---

The three questions below relate to the first paragraph of the lead, and how/if to present the "bantustan" analogy described regarding the proposed enclaves and racially segregated areas in apartheid South Africa. For those new to the discussion, please feel free to review the prior move discussion, which resulted in an article title change from "Palestinian bantustans" to "Palestinian enclaves."

Question 1: Should the lead make mention of the bantustans analogy?

Question 2: If yes to Q1, which one of the following three versions should be used to describe the analogy? (These are drawn from the prior three versions of the sentence present in the article. Please feel free to suggest slightly modified wording, but it would be helpful to indicate which is your closest preference based on the versions below.)

• A Critics of the enclave proposals have analogized them to the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, which were areas set aside for black inhabitants.
• B By way of the popular comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as the West Bank bantustans.
• C The enclave models are, typically by critics, often referred to as bantustans, a term implying a comparison in this regard between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, and figuratively as a Palestine Archipelago among other terms.

Question 3: Should "bantustans" be bolded as an alternative title? Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC Votes (Please keep your votes concise.)

• Q1 Yes, fine with it. At this point it's likely to remain. Q2 Option A for the reasons described above. It is necessary and appropriate to describe this as a criticism, consistent with how reliable sources like the NYT have framed it in the broader discussion over Israel-related issues. This term has not been established to be in widespread usage, as per the agreement in the prior RfC. Q3: No, bantustans was rejected as failing POVNAME and should not be presented as an alt title. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not re-argue the same points you made in the discussion under votes for added visibility. You are entitled to expand on your vote, but it'd be better if you kept that in the subsection below. See "Please keep your votes concise."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: The section below named "Sources explicitly supporting . . ." Violates WP:TALKHEADPOV by asserting that these sources support that this phrase is "widely used," without noting the crucial caveat that each of those cited source area academics who've expressed strident opinions either 1) opposing Israel, 2) opposing US-Israel relations, or 3) promoting the Israel-Apartheid analogy, something vigorously contested by commentators on the other side of the debate. This should not be construed as in any way establishing that POVNAME is satisfied, especially given that these same sources were reviewed in the prior move discussion and dismissed the reasons I outlined above. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 04:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Selfstudier, did you not complain about the NYT's bias (notice I didn't use scare quotes) because it used directly opposite language? All of the authors hold strident views, so repeating that they are "valid" doesn't address the issue here. and POVNAME unquestionably applies to alternative titles that aren't redirects. My later replies to the inevitable response will be in the extended discussion section below. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Can you please quote what from WP:POVNAME supports any part of the idea that a commonly used name should not be bolded in the lead because it is supposedly "POV"? An actual quote from policy would be appreciated, not this repeated hand waving at some set of capital letters that when one actually clicks the link they find nothing supporting the position being bandied about here. And also, for the record, with the exception of Wikieditor, there is unanimous agreement at WP:RSN that the sources below are reliable and directly support that the term bantustans is widely used. Here is the state of that discussion Note there is only one person claiming that the scholars quoted supposed bias makes those sources not directly support what we quote them saying. nableezy - 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC) See my comments at section Peteet where I wonder why it is you have not added the NYT to the article sources? Considering that you never stop going on about it? And no, I said the NYT had a bias in response to your saying that the NYT (a newsorg) was gold plated while scholarly rs was "biased". I have never questioned the validity of the NYT as RS and your implying that I have done so is yet more misrepresentation on your part. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• 1. Obviously, this is a well sourced alternative name for the topic. WP:LEAD and WP:OTHERNAMES require it be included. 2. B or C. It is well sourced that this is an alternate title, not simply a criticism. Yes, people who find apartheid to be a bad thing will likely see the usage of this name as critical. For example This source (which are often referred to as Bantustans), puts lie to the claim that this is not a commonly used alternate name for the topic of this article. And that being the case, the lead needs to treat bantustans as an alternate title. This nonsense argument about consensus being against using bantustuns as the title of the article means that it should not be given as an alternate name in the lead is just that, nonsense, and it makes a mockery of our policies on NPOV which require that all significant views be given their appropriate weight. The sources are clear on this, bantustuns is an alternate name. Our policies are likewise clear as to how alternate names should be treated in our articles. And that means 3, obviously yes. nableezy - 16:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  Since it was just "the one source Nableezy linked to", I've added a couple more to the bottom of the additional comment section. We have several reliable sources that explicitly say that "bantustans" is a common way of referring to these "enclaves", and as such, per WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:LEAD, that needs to be included in bold in the lead. Personal opinions that that either bantustan is inappropriate or that the reliable sources are wrong (absent any source disputing them) are quite simply non-arguments on Wikipedia. nableezy - 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Arguments based on WP:POVNAME fail to recognize that the policy is about article titles. Usage in the lead is governed by WP:OTHERNAMES, and with the rock solid sourcing supporting this as a significant alternative name failing to include it is a basic violation of WP:NPOV which requires due weight to all significant viewpoints. nableezy - 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVNAME governs article titles and names. A bolded alternative name can be just as relevant as the title and the same concerns about NPOV highlighted in WP:POVNAME. Nowhere does that policy say we shouldn't apply POVNAME to alt titles. However, Palestinian enclaves is appropriate as a redirect because it is a plausible "first-guess," and NPOV standards are more lax because redirects are not technically part of the article. WP:RNEUTRAL. