opened up a discussion. So we start from scratch, and wait until some agreement on minimal terms is achieved. So stop just barging in, and upsetting the mediation.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , please note we are now having a constructive discussion here. Your last contribution was on 15 Jan, the exact day of the post-RfC version which then remained stable for the next two weeks. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi I have tried to implement your proposal in the main body, with my amends including Drsmoo’s wording. What do you think? Once agreed we can then decide how to deal with the lead? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On body: I think the way it's plugged in is a bit awkward, so I'd suggest re-wording the two sentences that follow. But it's off to a good start.
 * This is the sentence I have a problem with in the lead: By way of the popular comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as the West Bank bantustans. I'd like to see this one fixed up with more encyclopedic language and noting that modern usage of the term is typically a critique; I think that a compromise between one of yours, Nishidani's, and Drsmoo's versions would be fine. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am fine with both your suggestions here. Do you want to make the edits you had in mind to the wording in the name section? I think we can address your points on the lead sentence by borrowing from whatever we land on in the name section. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to the paragraph we just discussed. I think they're pretty minimal but should be effective. Maybe this paragraph can serve as a template for whatever 1-2 sentence summary we include in the lead (since that sentence will basically be a summary of this section). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "The entities (,criticized across the board) are often referred to as bantustans, typically by critics;" Reason, the criticism of (enclaves, cantons, whatever) is broad based from all over. It is not only people using bantustan that are being critical, nearly every single source we have is expressing criticism of these "spaces". I fail to see why bantustan critics are being singled out, well, I do see, but its not NPOV. The fact that some people use the word bantustan pejoratively is a different thing.Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, building on the above (sorry for leaving for a couple of days):
 * Your version says: Critics of the enclave models frequently describe the areas as "bantusans," a reference to the enclaves in Apartheid South Africa set aside for black inhabitants. The name "bantustan" is considered to have economic and political implications that imply a lack of meaningful sovereignty and is used pejoratively.
 * My main concern is with the first clause which starts "Critics of the enclave models"; it should not single out bantustans. They are only referred to as enclaves by critics too. Find me a source where they are described as enclaves by a "supporter". The phrase "Critics of the enclave models" suggests that "Supporters of the enclave models" exist. You may say that there are supporters - surely all those US and Israeli politicians who have proposed these arrangements over the years? But from Sharon to Netanyahu, and from Kissinger to Kushner, none of them have "supported the enclave models", they have simply pretended that they weren't enclave models at all. The Camp David proposals were famously criticized for non-contiguity, but they were never made public and the Israeli and American party line was to deny it. The Trump Plan, the first time this has ever been made public, had this to say: Transportation corridors included in this Vision create transportation contiguity that greatly reduces the need for checkpoints and greatly enhances the mobility and quality of life and commerce for the Palestinian people. Self-determination is the hallmark of a nation. This Vision is intended to maximize self-determination, while taking all relevant factors into account. Sovereignty is an amorphous concept that has evolved over time. With growing interdependence, each nation chooses to interact with other nations by entering into agreements that set parameters essential to each nation. The notion that sovereignty is a static and consistently defined term has been an unnecessary stumbling block in past negotiations. Pragmatic and operational concerns that effect security and prosperity are what is most important. So they are admitting it and hiding it in equal measure. So we must not imply there are "Supporters of the enclave models", by creating a category called "Critics of the enclave models"
 * What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this article is, ostensibly, about the potential outcome of various peace proposals, it is important to note that the majority of sources are ascribing the analogy's use to critics of the proposals themselves. For example "what Oslo critics have called "apartheid-style Bantustans", "Palestinian critics of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations see the cause of national independence as so badly compromised that "Palestine" will become, or has become, not a state-in-the-making but a collection of bantustans", "the Trump administration’s Peace to Prosperity plan that proposes the annexation and division of significant parts of the West Bank, which has led to several prominent Israelis, Israeli human rights organizations, and other critics condemning the plan and comparing it to South African apartheid and bantustans","Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"), each surrounded by Israeli territory." So the line could be something akin to "Critics of various peace proposals have described the potential outcome as akin to Bantustans." However, this analogy shouldn't be in the lead at all. Currently this article is only posing as being about about the end-result of various peace proposals or potential annexations. In reality, it is a POV coat rack of every mention of the word Bantustans that could be found to fit in this context, comically ignoring the overwhelming majority of sources which do not touch the analogy at all. Drsmoo (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, the ever mysterious collection of sources that when we ask to see them, can never be produced. That's what's comical.Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's funny, all but one of these sources were posted in the article when the original critics mention was included, and I was criticized for including too many sources. Could you please provide an example of a time when someone asked to see sources and I didn't produce them? Perhaps you were referring to the majority of sources that don't use the Bantustan analogy at all. In which case every aggregator of scholarly information has exponentially more results for "Palestinian Enclaves" than any permutation of Palestinian/West Bank Bantustans. Yes this article is at present not actually about anything other than a POV coat rack. Drsmoo (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because the burden is on us to prove something false as opposed to you to prove something true. And we totally didn't already provide an article from the pre-eminent paper in the world summarizing the debate. See no sources, hear no sources, speak no sources, am I right? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not "us" against "them". We are trying to collaborate. Drsmoo, you have made two unsubstantiated claims about "majority of sources" above. Please substantiate them.
 * Wikieditor, you are referring to the NYT I believe ("But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” — could close the door to a viable state, forcing Israel to choose between granting Palestinians citizenship and leaving them in an apartheid like second-class status indefinitely.") (1) They do not use the word enclaves or any other word we use in this article; (2) they write in neutral voice "leaving them in an apartheid like second-class status indefinitely". It seems you are cherrypicking from this source, which you call the pre-eminent paper in the world, or are you happy for us to follow their apartheid phrasing? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources of the ones I had listed throughout the talk page and article that point to the analogy being used by critics. I was pointing out that those critics are not of the enclaves, as you claimed, but primarily the sources are describing critics of the peace proposals. Drsmoo (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so you are describing the majority of sources which you have selected, which is interesting. But it is not “the majority of [all] sources”.
 * I would appreciate if you or Wikieditor would respond to the points in my comment above at 21:33, 11 February.Onceinawhile (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was the majority of all sources in the universe. The subject was how to incorporate the multiple sources attributing usage of the analogy to critics. You and Wikieditor discussed "Critics of the enclave models", and in fairness, my original edit was "typically by critics", which is overly vague. I was responding that most of the relevant sources describe the critics as not being critics of specifically the enclaves themselves, but as being critics of various peace plans/proposals (ie "Oslo critics" or "Palestinian critics of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations) and presenting the proposed enclaves as a negative consequence of those proposals. Drsmoo (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

NYT again

 * Here is how the world press reported the appointment of a new ICC prosecutor:
 * 1) British Human Rights Lawyer Elected Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
 * 2) Britain's Karim Khan Elected International Criminal Court Prosecutor
 * 3) Britain's Karim Khan Elected International Criminal Court Prosecutor
 * 4) British human rights lawyer elected as new ICC prosecutor
 * 5) Karim Khan: UK lawyer elected chief prosecutor at ICC
 * 6) British barrister Karim Khan elected ICC's new chief prosecutor and they are all like that
 * while the NYT reports:
 * 'International Court, Battered by Critics, Elects Briton as New Prosecutor,'
 * I'm beginning to notice a pattern here, lol Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That it consistently skews I/P reportage is well known, as is the fact that its main area reporters are committed Zionists. Given the quality of direct Israeli sources for nearly everything they cover, I think it preferable to  use Haaretz, which in this case simply reprinted Reuters' neutral 'Britain's Karim Khan Elected International Criminal Court,', and the NYT attempt to spin neutral reportage into an assertion of implicit bias again means that they showcase the word 'critics', which in this case refers to official spokesmen from banana-republics, the Trump administration, Israel etc., countries that have systematically militated against any institutional en deavour to lend  executive force to international law. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the NYT offers a deeper analysis of a complex issue than other papers, you paint it as bias? It further noted that “the court is widely perceived from within as too bureaucratic, too inflexible and lacking in leadership and accountability.’’ Sounds like an appropriate and nuanced observation., you call anyone who doesn't align with your rigid views on this issue, which you make no bones about on this and other talk pages, a "committed zionist" or "Israelo-centric" even as you prop up known ideologues like Norman Finkelstein as reliable and free of bias. This pathetically obvious POV-pushing is what has been an obstacle to progress on this page, and 's calls for collaboration ring hollow by conveniently and repeatedly ignore this obvious and persistent problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you ping me once more on a page I evidently have bookmarked, I won't reply. And of course if you make WP:AGF personal comments about my putative 'rigid views' idem. And don't mention or characterize thinkers whose works you have evidently never read, but know only through rumour, like Finkelstein. That lurk only suggests you talk here about things you've never troubled to study. This impression, for which there is admitted evidence in your posts, means that people who do research are no longer obliged to take your comments seriously. Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The balance of reliable sources (required for NPOV) is not the NYT, that's the point. Finkelstein is a rs, same as his mirror image, Dershowitz, both need attribution if it is something out of the ordinary.Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz know nothing about the area's history - that has been definitely shown by scholars who have parsed his books and shown where he lifted his ideas. and therefore Finkelstein, a specialist in the narratives and history of the conflict (whose works have never be shown to falsify or misrepresent sources) should not be taken as mirroring Dershowitz. One is a reliable source for facts, the other a reliable source for his own views.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to distinguish between their books and themselves.Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This should not even be regarded as a remotely serious discussion about sources. Norman Finkelstein has been noted as a sharply partisan critic of Israel in objective reviews and by reputation. Alan Dershowitz—someone who no one on this page has proposed using as a source—can probably be described similarly as partisan or having a certain viewpoint. But no credible editor would claim Finkelstein is objective or a "specialist." This misuse of sources has bled into the article itself and lead to the weasel worded attribution that is still in the lead, maintained only by edit warring and contrary to prior consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz is at the very least, every bit as "bad" as Finkelstein, only on the right side of the fence instead of the left. I am a credible editor and I would have no trouble citing a Finkelstein work such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict except that then I would have to read pages and pages of bunk from pro Israeli editors.Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My presumption is that everyone here is credible and serious, but applying such an obvious double standard detracts from that credibility. We can't say that "pro-Israel" material is "bunk" but Finkelstein is "no problem." Finkelstein may be useful in certain respects, but he is an opinionated source. A source like Alan Dershowitz, perceived as being on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, is similarly limited by the fact that it is an opinionated source. But both are typically thoroughly researched, and that is where the usefulness comes in. But to pretend one is superior to the other because editors agree with the views of A and not B is flatly ridiculous, and that's where conversations on this page go repeatedly. Let's also distinguish between a perceived bias from an objective source, like the NYT, and the bias that we should all be able to acknowledge from sources that engage in open advocacy. The NYT is an objective source. No paper is free from bias, but there is no indication that that bias has made them unusable in I/P areas. Far from it. Editors from both sides are often unhappy with the NYT's supposed anti-Israel/pro-Israel slant. That's probably the best indication for neutrality one can think of in this area. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pontificating again on someone of whose works, writings, life and opinions you have no knowledge, for example that many prominent Palestinians, esp. the Ramallah elite  are disgusted by his criticism of them as 'hopelessly corrupt and inept', as are many Palestinian critics of Israel. It appears you haven't read Dershowitz either. If Finkelstein cannot be cited, neither can 30 years of annual reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'tselem, whose conclusions are identical, in most respects, to his own, except that they do not go into the political science of the narrative game. That is why no Zionist critic has ever made even a minor dint in his scholarly reputation by factual challenge. So please desist from this embarrassing use of this workplace as a forum for expressing your uninformed opinions, or outrageous assertions 'the NYTs is an objective source' (Nice to go to bed with a laugh. They even write reports (Jodi Rudoren) from up north posted as written from 'Golan Heights, Israel', when not writing them from the NYT Jerusalem office, which is stolen 'enemy property' left momen tarily by its Palestinian owners in  1948). Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not worth engaging with. I've made my point about the sources. You are free to disagree.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Any source that is not part of a small group of fringe academics ardently critical of Israel is somehow composed of "Zionists" and other co-collaborators with Israel, including the NYT, and not to be trusted. But anyone who express views critical of Israel is held on a pedestal and accorded weight far beyond what any source or their own credibility warrant. This poor reasoning has influenced this article for far too long. I think it's time to tone it down. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You nailed it, Wikieditor19920. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosha Forever (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean, his colors to the mast, I agree with you. If you mean anything else, probably I don't agree with you or any of your 8 contributions to Wikipedia. I shouldn't judge you by that or by the company you keep, I can't help it, so sorry.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the kind words, . Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor appears to be engaging in a game of attrition, and now we have the usual numbers weighing in. One has seen this innumerable times. It is the fall-back strategy of POV-obsessive or obsessing editors.