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Very much no. That is a subsection of Neutrality in article titles. And if you look at the examples, such as Octomom reditecting to Nadya Suleman but having Octomom bolded as a common name, youll see why the idea that WP:POVTITLE would somehow contradict WP:OTHERNAMES is mistaken. As WP:OTHERNAMES says, an article can only have one title, and there you can make an argument on POV. However, as WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV require, all significant viewpoints need to be included, and that it being an established fact with sources directly supporting that there is a commonly used alternate name that needs to be included. nableezy - 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, for the record, POVNAME actually says the opposite of your argument. POVNAME says that generally we don't consider POV in article titles, only commonality. It's actually amazing to me that a policy that explicitly disavows the position of those linking to it is being used here and was successfully used in the RM. nableezy - 01:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Expanding a bit more, there are times where we engage in the one bit of OR that is still widely used on Wikipedia, and that is determining the common name for a title or commonly used alternatives. And we'll look at google search results and n-grams and a host of other things we normally wouldn't allow. But here, we do not need to do that. Because here we have several reliable sources that do that for us. They directly assert that bantustan is a commonly used alternative name. We have actual scholarship to answer this question. They report, as a statement of fact, that bantustan is a widely used alternate name. The idea that it is only used by critics may or may not be true, but regardless it is irrelevant. If they were only widely called bantustans by Palestinians it would merit inclusion as an alternate name (see for example Gaza War (2008–2009), Six-Day War 1948 Palestinian exodus for examples of names being bolded purely because they are used by either participant). If it were only used by critics that likewise would not negate that it is widely used, what matters is if it is a significant alternative name. And the sources here make excessively clear that it is. When multiple rock solid sources say something is a fact, one cannot simply say I disagree with them, that is their opinion. Multiple rock solid sources say as a factual statement that bantustan is a widely used alternative name. On Wikipedia, absent sources that directly dispute them, that makes that a fact. And a NYT article that says that critics call it this or another source saying BDS supporters call it this does not directly dispute that others call it this or that it is widely called this. A set of users is asking us to replace the informed views of scholars writing in the area of their academic expertise with their personal position. That cant be allowed here. nableezy - 21:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1: Yes but in accordance with sources and I've yet to see language that matches the sources. Q2: No, no, and no. None of the three formulations pass WP:V, IMO. For example, they are not "often" called bantustans, and not only by "critics". Q3: Probably not. Notwithstanding the one source Nableezy linked to, other sources say that the Palestinian enclaves are different from, not similar to, South African bantustans. I think it's an analogy more than an alternate name, and we should look at the sources more carefully to determine if it's a common enough alternative as to merit being a bolded alt name in the lead. So in sum, yes it should be mentioned in the lead, but probably not as a bolded alt title and not in any of the formulations proposed so far. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 17:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  The astronauts on the international space station have pointed out that in the middle of the massive wall of text below, there are some academic sources that say directly that "bantustan" is widely or frequently used; it's not just one as I said above ten days ago. Now some of my colleagues are going to throw their keyboards out the window when they read this next clause, but it doesn't change my !vote. I'm still ambivalent about all the Q2 options for reasons I've described elsewhere and I'm happy to not !vote on that and let others decide. As for Q3, I still think—notwithstanding that there are multiple sources that would support bolding "bantustan" in the lead—I still think doing so in the current lead, which would result in "enclave", "archipelago", and "bantustan" being bolded, gives WP:UNDUE weight to "bantustan" as judged by the totality of all sources (including the sources that say it's used but not widely, or by critics, or by Palestinians, or some other qualification or nuance, and including the sources that list it as one of many alternate names, and including the sources that mention "enclave" or "archipelago" without mentioning "bantustan" at all). I would be more open to having it be bolded if it were one among more names (supported by sources) like Selfstudier suggests below (fragment, canton, etc.). So while I acknowledge that there are more than one source that favors bolding, it's not enough sources to convince me that the consensus of sources is that the popular alternative names are enclave, bantustan, and archipelago, but not anything else. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 07:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Q1&Q3 are in a way the same question and idk why it is even a question, a cursory examination of the sources in the article provides the answer to both. If James Baker and a parade of notables (all sourced) can call these spaces "bantustans" then so can WP. Q2 The reason for this question can be found in the RFCBefore (editorial discussion on the issue) in nearly all of the talk page sections above. The sources give instances of many descriptors for these spaces and the sources also suggest that there is no "correct" word to use so in that sense all the words are analogies of something there is no proper word to describe; you can describe it all the same just not in one word. Are some people using the word pejoratively (insultingly), sure. I don't think the notables are doing that, they are using it because it is the simplest word that makes the point they want to make and yes it IS intended as criticism. A United Nations rapporteur ( John Dugard) more than familiar with Apartheid and all its implications says (it's quoted in the article) "Within these areas further enclaves have been created by a system of checkpoints and roadblocks. Moreover highways for the use of Israelis only further fragment the Occupied Palestinian Territory into 10 small cantons or Bantustans." and there you have it, fragment, enclave, bantustan and canton in a couple sentences. It makes absolutely no difference at all which word is being used, none of them are intended as a compliment. If I really must make a choice between A, B and C, then B is the closest although I think the exact final wording needs more thought. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1&Q3 Both Yes, very clearly these names are frequently used in reliable sources. I'm not entirely happy with the wording of any of the 3 options. B is probably the best, but I think it could be worded better to explain what the similarity is, perhaps in more detail in another section? Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1: Yes, Q2: A, Q3: No. Per Wikieditor19920. Mottezen ( talk) 07:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes; Q2 none of the above; Q3 Yes Per