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


 * So when, as here I asked succintly an extremely disputive talk page editor to read the sources, rather than endlessly argufy on  the talk page,
 * "Read all the 127 sources used before making any kind of accusation, charge of a generalized nature. Those who wrote it have so. So far objections seem to stem from complaints about phrasing and adjectives in a line or two in the lead, and do not indicate much familiarity with the materials used for this article.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (271 words)"


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


 * "The onus is not on everyone else to read a library's worth of books before they can make content. I've been closely following the relevant discussions since shortly after this article was created, and you repeatedly failed to establish that this view is 'widely held,' nor has Onceinawhile provided any rationale to support that an analogism to apartheid practices is somehow not critical. Etc etc etc etc. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (1,527 words))"
 * Actually, editors aspiring to be taken seriously on an article's composition and the talk page are under an obligation to read what the sources used state, otherwise their views are null and void by definition, especially if they openly admit they don't care to familiarize themselves with the evidential basis of what is being discussed. And indeed, as in the case of the Finkelstein kerfuffle, keep bludgeoning on about a person with the same clichés even after their nescience about his scholarship has been exposed.
 * I think it reasonable to infer that anything the said editor argues for can be justly answered with silence, since they admit to unfamiliarity with the basic sources for the article, and assert that familiarity with just the talk page comments is sufficient for forming a judgement on an article’s content. Wikieditor is not using any known policy consensus rule. The style is that of attrition to wear out opposition to his views, which he boasts do not require familiarity with the article sources. When I see this WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT tacticism, like Antaeus, I, for one, just strengthen my toehold on the ground sources, and ignore the crossfire. So it won't work. But eventually, this approach will be reportable.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's reportable already.Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the endless blathering about how you're the only one who's read the sources is becoming more and more ridiculous. To you, any source that's not part of a fringe groups of academics who are vehemently anti-Israel are always "Zionists" and somehow co-collaborators with Israel and not to be trusted. These conspiratorial delusions have infected this page long enough, as have your false accusations against me and others that they somehow aren't familiar with the source material, even as you lie about sources (such as Finkelstein not having an anti-Israel ideology). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, why do you keep insisting that I either haven't read the sources, or are suggesting reading the sources are not necessary? You are repeatedly taking comments out of context. You repeatedly brag that you are far more well-read than everyone here, and therefore your weighing in on any matter reigns supreme. I reminded you that not everyone needs to have read the same amount as you to edit portions of the page, especially on narrow issues. This is precisely true with the "bantustans analaogy," which, I will remind you again, was rejected by consensus as a title or satisfying POVNAME, despite you repeatedly claiming otherwise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All and sundry have a different word for these spaces and I trust you are not actually denying that bantustan is one of them, along with enclave, canton and the rest (Dugard used all three of those in a single paragraph). Perhaps instead of merely focusing on the name, it might be better to focus instead on the usual (where, who, what, when, why and how) of these spaces. FWIW.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT tris. Talk page attritional disruption

(1) 4 February

"@Nishidani: I respect that you are well-versed in the subject and the knowledge you bring to the table. But you have to stop presenting yourself as the only person interested in or knowledgeable about the subject matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)"

I replied:
 * Please don't keep pinging me when you know I am on the page.

I wrote: "few around here who actually write articles in depth''', read everything they can muster"

Meaning, for this article, Onceinawhile, Selfstudier and yes, myself.

You interpret this as ".you have to stop presenting yourself as the only person interested in or knowledgeable about the subject matter."

"I.e. you deliberately skewed my remark to imply a general statement about several I/P editors referred only to myself. If that is how you read even talk pages, while admitting you are not interested in reading the source documentation, then I for one don't think there's any point in carrying on this conversation. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)"

(2) 7 February "If, as you admit, you are unwilling to read all the sources mustered here, or any, perhaps, then you are wasting everyone's time. This is not twitter. Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)"

(3) 11 February Wikieditor repeats the skewing of positions he was shown to engage in "I for one asked you to read up on the references, and you pleaded lack of time, if I recall correctly. But you have used a huge swathe of time to argufy on the talk page. Your personalizing our divergences in the caricature above is gratuitous.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)"

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

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

And returns again to the same harping within hours.

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

I warned him to desist

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

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

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

This, as with the Finkelstein trashing, is profoundly disruptive, and makes no sense unless it is a tactic to divert discussion, personalize it, disrupt it. The strategy is obvious: to unnerve those opposed to much of his views by exhaustive provocation. I think it needs administrative attention. Can someone ping an admin on this to keep an eye on such shenanigans. No one can focus when such repetitive refusal to  grasp the core issues, and continued divagations, of a personal nature, disrupt the talk page. If this persists, nothing is going to be resolved for sheer lack of intelligent, concentrated focus on real article issues. Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous., clearly not only do you read novels cover to cover, you write them, on Wikipedia talk pages. Let's open an RfC and be done with it. Then we can all accept the outcome of how to word the lead and move on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An RfC will raise the temperature, because it encourages voting rather than discussion. And voting on controversial topics encourages sock-puppets, who are usually more aggressive because their accounts are "throw-aways". I think we will be more successful by following the classical advice festina lente. The issues we are working through are subtle and nuanced, and shouting matches will not resolve them. If you didn't like my 10-in-1 approach, then Levivich's one-by-one approach is the next best option. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, an RfC will introduce a wider array of opinions into an issue where we've reached an impasse. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Francis Boyle
The entire notion of "bantustan" is being pushed based on sourcing to Francis Boyle, a professor who is zealously anti-Israel and claimed that America's intent to "steal all of the oil" in the Middle East is fueling (no pun intended) its continued support for Israel. Boyle is a biased, opinionated source not representative of the swath of the public that editors here are insisting. This is not a suitable source for the lead, particularly for the claim that the views he expresses are "widely held" or "frequently mentioned." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Be so kind as to explain what "the entire notion of bantustan" means. And why you think that the article is based solely on Boyle. There are are many references to "bantustan" in the article not just Boyle. "Biased and opinionated", assuming that it is true, is not a sufficient reason to disqualify rs. Nor is being anti-Israel(or anti-anyone else). In any case, the lead will ultimately reflect what is in the article body (still unfinished as has been pointed out by myself and others) and not what you personally think it ought to contain. At the moment the lead remains at the version that was established by the RM closer post RFC and I do not think we should be making random changes to it absent a clear cut consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly inappropriate and biased sourcing. 11Fox11 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. Neutral_point_of_view.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Boyle is not even in the lede; his source is citing the second half of a footnote discussing alternatives to Bantustan such as Palutustan and (Boyle’s) Jewistan. Both can be removed from the footnote as far as I am concerned. I have added it above at ; to avoid edit wars it would be helpful if you and other interested editors could provide your views on the other proposed lead changes there as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Boyle is in the lead. The location of the footnote is in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is getting tiresome: you are 'correcting' Onceinawhile for saying exactly what your 'correction' states. Don't skim read. Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Source quotes
Peteet 2016:

Abdallah 2016:

Ghandour-Demiri 2016:

Discussion

 * ? Levivich harass/hound 01:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you about enclaves being a current feature (not just a proposed/future one). I had a quick search for fragmentation (with the aim of finding sources describing it as an ongoing/incomplete process) and one of the first things I came across was an article from 2006 in the Forced Migration Review by David Shearer (then head of UN humanitarian affairs in Jerusalem). Shearer described it as an extant situation 14 years ago – but also a "system", a "closure regime" in the process of being consolidated. A combination of checkpoints, physical obstacles and a permit system has cut the West Bank into three distinct areas – in addition to East Jerusalem. Within these areas, sub-enclaves have been created, isolating many Palestinian communities, restricting their access to services and stifling commerce. ... The closure system has become steadily more sophisticated and has increasingly channelled Palestinian traffic onto smaller, local roads... As the closure system becomes more institutionalised it has a myriad of other impacts... Like Peteet, he also touches upon the significance of the decline of Palestinian labour in Israel proper during the Second Intifada for the economy of these areas.
 * I'd summarise it as: The Palestinian enclaves are the non-contiguous parts of the Palestinian territories in which Palestinians live. Some scholars describe the areas of the occupied West Bank as an "archipelago" in order to distinguish these from more isolated enclaves, such as the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure whether I've got the archipelago summary right, it seems to be a term which is used to describe both Area C of the West Bank and Areas A & B? The next sentences will summarise how enclaves are created/institutionalised by Israeli policy. Then there'll be a summary of their development and then of their impact. Do any sources describe the enclaves as a finished product, rather than a continually developing situation? Jr8825  •  Talk  02:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One cannot write a lead without summarizing the existing source base (something which we originally did (WP:LEAD), and are now challenged for doing so). Choosing just two or three texts to do so is pointy. Let me tweak what we have taking into account the above suggestions.
 * "The Palestinian enclaves, (also figuratively described as the Palestine Archipelago) are existing or proposed areas in the West Bank designated by Israel for Palestinians."
 * 'Existing' overcomes the noted flaw in 'proposed'.
 * I elide both 'US/Israeli plans' because since 'existing' has to be introduced, these enclaves were formed long before any peace plan by Israel or the US, (b) many countries are involved in the infinite series of peace plans, and the the only US/Israeli peace plan that has envisaged jointly the enclavization of the West Bank is the 2017 Netanyahu/Trump model.
 * Idem the phrase 'to end the conflict' cannot stand because a very substantial number of important scholarly, political and analytical sources state that a unilateral plan of this type would never be feasible as a serious peace proposal or solution since no Palestinian leader would ever endorse it, and most analysts I read say this fragmentation will exacerbate the conflict rather than end it. That is why many top Israeli intelligence directors oppose that kind of plan.
 * The other problem in that opening line is that 'archipelago' can't stand, and either has to be removed, or placed after 'Bantustan'. Since 'bantustan' mentions make some bristle with horror, archipelago must go out, as, compared to 'bantustan', it is a far rarer term, (whose function here originally was to replace the B word), and be placed with Bantustan in the second sentence (alternative names summing up section 1).
 * Gentleman, this is a far more difficult thing to get historically right than has been imagined so far. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that saved me some ink. We have sources that point to enclaves going back to Allon (note g specifically, discussing Oslo and .."Though the language may have changed slightly, the same structure that has characterized past plans remains. The Allon plan, the WZO plan, the Begin plan, Netanyahu's "Allon Plus" plan, Barak's "generous offer," and Sharon's vision of a Palestinian state all foresaw Israeli control of significant West Bank territory, a Palestinian existence on minimal territory surrounded, divided, and, ultimately, controlled by Israel, and a Palestinian or Arab entity that would assume responsibility for internal policing and civil matters." descriptively, that is enclaves (or bantustans or canton or..) without using the word), and notes 43 and 44 in the article body. None of these plans were ever strictly official but all were implemented anyway to a greater or lesser degree. Trump's scheme is stated by multiple sources to be nothing more than a version of Allon. The line by line approach to editing the lead seems like a poor method (in this instance, because the lead does not properly reflect the article content to begin with). Once's 10 at a time is better and better still would be an attempt based on all relevant sourcing, to understand the story here. If once there is an agreement on the story, then writing it is a simpler exercise. Wikieditor homes in on critics of "bantustan" but omits the critics of enclaves (Peteet and there are several others, not exactly praising these spaces). In any case, it is just a distraction, storm in a teacup.Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jr: In re to your question at the end, my impression is that most everyone describes these a continually developing situation, and they talk generally about four phases in history (which I think are pretty commonly used dividing lines for this conflict): (1) pre-67 [and pre-48, and pre-17] according to some, (2) 67 (6-day war) to late-80s (1st intifada)/early 90s (Oslo) according to some, (3) 1st intifada/Olso to 2000 (2nd intifada)/2002 (the wall) according to everyone, and (4) post-2000 or post-2002 (the wall) according to everyone. I've seen some very recent (last few years) sources say "it's done" in the sense that the settlements are so built up now, and the infrastructure (eg roads, walls) so entrenched, and the enclaves so fragmented, that there is no possibility of a Palestinian state because there is no contiguous territory to support it (e.g., a Palestinian state physically could not supply water, or security, to its own territory, because it's so fragmented), meaning that a one-state solution or Palestinian assimilation into Israel is the only viable option, which these sources seem to present as Israel's plan all along, a plan of intentional enclavization or fragmentation, which is now complete. I think this viewpoint (both the intentional plan, and that the plan is complete) is a significant minority viewpoint that should be in the article, but not the mainstream view that we should say in wikivoice. Levivich harass/hound 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The POMEPS source (The Project on Middle East Political Science) in the article has a good selection of recent (2020) scholarly articles discussing the so called "one state reality". As for intention, the interested reader can look at the sourcing and judge for themselves, I don't think anyone has gone as far as to actually call it "intentional", have they? Still, one thing does lead to another.Selfstudier (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Books/book chapters

 * 1) *Review:
 * 2) *Review:
 * 3) *Earlier article version:
 * 1) *Earlier article version:
 * 1) *Earlier article version:
 * 1) *Earlier article version:

Journal articles

 * 1) (PDF)

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

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

I think it may be a good idea to use this source list and the discussion at Talk:Palestinian enclaves to create a To Do list which we can work on together. What practical things can be done relatively quickly? What are the longer-term changes that are needed? I'd greatly appreciate it if we could try and keep discussion here as succinct and direct much as possible, given that discussions on this talk page tend to end up in polemic. Jr8825 •  Talk  15:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The book reviews of Abdallah et al are pointless: we have the book, and a scant page or two commenting on it hasn't any real weight.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be difficult but there are several matters in hand not yet dealt with and perhaps we ought to take care of those first? Like Once's difference list above Talk:Palestinian_enclaves#Changes_to_the_lead_since_the_consensus_version, contributed to by himself, me, Nishidani and no-one else. Then there is the not yet concluded discussion with Wikieditor.Selfstudier (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason no one else has participated in the discussion opened by Onceinawhile is because it is extremely difficult to follow, both in formatting and the writing itself. If we could open an RfC with the three different versions of the page that have existed in the last two weeks and have a vote/discussion to resolve it, then we can all move on however it turns out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if we can't manage the simple things I doubt we'll manage a ToDo list.Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are certainly a lot of things you probably want to do with the article that I'm sure I'd have no problem with. My preference is to focus on improving article leads and fixing language/neutrality/concision other issues. On this article, the manner in which the "bantustans" analogy is presented strikes me as problematic for language/neutrality issues. I've proposed a version of the sentence that I think would fix it, but it's been repeatedly rejected by you, Onceinawhile, and Selfstudier. Maybe for good reason. Or maybe a broader group of editors might see something we're not seeing. So an RfC would help. And if I'm wrong and the RfC rejects any changes, then it'll be a moot issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would be keen to finish the discussion with you on the "critics" / "criticism" question. We left off when the discussion got sidetracked three days ago. You had written "It is obvious that there is debate on this subject"; what I had wanted to explain is that I am not aware of this debate (around whether the West Bank situation has meaningful similarities to the bantustan arrangement in South Africa). Since this is a question of fact - is there a debate or isn't there - perhaps we should try to bottom the question out? It will help narrow the difference between your thought process on the wider question (19:22, 11 February) and mine (21:05, 11 February). Onceinawhile (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you assuming that the apartheid analogy is met with universal acceptance? I already provided a source from the NYT noting that this is a comparison drawn by critics of Israel. It is a mistake to 1) ignore this source and 2) assume that a criticism or a charged comparison is universally accepted without any evidence. I am also frankly getting annoyed by you repeatedly insisting that it is everyone else's job to show that a view isn't widely held. This is a disingenuous way of flipping the burden; it is on you to show a view is widely held by establishing consistent usage in mainstream sources. I'm really not buying the "collaborative" act -- I thought we were onto something, but you repeatedly edit-war your version of the article back into place, wrongly asserting that there is "consensus" even as more editors have opposed it at this point than have agreed with it (You, Selfstudier, and Nishidani are just more willing to repeatedly edit war and bludgeon this page). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am trying my best here; I am not going to allow myself to get drawn in to a fight again. So collaboration is the only way forward, even with those unwilling to assume good faith. For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the current version of the lead - but it is the only one which has shown any semblance of stability. I don't like your RfC structure, but I will try to work with it. On your comments above, I do not believe "the apartheid analogy is met with universal acceptance", nor do I believe "the [bantustan] analogy is met with universal acceptance"; I do believe that no-one seriously debates the similarities between the West Bank situation and the South African bantustans. You seem to want me to prove a negative (i.e. that it is true that there are no such debates), despite the fact that to prove the positive should be a very easy thing to do if you are correct. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you are getting this backwards. You state I do believe that no-one seriously debates the similarities between the West Bank situation and the South African bantustans. What is the basis for this belief? Absolutely nothing but conjecture. Reliable sources attribute this to view to critics of Israel and the current situation -- you take that a step further and insist that everyone feels this way, ask me to prove everyone doesn't and still believe I'm asking you to prove a negative. This is where we are not seeing eye to eye. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate your question here. It is because in building this article over the last three months I have read perhaps 500 high quality sources of all kinds, from all perspectives. And in those 500 sources I have not seen one serious claim that the bantustan analogy is not broadly reasonable. That is very different from the apartheid claim - there are hundreds of sources who pull that apart, primarily on the basis of Palestinian citizens of Israel having technically the same rights as Jewish Israelis. So yes it's critical, but so are the terms "Climate Change" or "Terrorism" - and we don't have to caveat those terms with "often referred to by critics". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting rather annoying, please go back in the edit history and count my reverts, then count your own and confirm who it is that is edit warring and bludgeoning? My preference is to add material to the article and that is mostly what I have been doing. There IS a consensus (not permanent but temporary) that arose immediately after the RM when the RM put up a suggested version of the lead and everybody ran with that for a while and then I think you were the one that disturbed that consensus initially because you didn't approve of "popular" (the RM closer's word not "ours"). So please be careful with your allegations, they just don't stand up to scrutiny.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One place to start might be just with the first sentence, which currently reads, I do not think this statement is correct, because I do not think the sources say Palestinian enclaves are proposed areas, as opposed to existing areas.
 * To take one familiar example, Peteet 2016 (cited in the article) seems to say there are 167 enclaves that can be identified and that they were "carved" after Oslo: [Quote moved to ] So, as a place to start, is a sentence we could try to get consensus on (not just based on Peteet, but looking at all the best sources). Levivich harass/hound 23:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happy to start with this question. Note in my original version I wrote "The terms have also been used to describe Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord"; the idea being that the topic is the "non-contiguous subordinated enclaves" allocated for Palestinians, historically, today and in the future. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Abdallah 2016, pp. 6-10 (citation in the source list above) seems to agree with Peteet about when enclaves developed, but also includes Gaza as a "Palestinian enclave", not just A and B in the West Bank, and mentions Palestinian enclaves on the Israeli side of the wall: [Quote moved to ] At this point I think the first sentence should be something like "Palestinian enclaves are noncontiguous areas where Palestinians live in ..." or something like that, and I'm not sure whether it's "in the West Bank" or narrower/broader than that. But I think if we keep going like this we can get to a solid first sentence fairly quickly. Levivich harass/hound 00:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We will open Pandora's box if we try to change the scope too much; the article has always been only about the West Bank. Enclaves in the Triangle and EJ, and Gaza itself, can be mentioned, but it should only be tangential. The reason it is the WB is that the only "true" enclaves are there; the other situations are very different.
 * I am ok with the first sentence emphasizing the present, but it should also reference the future proposals because it is fundamental to the topic. The current situation was only ever supposed to be temporary, by all sides, but the Israeli and American proposals intend the enclave-nature of the arrangement to remain permanent. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will move these quotes I posted here to a new section about the lead sentence and we can go from there. Levivich harass/hound 01:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Let me illustrate.


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


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


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

So this is, surely, an inadvertent design containing selection bias against the majority of the textual evidence of RS so far, and of course would lead to a diffrerent result, one perhaps preferred by those who think that a change of name mandated a complete overhaul of the content (forgetting Shakespeare’s memorable ‘A thorn by any other name will prick the same').
 * The result was that the original bibliography was undermined of its cogency by sifting out 5/6ths of the relevant evidence (many of those remaining 87 sources also mention enclaves, but they do so in the context of nominating the word ‘bantustan’).

If however the scope is to add points ignored so far, by including East Jerusalem (Hanna Bauman) and Gaza, then it would be far simpler simply to add short sections on those entities. However that will not exclude the Bantustan analogy, since it is attested certainly for the latter. East Jerusalem is a special case, since there both Jewish settlements and the Palestinian ghettos or slums if you like, are both frequently called 'enclaves', with the distinction per Peteet that only the Palestinian enclaves are designed to be 'socio-spatial formations that similarly arrange inequality.' (2017:62)Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to mention, as it is frequently forgotten, "West Bank" usually includes East Jerusalem which itself includes that part of the West Bank annexed along with Jordanian East Jerusalem, some sources are not entirely clear on these points. Then there is the wall in that area.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, I should have specified 'EJ' as a separate entity from WB according to the Israeli POV.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledging others' points
Could we try something radical, to bring the temperature back down? A week ago we had silent consensus on the idea that we commit to listening to each other – and to try to evolve our position and our words based on what we hear. Repeating things that we have already heard the counterarguments to, without acknowledging those counter-arguments, will take us in circles not onwards and upwards. Yet here we are, still stuck in a cycle of repetition.

Perhaps we could try to implement this lofty goal? I invite all of us stuck in this argument to try to write a single paragraph below which does nothing else (including resisting the temptation to add counterarguments) other than acknowledge the primary accurate points made by those editors with whom they disagree overall. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I recognize the points that have been made about why "widely used" may be appropriate. On the surface, editors here supporting this wording have provided academic sources that have used that wording. On the surface, "widely used" is consistent with what at least some sources on the subject are saying. Without rehashing the counter-points I raised above, I think that there is a plausible case for this wording and on the surface it is not necessarily in violation of WP:V.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I recognize that it is true that the bantustan term is very frequently, in fact mostly, used in a critical sense when used in this context. I agree that the use of the word usually implies disapproval for the nature of these areas. And I am content for this critics/criticism point to be communicated in the lead, with appropriate nuancing. I agree that the NYT is a high quality and widely respected source, irrespective of my view on its usual editorial stance regarding this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk page concerns
The treatment of Wikieditor19920 in the discussion above is outrageous and sums up the attitude of superiority some users keep displaying on this page. There is nothing that makes I-P any more exceptional than the next discretionary sanctions hot potato. Everyone's input is helpful. Good judgement, a neutral mindset and strong academic skills/media literacy matter more than having read every single journal article and monograph on offer. And reading every article doesn't mean that you're automatically right or unbiased (academia is a bubble in itself). When you disagree with a user, say so once, and comment on the content, not your perception of their competence! Hammering your disagreement over and over, reiterating your refusal/inability to accept or acknowledge the possibility that others' views/interpretations of the sources might be valid and not just driven by ignorance/lack of wide reading/incompetence/POV – this is a basic failure of AGF. Wikipedia doesn't work without AGF. The WP:GASLIGHTING ("I respect your decision to continue to avoid answering the question") and lengthy echo chambers make this page utterly impenetrable, unpleasant and unproductive.