(1) the list of #Sources that explicitly support that these "enclaves" are widely or commonly called "bantustans".

(2) the Encyclopedia of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict (ed. Cheryl Rubenberg; Lynne Rienner Publishers): "Bantustans: 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"

Bantustans is a significant alternative name for this topic, so should be treated per WP:OTHERNAMES. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Q1 Yes as it is a well used alternative name. Q2 No opinion, Q3 Yes as it is a well used alternative name. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1: Yes, Q2: not only critics use it, so alt B, Q3: Yes. Huldra ( talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1: Yes, Q2:A, Q3: No Drsmoo ( talk) 12:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1: Possibly, if yes, then Q2: A, Q3: No. It has been demonstrated previously during the naming discussion that this name is much less frequently used when referring to these areas. Alaexis _¿question? 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1, yes, but also mention that the apartheid comparison is considered to be incitement, possibly racist per source, Q2: A + addition of note on apartheid canard, this terminology is used by critics who themselves are criticized for using this inflammatory language. Q3: no, as this is a pejorative use, a POVNAME. 11Fox11 ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Q1 yes but per Fox and others we should make it clear that this analogy is controversial and could construed as racist ,Q2 A,Q3: no -- Shrike ( talk) 12:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Shrike: Just on Q2, would you mind indicating which of the options presented you prefer? Sorry if this one was confusing. Others have abstained from expressing a preference, which you're also free to do. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 21:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed -- Shrike ( talk) 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Q1/Q3 yes obviously. A no-brainer. I concur with Onceinawhile's remarks, however. I disagree with Levivich but his impression that 'None of the three formulations pass WP:V implies that this RfC's options are flawed. Only 3 options have been given (all cherrypicked by wikieditor from a much larger number of variations and suggestions. Note, e.g., that we had: 'The enclave models are also often referred to as bantustans, a term implying a comparison in this regard between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa' as an option. Wikipedia manipulated this by inserting 'typically by critics' therefore in my view a manipulation of evidence to prime the result wanted), with both A and C restrict the language to 'critics', which is exactly what he wants, but which, per numerous discussions, is misleading, since Israel's planners also use the term and they are not critics. One should not in an RfC be compelled to vote on choices that are misleading and unrepresentative of prior discussions. Nishidani ( talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: Per the instructions above, please continue to place votes in the section above. Further comments about the RfC, the options, or any related commentary may be made in the sections below. Votes are preferably accompanied by a concise summary. A well-organized RfC ensures that everyone is able to have their poitns come across, especially to those unfamiliar with the discussion previously. Thank you for your cooperation. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920's opening statement did a fair job summing up the conclusions that I think the majority have reached on this talk page, so I concur with Q1: Yes, Option A and Q3: No. Challenger.rebecca ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments about the RfC