"a stunning statement, considering that the article explicitly makes that analogy." We were discussing this months ago. Jr8825 •  Talk  08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That statement is in actual example of gaslighting. It isnt the users who claim academic sources dont pass the smell test that make things toxic, because academia is a bubble, it is the users who, in a god damn encyclopedia, want to get an actual answer on the sources that are gaslighting. Thanks for this example of gaslighting.  nableezy  - 15:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your broad theme; the discussion keeps getting sidetracked and we need to stay focused on the core points. Your proposed allocation of blame is unproductive and is making the same mistake that you are accusing others of. Most tellingly, you talk about AGF, then fail to AGF in your subsequent sentence. We must stop pointing fingers, and keep focused on the content. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Good judgement, a neutral mindset and strong academic skills/media literacy matter more than having read every single journal article and monograph on offer"
 * Strong academic/reading skills means operatively that one strives to read everything relevant to a topic, and is not as you claim, unaccountably, compatible with a selective focus on just a handful of articles.  The insouciance to do so while adding huge piles of repetitive opinion on a talk page, and raising the stakes ever higher, when, as happened several times, tentative accommodation to 'concerns' were made, is classic WP:IDONTLIKETHATWP:Bludgeon behavior which is itself a violation of good faith editing. Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Im in agreement with Jr8825, personally, this is without doubt the most toxic talk page I’ve seen on Wikipedia. And it did not start recently, from its inception it has been a nest of bad faith and (among other things) malicious Holocaust analogies. Were it not for the fact that this page is so seldom viewed, action likely would have been taken a while ago. Drsmoo (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the kind words, I really don't mind it or care. A small group of editors has made progress on this page impossible, through explicit and subtle POV pushing. I think ANI is probably a better forum for the behavioral issues if they persist, and the editors know who they are. My concern is not just how things have played out on the talk page, but how they've impacted the article. Hopefully that can be resolved here soon. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Toxity' is the reflex term used of the I/P area, ergo no one edits here, and it is, as above, always blamed on those editors who appear to be out of line with official Israeli policy, notwithstanding the fact that of the hundreds of sockpuppets who have 'worked' the place over 99% do not have a 'pro-Palestinian POV'. As for toxic here. No. Extreme lengths have been gone to find a reasonable solution to a few petty qualms. The title was changed by consensus, to reflect the Israeli POV that the West Bank is sovereign Israeli territory in violation of NPOV. Editors accepted that verdict - rule compliance demands it. But to then endeavor to get one's way with every jot and tittle of the other complaints shows a failure to compromise. When the repetitive hammering became pointlessly repetitive, I analysed several flaws which I consider abuses, and documented them. That is not 'outrageous' - a term I prefer to leave in T.E. Lawrence's mouth as he approached the outskirts of Damascus in WW1 - it is an attempt to get an editor arguing against 4 others to examine the methods he uses. If you want to see a really toxic page, hell compared to the limbo we have here, read the archives of the Shakespeare Authorship Question page which a few of us eventually got to FA quality, simply because we read all the sources unlike the disrupters, who preferred to sink rational talk page analysis by a massive. ballast of opinionizing about the merits of RS.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jr8825's remarks show a certain distaste for close thorough reading, which surprises me. At Primo Levi some time back, his middle name Michele was removed, based on a discussion between 6 editors on the Italian wiki page. reverting this erasure was forbidden. I read their discussion: no editor had any familiarity with Levi or his works. They simply googled his second name and found that is was extremely rare on the web. That was sufficient to expunge his name. Well, the authoritative bio based on exhaustive archival work over a decade, documents on 4 occasions that his family gave him that second name. It took 5 days of exhausting reading, and argument to set forth the evidence and try to show on the English talk page that these objections were methodologically, even in wiki terms, invalid. The Italian rep there refused to relent, but wanted endorsement by a private foundation in Torino before acting on the evidence. So a few days of one's life  are wasted correcting an  error made by people who don't appear to be familiar with Levi's work and life. On the Italian page they are still, despite the evidence, arguing this, from 6 December to 18 February - two and a half months, because rather than read his biographers, the web doesn't state this! Such textual pertinacity in the face of an ill-grounded diffidence is absurd to demand of editors when the obvious answer is, read widely and get a command of the rules of evidence and the sources. Indeed I write this because I even went to the trouble of asking the author of his bio to confirm that his statements were based on interviews with L's family and archives. It was rejected by a spam filter, only fished back today, and the kind reply was that yes, and his name was Prim o Michele Levi. There's far more insistence round here for the etiquette of 'everyone's welcome' and should be treated with kid gloves however unwilling to follow rational norms, than respect for those who have the sitzfleisch to keep reading deeply in the face of obdurate opinionizing. Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani's one-sided diatribes are almost certainly not worth reading, and are never responsive to anything said by another editor who might disagree., , , the only way you'll be able to register your opinions without being drowned in a wall of text is by participating in the above RfC. That's how we can address the content issue. We won't be able to address the behavioral issue on this talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just note, what Nishidani waves off as "petty qualms" regarding the wording of a sentence are not petty enough to prevent him, Onceinawhile, and Selfstudier from repeatedly edit warring to undo the attempted changes, were are to properly attribute views introduced in the lead and unbold rejected titles. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Attacking other editors, encouraging non-engagement and canvassing votes. How should those editors who wish to actively collaborate with editors of opposing views react to this? Onceinawhile (talk)
 * I suppose this "canvassing" accusation is at me? If you actually read discussions and replies, you would see that all three editors I pinged have already expressed their views on this talk page repeatedly of their own volition. I am simply asking that they put their views those into the existing RfC so that they can be properly tabulated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the same logic work with ghetto? Those who use that probably criticize places that earn the monicker, but to go from there and say 'a ghetto . .according to critics' is rather odd, surely.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
I finally obtained it. The entry for Bantustans reads:


 * Also referred to as cantons or enclaves, "Bantustans" are the small areas of Palestinian habitation in the WEST BANK. These small disconnected areas are the result of several factors, among them the crisscrossing of numerous Israeli SETTLEMENTS, settler  bypass ROADS, military encampments, nature preserves, and  the  BARRIER (separation wall). Because these cantons are not contiguous, it is unlikely that a Palestinian state could be viable when (or if) the conflict ends.
 * Selfstudier (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * well done and thank you for getting hold of this. I think this could form a good base for the introduction of our article, and is consistent with 's proposal above; it starts with the current position and then bridges into whether the arrangement is expected to continue in this form once "peace" is resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I never really paid it that much attention before because I was focused on the top two choices but it seems quite possible that cantons might even be more common than an archipelago or at least as common.Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Canton, as with the Hebrew version, was an analogy with Switzerland of course, often bandied about before 1948 when the idea of a unified Palestine divided along 'racial' lines was often pondered in Zionist circles. The assumption there was a unified state. After 1967, the unified state was not an option for the usual reasons that it would imperil Israel as an ethnocracy, and that is why Switzerland was dropped for South Africa and the Bantustan model came to the fore with force, esp. with the intensity of Israeli trade and defense links (for nuclear technology) with that regime. No one wants to admit that - it is a formidably  odious comparison in political and legal terms because the WB/Gaza-Bantustan analogy were it recognized as  very strong, as it indeed is, would immediately cause Israel grave legal problems in the courts of international law and world opinion. Hence the relentless hasbara shouting whenever the quackslikeaduck conclusion emerges (as with Carter's book). It is, finally, not surprising that South African (-Israeli) Jews of great notability take the similarity as given, or imminent if the Trump nonsense was followed by annexation   i.e.,Ronnie Kasrils, John Dugard and, more recently, even the otherwise conservative Benjamin Pogrund. Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

to try to return to your central concern, could we agree that the Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is not a "critic", nor is their usage of the term bantustan here "critical"? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia provides a useful and brief definition that doesn't add much to what we already know. The quote here doesn't seem to offer any insight into its usage, and doesn't even mention the analogy to SA. I'm not saying you all pulled it out of a hat, and this is a good find by Selfstudier -- but I'm not reading it as changing the conversation much. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for this. If you would like to see the original yourself you can take an excerpt of the quote above ("military encampments, nature preserves", in inverted commas) and put it into google.
 * Do you think this is an example of a source which is "not a critic" using the term in a way that is not "critical"? I think if we could agree on this it would move us forward. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this source speaks at all on the term's usage and I would not draw any conclusions from it. Again, this is a small snippet that is useful for confirming what we largely already know. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, ok thanks. Do you agree that this is an example of a source which is "not a critic" using the term in a way that is not "critical"? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking me the same question over and over isn't going to get us anywhere. I think it's acknowledging that the term is used without providing any details as to is usage. We already have academic sources noting this term is used as a pejorative and multiple other outlets describing the term as coming from critics. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That avoids the question while appearing to answer it by using an argument you have made over and over again, something which 'isn't going to get us anywhere'.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I respect your decision to continue to avoid answering the question, even though I don’t understand it. What I am trying to get to is that we have here an example of a source which uses the term freely, and in an unqualified manner, without being anti- anything. This proves, again, that the term is not only used by critics or as a form of criticism, sometimes it is simply used as nothing more than nomenclature. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This incessant pestering to get the answer you want is not productive. Here we have a short dictionary definition in a many-thousand page volume that provides very little context or description, and you are ready to draw whatever conclusion you want from it, even though we already have academic sources noting it's a pejorative and the NYT noting it's typically used by critics. It's not using the term, it's describing the term, and doing so in a truncated manner and without so much as providing context to the supposed SA apartheid analogy that is mentioned in other sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) It is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary
 * (2) It is an encyclopedia specifically focused on the topic at hand
 * (3) The bantustan entry covers 5 full pages, with detailed description and maps
 * (4) The other sources you refer to do not state that it is always used as a pejorative, so we must not imply as such, particularly when we have concrete evidence proving otherwise
 * (5) The very fact that the encyclopedia does not feel the need to make an apartheid analogy when using the term bantustan is exactly the point I have been making for three months. I am glad we finally agree.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The term bantustans is in almost all instances associated with the SA apartheid system, so the fact that this source does not note the terms original usage shows it is incomplete. Other books on the subject have noted "Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"), each surrounded by Israeli territory." Source.. The point you have been making for months is that you personally believe in the WP:TRUTH of the matter, are unwilling to accept the sources correctly noting its usage. and would rather "read between the lines" of a short and incomplete summary than accept what other sources state explicitly in black and white. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I find this answer very disappointing. I will not continue this discussion under these circumstances. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This source is edited by partisan author we cannot use it without attribution --Shrike (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you "disappointed with," Onceinawhile? That I provided a detailed response to you asking the same question over and over? I know you think you're being "collaborative," but you're not -- badgering is belligerence, and you insisting a source means XYZ when it doesn't say XYZ, as opposed to a source that says something, is not persuasive. Another good point by Shrike -- Cheryl Rubenberg is opposed to maintaining US-Israel diplomatic relations and is a partisan activist on the subject. Now editors here react to these basic observations by claiming "Oh, well you just don't like the source!" and then respond to contrary sources like the NYT claiming it's unusable because it's too biased. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which "author" is that you are referring to, Shrike? It is of interest that this source gives an entry for Bantustan but not for enclave or canton specifically despite frequent usage of those terms in the text. This also suggests wider usage in this context than those two but that doesn't matter since the case is already proven that bantustan is widely used. And I agree with Once that there is no specific connection to SA apartheid unless a reader wants to draw that implication for themselves. Nor has the fact of pejorative usage been denied, it's in the article already, so idk what the point is going on about that all the time.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors (should) know the difference between an editor and an author.Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Shrike made a semantic error and it's clear exactly who he's referring to. there is no specific connection to SA apartheid unless a reader wants to draw that implication for themselves this is a stunning statement, considering that the article explicitly makes that analogy. Are you saying that analogizing Israel to apartheid SA is WP:SYNTH then? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You went along with said semantic error. And the article does give attribution. Each entry has a bibliography and the encyclopedia has a lengthy list of contributors. And I said what I said not what you think I said or what you would have liked me to say.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't "go along" with it, I understood that he was referring to (the late) Cheryl Rubenberg, the editor of this series, who was a vehement critic of Israel and opposed to maintaining US-Israel relations. Even a brief look at this advisory board reveals an unbelievable slant. Another advisory board member suggests that Non-Jews will be put in "mass prisons" in a public twitter post found here and has expressed similar sentiments in writing. Stephen Zune is opposed to the US backing Israel. I wouldn't trust this "encyclopedia" as far as I can throw it. This is yet another obscure work that masquerades as neutral yet presents complex issues in one-sided fashion, totally inconsistent with other objective material on this matter. This is why we look into the source material and don't just read titles and say "Gee, that sounds nice!" Stop crying foul when someone actually looks into a source you provide while simultaneously claiming bias in globally respected outlets like the NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "This is why we look into the source material"
 * The evidence, even an admission, is that you don't look into source material. You use an alien criterion to evaluate quality - i.e. is the text 'anti-Israel' an expression you never define. You are way past WP:Bludgeon's most tolerant limits on this talk page. nota bene. From now on in, anyone is justified in simply ignoring your posts.  per policy consensus does not require unanimity.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The criterion is actually well within grounds to discuss: it's called bias, and it's especially relevant when the one presenting the source claims the source is objective. That metric applies regardless of what the cause is or what the underlying predisposition might be. That's a basic part of WP:RELIABILITY and WP:NPOV. I suggest you take the time to review those policies, as well as WP:FORUM. No one cares about your views on Israel, and yet I see paragraph after paragraph of pontification from you that does nothing to further this discussion in a positive direction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that until such time as you can discredit the sources (it seems that only the RSN is left at this point), then the case for wide usage is made.Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wide usage among critics, not generally. Nothing on this page shows consistent, mainstream usage of the term "Palestinian bantustans. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting to be pointed to a source who describes these enclaves, using any name, without being critical. Some things are universally criticized by those who study them, and based on the 500+ sources I have reviewed, this topic is one of those. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding this encyclopedia, I’ve had access to it for some time. Its contents do not reflect the banality of its title. It is a valid source, but despite the title, this is an indie-published political endeavor that is unfortunately polemical through and through. It is in no way shape or form equivalent to an Oxford anthology or anything of the sort. With that said, the critics under discussion are critics of the peace negotiations and proposals, not explicitly the enclaves. This was already explained several days ago. Drsmoo (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for bringing this back to the core point with your penultimate sentence. I think this is the heart of the debate we have been having with Wikieditor19920 re use of the word critics. You may well be right that the word bantustans is primarily used by "critics of the peace negotiations and proposals" or even "critics of Israel", but we don't have any sources stating that in such an explicit way (none of the sources explain what they mean by the word critic, critical or perjorative). Onceinawhile (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course we do, for one example - "When I first saw this map, I assumed that its authors intentionally designed it to argue that the agreement imprisoned Palestinians in what Oslo critics have called "apartheid-style Bantustans," referring to the "cantons" that had enraged Arafat." Regarding which shade of the word critics is intended, I don't see the relevance to the subject of inclusion in the article, but the source makes it clear "The official map reinforced the arguments of Oslo's harshest critics, like Edward Said, who saw the agreement as a humiliating capitulation to Israeli expansionism." Drsmoo (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The statement:'the word bantustans is primarily used by "critics of the peace negotiations and proposals" is 'outrageous' unless that can be thoroughly grounded in multiplke sources. Analyze what that sentence means:
 * ":'the word bantustans is primarily used by 'critics of the peace negotiations and proposals'"
 * This implies that whoever uses 'bantustan' is intent on invalidating attempts to negotiate a peace settlement, or derailing any proposals whatsoever to end the stasis. That is an extraordinary claim, to insinuate that if you use 'bantustan' as a descriptor of the realities of Palestinian territory you are ipso facto hostile to attempts to negotiate a peace with Palestinians, by Israel/the US or any other international broker; that you are in favour of continuing a state of 'chronic war' and 'occupation'. Jeezus! Really! Flabbergasting . .  Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a Straw man. The sentence is a reflection of what reliable sources state, it is not a final wording, and the qualifier "parameters" would be suitable for any clarification necessary. The histrionics are, as usual, unnecessary. Drsmoo (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. That doesn't work. You can't dismiss a grammatical construal of the meaning of a sentence by waiving it away with a wiki flag that suggests it is irrelevant. Either you take the trouble to contest the construal, or it stands. So, please show why the meaning I indicated is not in that sentence.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This implies that whoever uses 'bantustan' is intent on invalidating attempts to negotiate a peace settlement, or derailing any proposals whatsoever to end the stasis. That is an extraordinary claim, to insinuate that if you use 'bantustan' as a descriptor of the realities of Palestinian territory you are ipso facto hostile to attempts to negotiate a peace with Palestinians, by Israel/the US or any other international broker; that you are in favour of continuing a state of 'chronic war' and 'occupation'. Jeezus! Really! Flabbergasting . .  Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a Straw man. The sentence is a reflection of what reliable sources state, it is not a final wording, and the qualifier "parameters" would be suitable for any clarification necessary. The histrionics are, as usual, unnecessary. Drsmoo (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. That doesn't work. You can't dismiss a grammatical construal of the meaning of a sentence by waiving it away with a wiki flag that suggests it is irrelevant. Either you take the trouble to contest the construal, or it stands. So, please show why the meaning I indicated is not in that sentence.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is another classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Onceinawhile states that "critics of Israel", but we don't have any sources stating that in such an explicit way (none of the sources explain what they mean by the word critic, critical or perjorative). The NYT explicitly attributed usage of the term to critics of Israel, another source on this page noted it was a pejorative, and others have used similar language. Explicitly. Onceinawhile claims that we are not clear on what "pejorative" or "criticism" means, as if dictionary definitions are not sufficient, yet tells us we must read between the lines on a 3-line entry in a polemical "encyclopedia" edited and written by partisan activists. Hm. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the NYT did not say "critics of Israel", they said "Israeli critics". What angle the NYT thinks these Israelis are criticizing is not for us to guess.
 * And that encyclopedia reference is not a "3-line entry" but a 5-page entry. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, my apologies if my quote created misunderstanding. The full line is But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” and it links to an op-ed rehashing many of the points above. But the point remains the same. The bantustans analogy is a criticism of the enclaves proposal/arrangement and is used by those critics. None of the sources establish widespread usage in mainstream public discourse. Academics who are participants in that criticism claiming the term is "widely used" does not suffice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There you go again, opinionizing without familiarizing yourself with the source, as with Finkelstein. E.g.
 * "in a polemical 'encyclopedia' edited and written by partisan activists"
 * There were over 100 academic contributors to that Encyclopedia, and any number of them are not 'partisan activists' as you claim. For example, Michael Feige taught at, Ben-Gurion University before his tragic murder, and wrote a very sympathetic account of the most extreme settlers in the West Bank.
 * Just on this, you got the page length wrong, passing off 5 pages as a wee 3 lines (meaning=I didn't look at the source), and made a preposterous caricature of over 100 scholars, from right to left of the academic commentariat (meaning, you didn't examine the list of contributors). Why do you persist in these continual irresponsible assertions without even looking at the material? Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I have all three volumes of this encyclopedia, it's extremely biased. It is is still a valid source, but you can't describe it as unbiased. For example, there is no specific article on the Maalot Massacre, and the "article" that does discuss it ("Ma-alot") is four sentences long and falsely states that Israel killed the children there. It is a polemic work published by a small independent publisher, it may be called "Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" but it is not THE encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagination. Drsmoo (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "I have all three volumes of this encyclopedia, it's extremely biased"
 * As to Ma'alot numerous contemporary reports duly muddle that. There is no excuse for an encyclopedia culpably erring on that. But I am not familiar with any encyclopedia that gets everything right. By the way the wiki article errs too: the 18 children mercilessly gunned down were killed by Ziad Rahim alone, I believe, not 'Linou'.
 * I've read the NYTs coverage of the conflict for 30 years and my natural reaction to virtually every piece of reportage is 'how astutely biased!'. And I note that that august institution only tells the reader what is really going on in the I/P area if they read or subscribe to the New York Review of Books, with its small elite audience circulation. The latrer consistently reviews academic books, numerous ones from the Israeli presses, that, I suppose, you would consider very biased. Take such reviewers of international standing as Avishai Margalit (who writes of the 'infernal machinery' of the occupation), and David  Shulman who in one of his books calls certain settler practices against the impoverished shepherds they want to herd off their rocky pastures, 'absolute evil'. So your impression of extreme bias and say, mine or those of the scholars mentioned (I could provide dozens of notable names whom no one considers extremely biased), differ. One cannot rely as Wikieditor did in echoing you, on hearsay.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is hard to avoid the impression in all these discussions that "biased" is mainly being used to mean "says things that I don't agree with". Unless a source is so biased that everyone could easily agree not to use it, then bias is not a very good reason by itself for dismissing a source. In the case of the Encyclopedia, one would need to show a large number of errors, all of them in the "wrong" direction, to dismiss such a source. The best way of balancing bias in general is by way of contradictory sourcing a remedy notable only by it's relative absence here. As one editor on RSN put it "any source that uses the term "bantustan" must be invalid because the term is critical of Israel itself, so by that circular logic, it could never be sourced to any source because any source using the term invalidates itself as a source that the term is used." Hum.Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with factually incorrect information, so in that sense, you're correct. Unfortunately, many people on Wikipedia will use a source because it is biased, so your second sentence isn't really a good barometer. Falsely claiming that Israel killed twenty two of its own children (in the four-sentence stub), is not an oopsy daisy, and no serious encyclopedia would allow that. There appears to be an impression that you have that this is some venerated and exalted encyclopedia "the encyclopedia". It's not, it's one of MANY encyclopedias, and this one happens to be published by a small indie, and also happens to be extremely biased and polemical. If you want to use it as a source, that's fine, it is a source. If you want to use it as evidence that Bantustan has been normalized into the mainstream, then no. Drsmoo (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, not going to waste my time arguing with you, we'll just go to RSN if needs be, though I think that will not in fact be necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic Drsmoo (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why, though? Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you consider "not going to waste my time arguing with you" to be cordial and constructive? Drsmoo (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I considered your response to be unhelpful and unconstructive so bought a conversation that wasn't going anywhere to an end. Thereby avoiding any more "toxicity" (whatever that is actually supposed to mean and what I was referring to when I said "Why though?")Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My post was completely factual and perfectly reasonable. Stop personally attacking editors who disagree with you. Drsmoo (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the end of this conversation as well. Bye now.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. There are times when it's not worth continuing a conversation. Remember, all we can do is lay out our points in the most persuasive means possible. Engaging in any kind of contentious back-and-forth, and even calling out behavior that isn't becoming, doesn't add to that. As long as our points are well-reasoned and clearly stated in the above RfC, then we've done all we can to persuade other users to make the content changes we've deemed necessary. The RfC is already trending in a positive direction. Don't worry about anything that will take that off track. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

10 at a time (now 11)
Once, can we not actually make some progress on this? Some of those points can be carried into the lead now, can't they? We can include a consideration of "proposed" as well, why not. Can you port the list down here so it is easier to see?Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure - copying down here (I have duplicated so as not to cause confusion with the threads above) from . I still think we should be patient before implementing any of these, to avoid edit wars restarting over the lead. Hopefully the temperature will begin to drop after this RfC has worked its way through. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Archipelago reference moved after bantustan reference
 * Agree.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

3. Bantustan reference prefaced with "Critics refer..." ==> [See RfC above, which covers this question]
 * Disagree Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree, although open to use of the word subject to my points about re not implying that it is only critics who use it and not implying that most other terms are used uncritically. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree, criticism ought in the first instance be in the names section and not just be limited to users of the word bantustan. If suitable sources exist, I prefer some sort of identifcation rather than the anonymous/throwaway "critics"Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Debolding of all alternative names ==> [See RfC above, which partially covers this question]
 * No objections, if archipelago place under bantustan Keep as to the policies mentioned (illuminating my ignorance) immediately below this comment. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:BOLDSYN suggests we should have this. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is customary to bold aka's, especially in this case where there is no clear commonname, so bantustan and probably archipelago.Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

10. Not in version: [Proposal to expunge references to Bantustan altogether] ==> [See RfC above, which covers this question]
 * That violates WP:Lead summary style. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per wp:lead and consistency with sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is self evident by the article content.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Please could those involved in the discussion confirm which of these changes you agree with? Then we can put back the ones which actually have consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile, could you reformat this so that it presents complete sentences as opposed to fragments, and doesn't overlap with the active RfC? I really would like to vote on this but I can't even figure out what's going on or what this is meant to cover. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It covers the changes that were made in the lead up to the point in time where Once reverted to the "consensus" version.(shown here) It's not really that hard, if Nishidani and I could manage it, I'm sure you can too.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a polite request. I appreciate that you put "consensus" in scare quotes for that version. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Other editors chose not to attempt consensus by this informal mechanism even though it largely covers the questions posed in the subsequent RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Peteet
Since all agree Peteet's study is a first class RS, but some doubts hang over as to the extent of editors having read it, I'll sum the paper's key points.

The comparison of the Israeli occupation to SA apartheid has a long genealogy, developed for half a century.
 * (A) POV forces

Pro The comparison grew out of an interaction between (a) growing global inequalities, (b) political activism (c) engaged scholarship and (d) the policies and practices Israel uses in the occupied Palestinian territories. Specifically it is made by (i) by political and human rights activists (ii), academics and intellectuals (iii) Palestinian civil society and (iv) Western religious organizations.

Contra Israel and its supporters.
 * "Not surprisingly, the comparison is avidly disavowed by the Israeli state and its supporters, who have long had recourse to a narrative of 'exceptionalism' that exempts it from comparison, especially with a once-pariah state such as South Africa"

In other words, the POV clash is between the state of Israel and its supporters who deny the analogy, and a large variety of activists, academics and organizations, who affirm it. The contrast is between what a state officially disavows, and what activists, analysts, interested religious groups (the Holy Land) and the Palestinians themselves assert.

Her own point of view as an ethnographer is that the facts on the ground in Palestine 'evoked those of apartheid South Africa in stark visual and experiential terms.'

Historical similarities Ideological similarities "Peteet states:'Ideological affinities can be configured into broadly similar policies and practices that governed the lives of Blacks under white rule and apartheid and Palestinians under Israeli occupation.'"
 * (B) Peteet's summary of the points of resemblance ('pronounced equivalencies' p.252:Wittgenstein's Family resemblance)s,p.255) between the two systems of control over a native population
 * Both South Africa prior to the abolition of apartheid, and Israel post-1967 in the Occupied Palestinian territories constitute examples of settler colonial states.(p.250)
 * Comparisons between the two involve similarities between the classificatory systems, ideologies, discourses and practices in SA's policy of apartheid (separation) and Israel's hafrada (separation), the latter being 'apartheid's lexical equivalent'. (p.260)
 * The classificatory system in SA, determining an hierarchy and inequalities, distinguished White from Black. Israel's occupation is premised on a strict distinction between Jews and Arabs.(p.249)
 * (1) Both states enjoyed imperial patronage (Great Britain)
 * (2) Both were outposts of Western powers.
 * (3) grew through immigration
 * (4) were established after a war
 * (5) were animated by a spirit of excluding the indigenous population from their newly constituted social worlds
 * (6) and crafted discontinuous marginal areas, for which limited sovereignty was allowed, to the excluded native populations.(p.250)
 * (7), specifically re (6) in both cases, the immigrating group took control of 87% of the available land.(p.250)Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (8)Israel and South Africa maintained close trade and diplomatic relations during the period when apartheid prevailed in the latter.(p.251) so that they share 'an ideological and historical kinship as settler societies'(p.257)
 * (9)In both cases, the effect was that the indigenous population formed a political body of resistance, the PLO and the ANC, and both formed ties of solidarity. The latter managed to demolish apartheid, the former acquiesced in Israel's policies of separation (p.251) by underwriting the Oslo Accords.
 * The policies of separation and closure regarding Palestinians make for 'sharp analogies' (p.252)
 * Separation and segregation are normative in Zionist ideology, and 'hafrada is publicly declaimed as the goal of the state of Israel. The Separation Wall message is unambiguous as 'its congruities with apartheid's separatist ethos' are 'visual and visceral' (p.252)
 * Apartheid and Israeli hafrada theorists drew upo0n 'early 20th century anthropological knowledge that classified people on the basis of physical traits such as skin co9lour and cultural concepts of tribe, ethnicity, and language' .(p.265)
 * In both imputed biological differences translate into differentiated rights (p.265>)
 * Israeli politicians ( for example Benny Begin, and Shulamit Aloni ) have recognized the comparison, arising fromk the displacement of population, the last named stating that, 'Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid'(pp.257-258)
 * Chaim Weizmann and South Africa's Prime Minister Jan Smuts were close friends who supported each other's views on the racial basis of the colonial states they were promoting, considering this (displacement of the indigenes) 'morally legitimate. (p,263)