On the 8th February Editors familiar with the numerous sources and the discussions were asked to vote earlier here. This call for lead input was boycotted by Wikieditor, who refused to reply to the set of simple questions, then opened, a week later, (15 February) this RfC, which, in my view, is poorly formulated and pointy. Obviously Bantustans should be in the lead, the RS evidence is overpowering. But if one adopts that, the three options are inadequate. A. Limits mention of bantustans to critics, which has been strongly contested.. B. ‘By way of popular comparison’ overlooks the fact that so far our best source refers to ‘scholarly and popular comparisons’ (Peteet 2016:248). Dropping ‘scholarly’ makes this option sound as if only the uninformed use the word, through hearsay. C.These are not ‘enclave models’ but realities, and again ‘typically by critics’ suggests those who use the Bantustan term do so as critics, not as sober analysts. In any case, it is improper to boycott by silence one provisory vetting of editors’ views that offers a way forward, only then to cog the dice by setting up an RfC whose three options were written by just one editor, and not in consultation. Nishidani ( talk) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the three options in the second question should be stricken as they dont really encompass all the possibilities, but the questions put forward in the first and third questions can be answered by an RFC, so instead of wishing that the RFC had been set up more collabaritively lets just move on with getting through it. nableezy - 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy the three options presented were text that existed in three prior versions of the article. Nishidani, if you want to complain about this RfC, take it to another forum and stop clogging the votes section with discussion. No one participated in the prior discussion you linked because it was poorly organized and practically incoherent.. I asked it be reformatted, a request that was rebuffed, and then opened this RfC, which served its purpose because it's given everyone on this page and others a chance to 1) vote and 2) articulate their views. Raising all of these "concerns" now that voting and discussion is well underway and intentionally disregarding the discussion/votes divide is petty and disruptive. If you want to challenge this RfC, take it to the appropriate forum. In the interest of keeping discussions and votes siloed, lest this become more of an unreadable mess, I'm dividing this into yet another section for procedural concerns or comments. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 02:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)\