Resources and land Law Both Palestinians and Blacks suffered from legal restrictions denying them civil and political rights. Peteet writes of these but adds:- "Pinpointing difference does not invalidate comparison as a method of inquiry'. p.255"
 * Access to, and allocation of, resources in both was determined by a racial/ethnic classification.
 * 'One of the more obvious parallels between apartheid and Israel is land policy that induced high levels of dispossession, forced migration, and population concentrations.' (p.266)
 * SA displaced 2 million blacks, penning them into Bantustans. half of the Palestinian population consists of refugees displaced to create Jewish areas of settlement.(p.266-267)
 * Both Bantustans and Palestinian enclaves are designed to allow little hope of economic growth. Immiseration and child poverty are common to both Bantustans and Gaza and the West Bank.(p.267)
 * The intent and effect of Israel's creation of Palestinian enclaves are 'commensurate in some respects to Bantustans' (p.268)
 * Law in both was pivotal in exercising domination and effecting dispossession.
 * Jewish settlers live under Israeli law as citizens. Palestinians in the OPT have a different legal status, that of non-citizens (under military law) (p.251)
 * In both brutal security regimes used violence and torture to crush resistance and dissent. ('Palestinians' encounter with the (Israeli) state revolved around its apparatus of bureaucratic management, violence, and mass incarceration' p.251)
 * In both mobility was monitored and regulated by bureaucratic procedures
 * SA's pass system for blacks is paralleled by Israel's road, permit and checkpoint systems.(p.250)
 * Both populations were subject to forcible relocation.
 * The apartheid analogy model is useful for illuminating the 'offensive' rationale behind Israel's occupation (as opposed to the official 'defensive' arguments about security) and the comparison shows up Israel's continual upstaging of international law. (p.258)
 * (C)Differences.
 * According to Peteet, whereas SA extracted labour from its black population while enforcing racial separation, Israel excludes Palestinians from its labour force, and, by massively displacing them, prefers simply not to recognize them.(pp.249)
 * Significant differences are summed up in the respective demographics and labour organization.(p.252)
 * South Africa's apartheid system met with near universal stigmatization. Zionism's 'hafrada/separation' system has 'seldom been as stigmatized'.(p.253)
 * Campus protests in the US in the 1980s rarely generated calls for 'balance', and for I inviting 'pro-apartheid speakers', for there was little if any constituency for its supporters. Campus protests against Zionism are met with calls for 'balance' and 'objectivity', with campaigns of intimidation and silencing.(p.253)Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apartheid in South Africa was defined as a crime against humanity in international law,but the Israeli instance 'highlights the ongoing trumping of international law'. (p.258)
 * An authoritative international rights lawyer and South African like John Dugardthinks the comparison inadequate in so far as, in his view, Israel's occupation 'far exceeds any similar practices inapartheid South Africa' (pp.258-259)
 * South Africa was explicit about its separatist ideology whereas Israel 'engages in an elaborate discursive subterfuge' that don't allow its policies to be understood (p.260)
 * Comparison is hampered by the 'hegemony of Zionist constructions of history' that 'dwarf' and 'mute' the Palestinian narrative of their history in Palestine.(p.254)
 * Every attempt at comparisons relating Israel to other historical or social complexes comes up against a claim of Israel's Exceptionalism, being a 'unique case' that lifts it beyond the standard orbit of critiques of states and societies' (p.254)

Discussion

 * Please sign this comment. In any debate, there are an array of forces both opposing and supporting a certain point of view. Your characterization of the forces on either side is misleadingly narrow on the side of "supporters" and conversely over-representative on the contrary viewpoint. Organizations, academics, and prominent individuals exist on either side of the debate spectrum. These sweeping and frankly false characterizations do little to move the discussion forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't personalize this by attributing to me views I sum up from a key source text. Editors are supposed to ground their work in sources, not in questioning on subjective grounds their relevance (when they meet the high RS bar we have here) or by waving vague personal generalizations of protest about those sources. Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Personal objections" Continued use of this language to dismiss any other editor's objection violated WP:CIVIL and is unacceptable. I'm tired of addressing this with you. Address an a comment on its merits, not your bad-faith presumption about the others' views. If one source says something so obviously incorrect as opponents of the apartheid analogy are limited to state-funded opponents, then that raises questions about that source's liability. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Objections by anonymous people on the internet about actual scholars politics are indeed personal and do indeed merit no discussion here as they are wholly irrelevant.  nableezy  - 14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Right, imagine a website where anonymous people on the internet could come together, discuss sources, and produce an online encyclopedia. I suppose when it's a source you disagree with, like the NYT, it's appropriate to question bias, but if you provide a source, that's off limits? Please. Multiple editors have already pointed out the issues here and acknowledged them at RSN. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to add the NYT article into the sources but haven't done so? The NYT article says "But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to "bantustans"" with the last three words being linked to a Haaretz article which discusses Apartheid in SA and Israel and the downside of annexation but does not otherwise provide any support for the statement "likened to Bantustans" so why have they linked it there? At best, that's misleading. The article, in the Names section, is looking for a citation for "Critics" and while a scholarly source would be more in keeping with the overall quality of sourcing, you can include your "newsorg" source there but ensure that it fits the source ie "confined areas where the Palestinians self govern" are the places that "critics have likened to Bantustans". Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When have I ever said I disagree with the NYT? A news source should be used for news. And it doesnt even contradict the scholarly sources cited. Yes, your personal objections to these sources are entirely unimportant. If you bring sources that disagree with them then great, we have something to talk about when it comes to contradicting evidence and a dispute among reliable sources. But you dont. What you have is a propensity to demand your personal position be given equal weight to actual scholarship. In an ENCYCLOPEDIA. I have not once questioned the NYT. This canard you are using is entirely false and I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about me. Read WP:RS. Internalize it. Understand that we base our articles on scholarship, and that you, yes an anonymous person on the internet, do not have and basis to challenge a scholar writing in his or her area of expertise if you do not have any reliable source that challenges that scholar. Im legit sick of trying to explain this basic premise, that we as editors do not dispute sources, we bring sources that dispute them. You keep failing to do that. And no, not a single editor at RSN besides yourself has said anything resembling the wholly specious claim that these scholars are biased and as such cannot be relied upon for what they report as fact. Thats just you.  nableezy  - 22:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT is reliable enough to be used in a variety of contexts, specifically to summarize a debate. I am not debating with these scholars or black and white ink on a page; I am debating the assertions by you and others  in your capacity as "anonymous editors on the internet" that these sources are adequate to support the "widespread usage." First of all, where is this "widespread usage" other than in obscure academic sources, by authors with strident opinions? You can call that a "personal opinion" or whatever you want, I call it a failure to satisfy WP:POVNAME, which applies to alternative titles just as much as article titles because they have essentially the same visibility. The only argument for WP:POVNAME not to apply is for redirects, which are not present in the article. The burden is on you to show widespread usage, not on me to show there isn't widespread usage and prove a negative. To do that, you've presented 1) a limited range of highly opinionated sources and 2) dismissed more mainstream sources like the NYT which explicitly reject this terminology as widespread. That's why your arguments haven't persuaded. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ive quoted the relevant bits of WP:RS several times now. Ive asked you to quote what from POVNAME backs up your view in any way, and you have so far declined. Here, one more time. The sources directly say that "bantustans" is a widely used term. Why do I say that? Because Ive hello quoted them saying that bantustans is a widely used term. WP:RS says Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. These sources are article[s]', book[s] ... that has been vetted by the scholarly community ... [and] has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. WP:RSN has, outside of you, unanimous agreement that the sources are reliable and directly support that the term bantustan is widely used. Any part of that summary in dispute?  nableezy  - 02:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Any part of that summary in dispute? Let's start with this one: WP:RSN has, outside of you, unanimous agreement. Wrong. Did you read the comments? Generally means there are exceptions, and I've argued for an exception with the NYT -- and yet, there are also academic sources agreeing with this same attribution to critics. See the new source section above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the comments. What editor argued that the sources are not reliable for the statement that the term bantustan is widely used? And youre arguing that a line in the NYT that doesnt even contradict that the term is widely used trumps the several scholarly sources? Thats the argument you want to make?  nableezy  - 04:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And Jesus Christ on the burden is on me to show widespread usage. The sources say flat out there is widespread usage. One more time.


 * Can you read that quote from the source? they have been widely called. Here's another:
 * Can you read that quote from the source? they have been widely called. Here's another:


 * Can you read that quote? often referred to as Bantustans. Well, how about can you read WP:BURDEN? This is what that says: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'll repeat, is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The source flat out says the term bantustan is widely used. It is, HELLO, a verifiable fact that the term bantustan is widely used. You are bastardizing our policies here, and I really hope an admin does something about it.  nableezy  - 04:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The claims of biased and partisan sources about an issue on a debate in which they are active participants is anything but "verifiable," especially absent any other evidence of widespread usage and contradiction in objective news sources and other academic articles. Posting the same block quotes over and over again is absurd. The fact that a warning is logged against me for showing a tinge of frustration with this open belligerence is so absurd. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not prove reliable sources correct with evidence of widespread usage, what dont you get about this. RSN has found these sources to be reliable for the statement that the term is widely used. Full stop. You have gone well beyond WP:IDHT territory and are now miles deep in to WP:CIR territory.  nableezy  - 16:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor, you have been asked to produce contradictory sources and have failed to do so. In their absence, you haven't a leg to stand on. Endless irrelevant allegations of bias in the sources, all of them (!), just doesn't cut it, sorry.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its worse than that honestly. He is saying things that we quote from academic publications are not verifiable. It is honestly obscene that this is happening on a Wikipedia talk page. It is a bastardization of our policies and it should be stopped.  nableezy  - 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its worse than that honestly. He is saying things that we quote from academic publications are not verifiable. It is honestly obscene that this is happening on a Wikipedia talk page. It is a bastardization of our policies and it should be stopped.  nableezy  - 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RFCBEFORE page restriction
We've had a lot of RFCs and RMs and such on this page already in its short life, and I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone for opening any particular discussion. But without assigning any kind of blame for things past, and just thinking about going forward, what if we all agreed to do WP:RFCBEFORE discussions before launching anything official, and what if that agreement were formalized in a page restriction? Anybody else think this would be helpful? I'm not sure what the threshold would be for launching a formal discussion, but at least everyone should get an opportunity to discuss neutral statement, formatting, etc., before it's launched, to improve efficiency and reduce intra-discussion meta-squabbling. Levivich harass/hound 08:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont think there should be a restriction, but yes ideally an RFC is not the construct of one partisan but put together by the various parties so that is can actually be focused and include the proposals that interested parties want.  nableezy  - 14:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the bigger problem is the endless belligerence and juvenile name-calling from and, continued above "an RfC is not the construct of one partisan but . .. which was unfortunately was left unresolved at the recent ANI thread. I think this will be best addressed at AE if it continues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Literally laughing out loud at that one. And yes, that RFC is indeed the construct of one partisan and does not present the issue neutrally or offer the various options that others may have brought. This idea that you alone are able to both create and police an RFC is just one more example in, well, juvenile antics.  nableezy  - 14:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And Levivich, the use of RfCs is not a cause, but a symptom, of the problems here. Formal dispute resolution procedures have been invoked because compromise has been extraordinarily difficult without them. Whether there is a connection between that and the small group of editors who've been most active and most confrontational at this page, that's anybody's guess. I think you recognize the the tonal problems that have persisted here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And Im guessing you dont think thats you, right?  nableezy  - 15:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No more restrictions, thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Security zones
Anyone one know good sources for this? Is this what they call the enclaves or is it the settlements or what? There appear to be varieties of them as well. Throw them up here, please so I can work something up for the article.Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, confusing. It might be the other way around altogether, everything that isn't an enclave (for Palestinians) is a security zone. Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They embrace close military zones, areas declared such for military exercises but in actual practice, the designation functions to deny land use to Palestinians in those areas, and eventually convert it into settlements. Land theft, as usual: the cheapest real estate in the Middle East.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth a read: https://www.972mag.com/oslo-20-years-later-the-origins-and-dangers-of-security-zones/ Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And this might be how they became an addiction, Emergency Regulations (Security Zones) of 1949Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence (continued)

 * It’s the obligation of the editor who wants to include material to verify it with sources. Not to provide a source, say you haven’t scrutinized it, and then imply that those challenging the material should find the sources for you. As it is now, there are multiple highly reliable sources that state that the term is used by critics of the proposed enclaves. As in, not widely.Drsmoo (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Take your own advice, why not? Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Drsmoo (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are free to edit the article yourself, no need to lecture me on how to edit, grandmother sucking eggs and all that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My edit was reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's something else, nothing to do with sourcing or adding material, just shuffling data from one place to another, presumably with the idea of de-emphasizing bantustan. Bantustan, like Apartheid, is an element of the discourse these days, like or not. We can't just pretend it isn't there.Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The options a matter of spatial vs temporal adverbs. Either 'widely', or  'often' ('Oslo thus trassformed Palestinian cities into enclaves (Falah 2oo4. Taraki 2008a), which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit  comparison with the Apartheid geography of Souyth Africa (Zureik 1977; Farsakh 2005a; Abourahme 2009).' Christopher Harker,Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine,  Duke University Press, 2020   ISBN 97-8-147-801247-4) or 'commonly'.('the proposals are commonly described as modeled on South Africa's Bantustans.'  Ronald Suresh Roberts,No Cold Kitchen: A Biography of Nadine Gordimer, STE Publishers, 2005  ISBN 978-1-919-85558-5 p.704) So toss up which adverb is preferable, for some such adverb must remain there, given the overwhelming frequency of the usage and comparison.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that there are actual sources for commonly and often, as opposed to widely it would make sense to use those. Commonly would conflict with the existent sources stating that the term is used by critics, but there is no technical or factual obstacle to using "often". Drsmoo (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do it. I might put "popular" back in for the analogy (or you could do that, too.:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't due to 1rr Drsmoo (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh..Well, whenever you are able, anyway problem is resolved, for now at least. Why are all the sources on the Intifada so crappy,, got any recommendation? Causes, specifically.Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well 'often' was my original compromise, so I'll restore it (1R etc. doesn't count surely since we have consensus on the talk page) Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd wait for Wikieditor to go along if I were you. Oh, you did already, well, I'm sure it's OK. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bantustans is still bolded against consensus, additionally, we need to include the source linked to above, as well as the multiple reliable sources stating that the analogy is made by critics. "But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to “bantustans” — could close the door to a viable state, forcing Israel to choose between granting Palestinians citizenship and leaving them in an apartheidlike second-class status indefinitely." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/world/middleeast/isael-annexation-west-bank-risks.html "When I first saw this map, I assumed that its authors intentionally designed it to argue that the agreement imprisoned Palestinians in what Oslo critics have called "apartheid-style Bantustans," referring to the "cantons" that had enraged Arafat." https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2005/feature_motro_sepoct05.msp "Palestinian critics of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations see the cause of national independence as so badly compromised that "Palestine" will become, or has become, not a state-in-the-making but a collection of bantustans, confining some and excluding others.' https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214379014.pdf "The demolitions, together with the settlements and their related roads, checkpoints, residency permits and the security walls now under construction, are, say critics, a way of maximizing Israeli territorial expansion at the same time as ensuring that any future Palestinian state will be more akin to South Africa's apartheid-era Bantustans, dependent on Israel for everything from jobs to water." https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Destruction_of_Memory/Xuz6GngdaVsC?hl=en&gbpv=0 Drsmoo (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do that and you have to tweak also that the analogy was made by senior Israeli proponents and politicians who were not critics, but view such nan arrangement in a highly positive light. I'm sorry but the official Israeli government spinning to downcase if not disappear a precise description of what it intends to do has gone far enough, with the absurdity that we use 'enclave' exclusively of Palestinian areas when Israeli legal language uses that term to describe Jewish settlements, not Palestinian areas. Indeed, what is the official Israeli term for these 'Palestinian enclaves'?Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "official Israeli government spinning"? The article must be based on reliable sources, not original research, and the lead must reflect that. Drsmoo (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to state what Israel's official term for the bantustans is. It is certainly not 'enclaves', a term the Israeli courts use to describe only Jewish settlements. The genius of wikispin here is magically transforming the Israeli legal term for settlements into the default term for Palestinian areas, which constitute a far greater land mass in the West Bank. We leave it at that farcical as it is, but there are limits to how juggling with words, as has been done here, can undo reality. Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this question, I believe the current euphemism is "security zones".Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with bantustan as an aka? I don't know what you mean by against consensus. The title was changed but that has nothing to do with standard practice for the lead. I can't recall whether archipelago was discussed at any length as another relatively common alternative, if it was then that should be bolded as well. It is obvious that it is mainly intended as criticism but when Peteet uses enclave, she also means it critically and that's the case for any of the names (open air prison is criticism not praise) so I don't think that is crucial for the lead, something short and simple covering all the names, including enclave, can go in the names section. What the NYT thinks about it is irrelevant, there are scholarly sources for that.Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a large discussion which concluded that the term Bantustans as a title is not neutral. Obviously the New York Times is not irrelevant, nor are the other reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Title is one thing, lead is another, alternative names go in as usual, you seem to think you can keep focusing in on bantustan to the exclusion of everything else. As for criticism, when I said I wanted criticism mentioned, I mean in general not specifically bantustan, no-one is praising these things, whatever they are called.Selfstudier (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On sourcing, Levivich was first to say it and Nishidani and I agreed with him. We don't need newsorg when we have or should have scholarly. We may need newsorg for recent things or some special reason but criticism isn't one of them.Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bantustans is traditionally understood to refer to the South African apartheid territories. A number of Israel critics have attempted to draw a linkage between the two, and in those circles the term is used often (especially as shown by the opinion pieces provided here), but there is not support to show that it is a widely used alternative term, and it is confusing for readers to present it as such. High-quality news organizations such as the NYT are perfectly appropriate to determine whether or not a term is widely used in public discourse, perhaps even more suited than an esoteric scholarly source. It seems like we are now on the same page in one respect, though, which is that the bantustans analogy is clearly a criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You've said that a hundred times so I for one feel under no obligation to respond to it. Compromises when the complaint is reasonable have been reached and enacted. By the way, the NYTs is not reliable on these issues: all of its Jerusalem Bureau heads (housed in an apartment that is 'enemy property' in Jerusalem) have deep personal commitments to Zionism and the way they consistently manipulate reports so that little of what Israeli mainstream newspapers report emerges, has been analysed by many scholars, not least of which is Jerome Slater's, Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000–06, in International Security, 32:2 pp.184-120.   Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Something more recent on the same subject https://www.wrmea.org/2019-may/how-the-new-york-times-rigs-news-on-israel-palestine.html (James North is an activist but if I was discussing NYT on the boards, I would make many of the same points)Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure "the bantustans analogy is clearly a criticism" and so are all the other names, this is the point you are missing. Peteet says enclave is "worse" than bantustan and open air prison, canton, ghetto and whatnot are obviously criticism as well. I have said since the beginning I want criticism mentioned and the place for it is in the names section where we can safely say that critics/criticism exist (and have done for the last 50 years). People may draw their own conclusions about how many such critics exist.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * People may draw their own conclusions about how many such critics exist. People can draw their own conclusions, but it should not be presented to be "widely held" if it isn't and there's not evidence to support that. And if you genuinely believe that, then there is no reason to keep repeatedly adding the "widely held" language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do keep up, that was resolved already and it's not in the article anymore.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Often," "widely," "frequently," all unattributed and WP:UNDUE, frankly. The original verison I proposed Critics have also referred to them as bantustans should have been uncontroversial. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yo0u either don't read the threads you participate in or suffer from a bad memory. These statements are false.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Today you did exactly what you criticize other editors as doing. You add 4 sources to justify ‘typically by critics’. None of those sources contain that phrasing. Thus it fails the very criterion you have insisted on. It cannot stand and has to be reverted out. A minimal coherence is necessary in editors' work here. And note: this has a uniform template and format, and you ignored it. You didn't give pagination where available or a link to the cited work's precise page.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the complete ignoring of the conversation about criticism above. Frankly, I do not see any point in entering discussions on this basis.Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to modify the citations to add the precise page, it's hard to imagine there is any real issue with my edit, which was an earnest attempt at compromise, and which supports both set of sources. There was no objection to "the use of adverbs", there was an objection to unsourced material and ideas. The lead claimed that the phrase was "widely used" without source, the issue was the lack of sources, not the specific adverb. Multiple sources describe the analogy as being used by critics, while the sources stating it is used often or commonly are less specific. I sincerely thought my edit was a reasonable accommodation of both sets of sources, but it seems in this zero-sum editing environment no compromise is ever acceptable. If is crucial to specify that the analogy is most often made by critics because it is attested to in multiple reliable sources, and is important for placing the situation into context.Drsmoo (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well now you've just made it clear that this article is advocating a POV. obviously Selfstudier's recent edits don't work for the lead of any decent article. Based on the recent edit, it's clear that this article is not actually about Palestinian enclaves (or whatever you want to call them), it's a collection made by googling Bantustans, and the article is simply attempting to present that POV. If the response to an earnest attempt to compromise is to double down and mess up the lead entirely, then we will have to involve noticeboards, unfortunately. Drsmoo (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The demand is that the article continue to be edited competently, with respect for sources and the established format, and optimally by a rational consensus. You cannot edit with double standards, insisting on following consensus, then  ignoring the fact you have no consensus for that edit; insisting a type of summary is WP:Synth, and then going ahead with exactly that kind of edit you deplore in others. Secondly you whipped 'typically' out of the rabbit's hat, WP:OR/WP:Synth in your own words and fail to respond to my query regarding this abuse.  If you read the sources added, and several others, you would realize that they could equally be used to write
 * "'a reality reported to have influenced architects of the fragmentation and often drawn by Israeli, Palestinian and foreign critics'"
 * And please avoid saying this is a zero-sum editing environment: several adjustments have been made by compromise. There is no evidence that the analogy is most often made by 'critics'. There is very good evidence that the Bantustan model has a long history in Israeli political planning, and they weren't critical of the analogy: they found it of heuristic value in screwing the Palestinians. The only problem was managing the  inevitable implemented analogy in such a way as to avoid Israel being compared to the republic whose model it drew on, by spinning the fidelity of analysts to the known record of Israeli geostrategic planning as people conducting 'criticism of Israel' (ergo racist and borderline anti-Semitic). Please note lastly that virtually every one globally, save for that ex-White House clown and his myrmidons, recognizes the dysfunctionality/absurdity of the various fragmentation/Bantustan models proposed, identifying them as a threat to peace, impossible to negotiate. And these include pro-Israeli American Jews, numerous high-echelon defence analysts in the US and Israel, and thus 'critics' (implying there is a wide constituency that does not criticize these projects) is question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please know that I sincerely was attempting a compromise, there is a lot of bad faith here. The "wide constituency" you refer to is actually the majority of people who don't know anything about anything and may be reading the article and not even know, for example, that a Bantustan is something bad. Since everyone in this talk page is in agreement that the Bantustan analogy is made by critics, and we have multiple reliable sources attesting to that, that could be a good point of compromise/consensus, rather than something that needs to be needlessly fought over. As it is right now, for example, the article is transparently POV. For example, why have a list of specifically "notable Israelis and Americans" that have used the term at some point or another, if not to push forward an obtuse and misleading POV? Were it not for the fact that almost no one is engaging with this article, it would have been demolished thoroughly. Drsmoo (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "The 'wide constituency' you refer to is actually the majority of people who don't know anything about anything and may be reading the article and not even know, for example, that a Bantustan is something bad."
 * Thanks. You admit the idea that an ethnic power that isolates native peoples into fragmented resourceless mini-pseudo-states is creating something that is bad. You implicitly think that fragmenting the indigenous population of the West Bank (and Gaza) in isolated discontinuous pockets of resourceless land however is something different, and, yeah 'not bad'. Since that is not bad (because Israel is the major architect of the same difference) the result cannot be called bantustans. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's clear you have no idea of what I think, "implicitly" or otherwise, and I would suggest you focus on content and not contributors. Drsmoo (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your idea of compromise differs rather radically from mine and after the most recent editing on your part I will not engage in further discussions with you in order for you to just ignore everything said and simply impose your version. A throwaway remark in a NYT article about something else entirely and you cite that for unidentified "critics" even after the previous discussion, really. If you wish to visit the boards for some aspect, then don't threaten to do that, go ahead and make your case there for whatever it is that concerns you. As far as I can see, you have contributed nothing to this article other than a persistent effort to disappear, downplay or reduce the importance of "bantustan" which is comprehensively sourced in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of the RfC is incorrect, and frankly, the post hoc complaints by you, Nishidani, and Nableezy now that it's clear there's a developing consensus against your POV are just disruptive. And stop harping on the NYT piece. Nothing about it was "unclear" or "unambiguous," or a "throwaway." It described in explicit terms exactly who is using the analogy, something the sources you provided don't. Attributing the analogy to a specific source -- critics -- is much less ambiguous than "widely used," so how do you explain your issue with the former and not the latter? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It isnt generally a good move to respond to a three week old comment by placing your comment in between that one and the replies it already has. It screams out "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME". And lol to developing consensus.  nableezy  - 15:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The obsession with the NY Times is quite odd. There are four sources cited for the use of the analogy by critics. If your response to an editor including reliable sourced information is to make a comically POV edit which throws the entire lead into disrepute, and then shut down and refuse to engage, that's on you. Drsmoo (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT thing was specifically discussed above and ignored completely by you but it is not the principal issue, merely a symptom. My edit was a logically crafted response to your edit. I see now that engagement on your part means "by way of edit summary" and "noticeboard". And that's "on you", to use your phrasing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If your response to the insertion of reliable sourced information that you seemingly would prefer to not be in the article is to make a "logically crafted response" to seesaw the lead back towards your preferred POV, then ok. Just don't claim you're actually trying to neutrally represent sourced information on the subject.
 * Additionally, if one is going to include a list of "Notable Israelis and Americans" who've used the term (why)? Then why not include, for example, Edward Said and Norman Finkelstein? Why include Israelis and Americans and not Palestinians and, for example, Europeans?Drsmoo (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Insert as many as you would like to that are notable, no objection from me. If you are pleading guilty to that which you accuse me of, we might make progress. I doubt that's what you are doing. As for the edit, all I have done is move what was already in the Names section of the article body up to the lead section (where you seem to like to edit) to demystify your "critics" with a description of said criticism and who is making it. This is entirely in line with what I said before your edit, that the "critics" ought to be in the Names section but since you put it in the lead regardless, I perforce had to do likewise for balance.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this and most of the talk page since this article was created is due to an obsession, not solely on your part, with "bantustan" which from my perspective, although of some interest, I find to be one of the least interesting elements of the article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, they are not "my" critics. Your issue is not with me, but with an assertion made by multiple reliable sources. Making an WP:OR, POV list of every cherry picked "non-critic" who's uttered the word Bantustan one can find, and then moving it to the next sentence to "balance", based on a POV, the reliably sourced information, is not conducive to building a good article Drsmoo (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I and others will build it, you may continue to add the occasional edit to the lead as seems to be your wont. I don't mind about what you call "critics" and I call "criticism" but you care only about the abstraction while I care about what was said and by who. I will repeat what I said before your edit, I want the criticism mentioned specifically. I object to where and how you decided to do that as described above. That is not cooperative editing.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Until this current discussion within the past few days, none of my edits were to the lede. Who are you referring to? Drsmoo (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, change the subject? See the section heading? "Opening sentence". Followed by reams of discussion ending with "often" being inserted on your behalf in the lead (subsequently objected to yet again by Wikieditor) and then your recent addition to the lead. I have said frequently that the article is incomplete and I would rather be working on that than engaging in lengthy and ultimately futile discussions about "widely held" versus "often" or unidentified "critics" unilaterally assigned by you only in respect of "bantustan". Do you not understand that it is the entire enterprise that is being criticized? In every respect. Looking forward to a new section about something other than the "opening sentence" and preferably not about anything else in the lead either.Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * QED. I will return to building and you and Wikieditor can continue to tilt at windmills:)Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