Nableezy This will be the last and only time I ask you -- stop messing around with the format of this RfC. There is a vote section and a discussion section, and there are perfectly rational reasons to have the two separated. No one is detracting from your points. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. And WP:TPO. You may not section off somebody else's comments, you do not own this talk page or the RFC. Nishidani replied in the section above, not in this segregated section you seek to create. I am getting to the point where AE is the next place where I ask you to conform with our policies. nableezy - 04:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant section is WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, and the above is not a reply to any part of the preceding vote section, is is a "comment" on the RfC entirely unconnected to the vote discussion. To prevent the vote section from becoming practicably indiscernible, it is necessary to maintain some sense of order. I have moved this thread into a new section appropriately titled to reflect the new spinoff discussion. Stop playing these games. Your continued efforts to disrupt this RfC by 1) arguing under votes repeatedly and ignoring requests to use the below section and 2) repeatedly altering subheaders to merge unrelated discussions will be noted at AE if you keep it up. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 06:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor you have been and are persistently refactoring and adjusting the talk page in an effort to gloss your position and degloss that of others so you ought not to be surprised if others repay the compliment. But I agree with you, please take it to AE right now and we will discuss it further there. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You dont own the RFC, and Nishidani was replying in that section. Please, pretty please, go to AE. And try reading the links you post, SECTIONHEADINGOWN is about changing the title of a section, not about trying to segregate comments you dislike. nableezy - 14:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Now Nishidani has voted in the RfC, but this was previously merely a set of gripes having nothing to do with the voting section, such as my supposed "cherrypicking of the options." This is a curious one, given that these options are drawn from the current and past two versions of the article, including versions Nishidani wrote. Of course, either you or Nishidani are free to present your own wording, as also mentioned in the RfC instructions. Or you could continue edit-warring over subheadings meant to organize the discussion. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Nishidani: You claim that I "manipulated" the wording of one of the options. That seems a poor synonym for "wrote," but I have some more news for you, and that's that I actually didn't write that version. As I stated earlier, each option is from a prior version of the article, specifically this one. I'd ask you to strike this bad-faith and inaccurate accusation from your vote. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not a gripe (I'll reply here because you say discussion should be elsewhere, and yet you personally keep discussing in this section). I documented your manipulation of the options. Perhaps you simply miss the meaning of texts and evidence. Certainly you do so when you write (in favour of the 'critic' language two of your options insert)

Several users have claimed that the bantustan analogy is "not a criticism," and seem to imply that referring to it as such somehow diminishes its impact. This fundamentally misunderstands our role as editors, which is not to assert the WP:TRUTH of any matter, and is not consistent with the sources.

As Annexation Looms, Israeli Experts Warn of Security Risks,'The New York Times, June 24, 2020: 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.

To rephrase that distortion in a way that faithfully reflects our discussions, 'several users have stated that the Bantustan analogy is not just 'criticism'. I can't see any evidence of 'several editors' claiming the analogy is shorn of a critical tone. Onceinawhile even agreed that it is mostly critical; I said that 'critical' has to be understood also as 'analytical' etc. Can you name at least four editors who have denied the obvious, and therefore justify that, to me, utter distortion of our comments?

Did you read all of that article? Editors have in the discussions emphasized that if we use 'critics' we must avoid the implication that these critics are outsiders, by specifying as per the NYTs, that this criticism comes from within Israeli and beyond its borders. The whole point you have been, alone, opposing so insistently is that 'bantustan' language arises within Israel, among its policy makers, as well as from scholars, lawyers, activists whoever. Your options erase all mention of these huge discussions, and just focus on the short versions you prefer (that exclude the extensive range of tweaks offered on this talk page). In my book, that it cogging the dice. Please note also that a majority of those voting here do so with reservations, saying the RfC fails WP:V, or voting with reservations that suggest different possible formulations. Nishidani ( talk) 15:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, follow instructions. For some inexplicable reason, some admins may find this long-form commentary cute, but no one else does, especially not the targets of your accusations. It's very simple: all three options were drawn from the last versions of the article, including the one you wrote. If none are satisfactory, indicate that in your vote and offer different wording, per the RfC instructions. I have nothing further to add to the debate here that I haven't already laid out in multiple sections. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any administrator would view favourably ('cute') the extraordinarily excessive lengths of this humongous quintessence of uncollaborative WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT/ WP:Bludgeoning we have all been dragged into on this talk page. I've lots of experience but I have never witnessed such a repetitive requestioning of points already discussed, negotiated, or compromised on. Please note that when one editor asked us to join an internal RfC about changes in the lead, to find consensus, his meticulous 11 point list of questions was totally ignored - boycotted is the term - and after a week, you invented this question-begging RfC to ask outside editors as well, what they think of your cherrypicked summary of the options. I think it cruel to expect outside editors to read through the thick stack of commentary here, a minimal prerequisite for an informed opinion, since most haven't time to actually familiarize themselves with the literature a few of us have gone to the trouble to read over the past forty days. This RfC, in my view, was designed to step round the collaborative questionnaire Onceinawhile set up. It is a complete mess: I'm sure no one in here can remember anymore what was said by whom, and where the compelling evidence for this or that proposition lies, and this applies with greater force to those whom you invite to come in and vote on your version of what we here have discussed. You now tell me that the instructions you wrote should be followed, after, what is it, a month? not listening to anyone else here. Go figure. Nishidani ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that I "boycotted" a discussion is almost laughable. I offered a suggestion to reformat the "meticulous list of 11 questions" so that it wasn't so confusing to follow. I have no control over what other editors decide to weigh in on. This RfC was designed with a narrower issuer in mind and to attract a broader audience. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

'It was poorly organized' according to you. According not only to me, your alternative was poorly organized. 'Confusing to follow'? You must be joking. To whom? No one else had a problem with a very simple set of questions.

You above say, I' wrote what we have to do here (0Nishidani, follow (my)instructions'), what the correct procedure is, so you guys, fall in line and follow my rules, respect my spinning of the choices. Notwithstanding this, the people who offered their comments to Onceinawhile's list, also, albeit reluctantly participate here. You seem to be completely unaware of the difference. Some of us collaborate, and one here just pushes and pushes and pushes, ignores, rejects, until I suppose, everyone else falls into line. It really is disgraceful that one has to put up with this lack of perceptiveness about the collegial nature of consensus-forming. Nishidani ( talk) 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Division of votes/discussion is a common practice for RfCs. No one's asking you to juggle bowling pins while balancing a pineapple on your head. Again, I don't know why you care what I felt about the prior discussion, or why it's relevant here. Your contribution here is appreciated, and I hope that the final outcome reflects a suitable compromise. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 23:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC extended discussion

Several users have claimed that the bantustan analogy is "not a criticism," and seem to imply that referring to it as such somehow diminishes its impact. This fundamentally misunderstands our role as editors, which is not to assert the WP:TRUTH of any matter, and is not consistent with the sources.

• The New York Times, June 24, 2020, As Annexation Looms, Israeli Experts Warn of Security Risks: 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.
• Reuters, June 16, 2020, U.N. rights experts condemn Israel's annexation plan and U.S. support: What would be left of the West Bank after annexation of about 30% would amount to a “Palestinian Bantustan”, it said, in a reference to South Africa’s poverty-stricken “homelands”, where black people were confined during apartheid.

The only support for calling them "Palestinian bantustans" as an official name offered on this page are a limited number of academics sharply critical of Israel, and making the comparison as a criticism or in their capacity as critical commentators. This is fine; we can include these. But they must be included under the guidelines of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The term "Palestinian bantustans" is attributable to less than a dozen scholars all who primarily focus on Israel and are sharply critical of the state. When dealing with these types of sources, we must attribute them. Per policy: Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.) This is precisely what B and C violate. They fail to properly attribute opinionated assertions and misrepresent them as widespread.

As for the suggestion that a single source "puts the lie" to the notion that bantustans has not been established a widely used term, this makes no sense. To show that a term is widely used, it must be shown that it is consistently used in mainstream, reliable sources across different types of sources. A small group of fringe academics using the phrase "Palestinian bantustans" does not make it widely used, and this is why the term was rejected per POVNAME in the last move discussion.

Levivich, I think you bring up some reasonable points. Please note that none of the wording is meant to be perfect at this stage. If one of the options is less problematic to you than others, please indicate as much. I understand nothing presented will be perfect (it's all a work in progress) but it'll be much easier to move forward once we at least have a rough draft closer to WP:NPOV and that avoids weasel words (at least by my interpretation). Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I have no preference between the three Q2 options. Primarily, Q2 presupposes that we should have a sentence in the lead about the word "bantustan", which I'm not convinced of, as opposed to mentioning it, which is what Q1 asks. I think, per RSes, these are called "enclaves" and an alternative name is "Palestinian archipelago" (which I just changed it to from "Palestine Archipelago", we'll see if that is disputed), and probably only those two should be bolded in the lead. I think the lead could use a sentence along the lines of, They are also sometimes called ' cantons' or (usually pejoratively) ' bantustans', a reference to racially segregated areas in apartheid-era South Africa., but I think a full sentence on either of those is probably undue. The whole "bantustan" thing is more a wiki-controversy than a major part of the literature about Palestinian enclaves IMO (notwithstanding that there are a few papers specifically about the Israeli–apartheid analogy). The body is where we should explain the bantustan analogy more fully, but I don't think it merits more than a mention in the lead. As for the particular Q2 choices, A says "critics" which I think is not correct, B says "popular comparison" which I think is not correct, and C says "often" which I think is not correct. So given the choice of three sentences, each IMO equally wrong, I just can't bring myself to support one over the others, esp. when I don't think we should have a full sentence at all. I'm also not sure about this being in the first paragraph of the lead as opposed to elsewhere. I guess voting "no" on all is the same as abstaining from Q2. (Altogether I'm personally more interested in spending my time working on the first sentence, which incorrectly says "proposed", than any other part of the lead right now.) Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes Levivich, there are sources that dispute that these should be called bantustans. I am unaware of any sources that dispute that they are in fact often called bantustans. Whereas there are reliable sources that explicitly say that they are. As such, WP:LEAD and WP:OTHERNAMES require that we include that in the lead as an alternate name. And I have as yet seen not one person even attempt a response to that point. As far as sources, I'll take a book published by Duke University Press over a couple of news reports any day. I seem to recall you having a similar position on other topics. nableezy - 19:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