"Critics"
, just up above, I invited you to assign your NYT reference to the cn tag in the article but not to misrepresent what the source says and you have gone ahead and done just that. To repeat myself the NYT source says "But relegating the Palestinians to self-government in confined areas — places Israeli critics have likened to "bantustans"", it does not just say "critics". This (single newsorg source) does not make it clear what "Israeli critics" means, at a guess they mean critics of Israel but it could equally mean critics in Israel and it is limited only to the "confined areas" described (ie some future post annexation unspecified area under Palestinian self government). Also given that you have made a huge meal out of how multiple scholarly sources are biased and unreliable for what they say and thus may not be used but your single source, a newsorg, is fine to establish that everyone is a critic. Typical.Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That was a basic SYNTH violation, claiming that the sources that say widely used at the end of the sentence are restricted to Israeli critics. Ive moved that critic piece to correct that issue.  nableezy  - 14:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no valid reason for the scare quotes around "Israeli critics." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It needs to be quoted because the meaning is ambiguous, as explained above. Readers will have to decide for themselves what was intended.Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Israeli critics" is a straightforward term. The use of quotes here implies you are second-guessing something that's explicit. If you don't recognize that, that's a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It isnt "scare quotes", its a direct quote.  nableezy  - 15:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't whether it's a misquote or not. That's not what WP:SCAREQUOTES means. It's a direct and unambiguous phrase and requires no quotes, other than for the "author to distance themselves from the statement." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to something nobody said? I said it is a direct quote from the source, so it is quoted. Did you even read the link you posted? Because what it says is Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes". This is actually quoting the source. Not scare quotes.  nableezy  - 16:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides, it IS ambiguous and that has been explained. What would you call critics who were in Israel? Israeli critics, right? Perhaps its a typo and they meant to put "Israel critics" or it's just a screwup and they meant to put "critics of Israel". Idk and no-one should have to guess. Typical newsorg sloppiness.Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, refusal to read the policy cited, then argufying when corrected.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A phrase can be lifted from a source without quotation marks, so when you claim it's a "direct quote," that's a non-answer. "Israeli critics" is a phrase -- it's not a statement by an individual, it's not a quoted sentence or a paragraph from a source, it's a phrase to attribute a particular point of view. There is absolutely no reason to quote it, except to cast doubt where there is none. Selfstudier claims this is an "ambiguous" phrase and therefore he needs to quote it, because it's not clear what the article is saying. What exactly is "ambiguous" about these two words? Do "Israeli" and "Critic" require footnote definitions? I don't think so. This is a patent example of scare-quoting, a bad habit to get into and a form of subtle POV-pushing, and the fact that it's fully endorsed by and  here doesn't make this any less of a mistake. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are actually giving you the benefit of the doubt here, if we accept the normal meaning of "Israeli critics" ie people in Israel (or Israelis) who are critics, that doesn't do what you want, right? And the reference would go away (ie if the quotes go away, the ref is no longer of any use other than for critics who are Israeli). Best course would be to find a source to replace this one that says either of "Israel critics" or "critics of Israel".Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Critics" refers to "of the enclave proposals" and "Israeli" is because they are citing an Israeli politician. You claim this is "ambiguous" here, but on the term "widely used" or "often used," which leaves unanswered the question of by whom? you accept this as straightforward evidence that everyone uses this term. Respectfully, I think you are tying yourself into knots with this logic. As for the other discussion re: widely used, again, take a look at the sources provided under those suggesting more limited usage. It describes the "bantustans" analogy as a rhetorical tool to critique Israel -- and this is from a source that is praising the use of the analogy. But that's not what the point is here: the point is your use of scare quotes for a perfectly straightforward phrase. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We're actually done here.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you have used the exact same reference for two different things in successive sentences. Apart from that, who are these "Israeli critics"?Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , We're never done, because you continually tamper with material in the article, absent consensus, and appear think you're doing an end-run around the 1RR and consensus-required restrictions. You're not. Adding a "who" template to when the citation not only makes a specific attribution to a group -- Israeli critics -- but a "specific person" from a reliable source is nonsensical. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here is your use of a problematic single source and then trying to jockey off a different one as outlined. The solution is as I already said, find a better source.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You added a "citation required" tag, a citation was added with a reliable source, and you are now adding a "who" tag even though both the text and the source explicitly identify who. The fact that you are now saying it's a "problematic" source with no argument as to why other than claiming it's a news organization (The New York Times) shows how ridiculous this is. Each time you try and do something in the article to cast doubt on the source -- scare quotes, a citation required tag -- an appropriate answer is provided, and you move the goal posts. The common thread is that you are being intentionally disruptive in an area with active DS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I know you are familiar with the procedure.Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing the "who" citation for the reasons I've stated above. This issue has been adequately addressed with the source and in-text attribution provided in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I already removed it Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required restriction is now also in effect for this page
Please review the pertinent documentation, everyone. ***, several of your comments on this talk page come across as aggressive and derisive. Please dial it back, otherwise, imminent ARBPIA sanctions are likely. El_C 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a one way street. But I accept my part in what you are referring to and will do my very best to "dial it back" in any way I can. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just note for the record that I have logged a warning both to Wikieditor19920 and Onceinawhile. I would appreciate no further comments in this section. Thanks, all. //Signing out. El_C 23:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential violations
how is this not a violation given that Wikieditor previously attempted unbolding here and was reverted here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , not sure about the how, but I'm afraid I'm unable to attend to this matter for the immediate moment, regardless. As always, you are free to escalate this further if you deem that to be a worthwhile pursuit. El_C 22:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is currently a 7-5 RfC opposed to bolding "Palestinian bantustans" as an alternative title, and a prior discussion which rejected it as failing POV, Nableezy, but you just restored it pending the discussion. Controversial content should be left out pending a discussion. I'm not going to restore it and provoke an edit war with you,, but you have this backwards. You should not have re-bolded the title given that not one but two discussions currently rejects it as a POV name, and the second specifically rejects bolding it as an alt name. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RFCs a. run for 30 days, and b, are not votes. Restoring a reverted edit is the violation, and that is what you did. You have this curious understanding of how the rules apply to everybody except you. And please stop misrepresenting past discussions. A past discussion found bantustan to not be suitable for the title of the article. Not that it is not a commonly used name nor that it should not be bolded. This whole misrepresenting past discussions is just another example of tendentious editing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just note somewhat in passing (hopefully, leaving it at that, for now) that finding out which version is the longstanding one and which one is the contending one shouldn't be that difficult to establish. El_C 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It indeed is not that difficult, see 17 Jan bolded, 28 Jan bolded, 13 Feb bolded. Wikieditor has attempted to force in his change, example here and does so again now. Which is exactly what this restriction is meant to stop, or so I thought. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The revert was provocative, and I had difficulty holding my own revert back impulse. It was impatient, and there was no procedural justification for it, as far as I can see. It is an example of constantly pushing the limits. I would suggest that wikieditor simply self-revert, as a token of good faith.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this should have been a settled issue. Everyone on this page and a few additional editors have voted, and the 8-5 majority supports 1) noting the bantustan analogy in the lead but 2) attributing it to critics and 3) not bolding it as an alternative title. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC is still running. Policy counts more than votes. A majority here cannot override WP policy.Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I some unfortunate news for you, and that's that your view of how content/policy intersect doesn't override the consensus view generated by the RfC, and we now have a DS requirement imposing sanctions for disregarding that consensus. The material should have been adjusted already to reflect the discussion, and future attempts to revert to the pre-RfC version once the matter is settled can be reported at AE pursuant to the above page restriction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hafrada
I have stepped away from this topic given the impossible conditions I have been put under. One quick thought though (sorry in advance that I won't reply to follow up); it seems strange that this article is missing any mention of the Hafrada policy. A number of our scholarly sources explicitly connect the two topics - for example Peteet. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant question for this article is whether this policy, intentionally or otherwise, helped to produce any or all enclaves? I find the whole idea confusing at best, if you were to put up a wall on the green line, for the sake of argument, and end the occupation, isn't that separation? Anyway, only half a wall was built. If you don't end the occupation and keep on building settlements, how is that separation? Barak sounds like the first one but that never happened and since then, it only seems like the second one. Of course it is fashionable to compare it to apartheid but maybe nowadays it is just a term for domestic consumption and has no physical meaning as such.Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile is quite correct. All Israeli planning since the 1990s is based on the principle of Hafrada, which is just the closest equivalent in modern Hebrew to apartheid in Afrikaans. Selfstudier. I don't think we should worry about those political conceptions, but simply keep describing how the 'intricate machinery' of separation functions. Enclaves, most should know, is a stupid term, but we have to respect the RfC outcome.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment, a main thrust of the article is that the facts on the ground have been guided by settlement plans and we have sources for that. If we are saying that the results on the ground derive from hafrada as well, then we should certainly mention that somewhere. Are there sources that specifically point to that, do you know? I will have a look at Peteet meanwhile and see what she says about it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so Peteet speaks about "closure", which I think is the Palestinian freedom of movement / West Bank closures we have linked in the Contiguity section. So then she says checkpoints/bypass roads + wall + permit system is closure and a spatial expression of hafrada. So her view would be that these (post Oslo) restrictions are the physical result of hafrada which is a way of looking at it but seemingly ignores the settlements effects. Then "With closure and separation couched in a pervasive discourse of security, Palestinian areas became arenas of perceived threat." Huh, lock them up and then say that because they are locked up, they must be dangerous. Right.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not here. But Peteet p.262: The material and experiential reality of hafrada, exemplified in Jewish settlements, Palestinian enclaves, land expropriation, checkpoints, segregated roads, and the permit system - parallels apartheid's pass system, land policies, and Bantustans. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that core affirmation, duly attributed, should go in. Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Solution.:)Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article certainly lacks a summary section on the enclave-Bantustan analogy, summing up the controversy, and ideally it would go there, noting the three points where she thinks the analogy breaks down. (a) labour use (b) demographics (c) the difference between the way the world responded to apartheid practices, and the way it ignores similar practices in the occupied territories. Then of course one could cite those sources that contest it, as POV driven.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The hafrada thing I think is a contiguity issue mainly while the enclave/bantustan parallel, could that not go in the Names section? To be honest I am still a little wary of the whole SA apartheid business, although we do need to explain the "popular comparison", I much prefer B'tselem's Apartheid 2.0 they have nailed it with that.Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)