What reliable sources explicitly say that they are often called bantustans, other than the one you linked to above ( Harker 2020, which says "Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves..., which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa.")? You have seen editors attempt a response to that point: Wikieditor specifically responded to that point in their second-to-last paragraph above ("As for the suggestion that a single source ..."). I agree with Wikieditor, a single source doesn't settle the issue. You only made that point a few hours ago, give it some time, I'm sure others will respond as well. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 19:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, he responded with what on Wikipedia remains a non-sequitur. He challenged what a reliable source says not with a reliable source that disputes it but with some requirement not found in any policy that I prove the reliable source correct. You are likewise doing so now. You have a reliable source (nobody is disputing that right?) that directly says that these "enclaves" are commonly referred to as bantustans. You have no reliable source that disputes that statement, right? Do I follow all parts of this? Forgetting all the sources that use the phrasing, which normally would be sufficient to demonstrate that a name is commonly used in nearly any other topic on Wikipedia, you have a source that directly backs up the statement that bantustans is a commonly used name for this topic. Care to explain to me how your or anybody else's unsourced assertions trump that on Wikipedia? nableezy - 20:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally, we shouldn't say "X" in wikivoice unless most sources say "X". If only one source says "X", then we don't say "X", even if we don't have a source that explicitly says "not X". This is especially true if X is controversial. So if I read 10 sources and only one of them says "often", and the others do not say "often", then I don't think we should include the word "often", even if there is no source that explicitly says "not often". I think we should have multiple sources saying "often" in order to say "bantustan" is an often-used term in wikivoice. Now, I understand if you disagree with this rationale, but disagreement doesn't make it a "non-sequitur" nor does it justify saying "not one person even attempt a response". Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Care to back that up with anything resembling a quote from Wikipedia policy? But here:

• Yambert, K. (2012). The Contemporary Middle East: A Westview Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN  978-0-429-97253-9. Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"

Yes, it says pejoratively. It also says often referred to as. Which is what matter for usage as an alternate name. nableezy - 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but Yambert 2012 says Palestinians often refer to it pejoratively as "Bantustans". Peteet also says "bantustan" is a word used by Palestinians. Saying in wikivoice "often referred to pejoratively by Palestinians" is quite different from saying just "often referred to". Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That isnt what Yambert says. Yambert says the Palestinians complained that the proposals would leave three disconnected cantons. And that those cantons are commonly called "bantustans". It does not say that it is only the Palestinians that call them that. nableezy - 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hehe... what you wrote in two sentences (Yambert says the Palestinians complained that the proposals would leave three disconnected cantons. And that those cantons are commonly called "bantustans".), Yambert wrote in one sentence: Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as 'Bantustans' [Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem]), each surrounded by Israeli territory. (brackets in the original). My reading of that sentence is that Yambert is ascribing "often referred to pejoratively" to "Palestinians", since it's in the same sentence, which begins with Palestinians noted .... And I note that Yambert 2012 says there are three cantons: WB, EJ, and Gaza; and he's talking about the Palestinian response to the Oslo peace process that ended in 2000, not the actual present-day situation on the ground. So I'm not sure how relevant this is to the lead of the article " Palestinian enclaves". I wouldn't use this part of Yambert 2012 to inform me about how to complete the sentence "Palestinian enclaves are ...", and if I did, I would draw the conclusion that "Palestinian enclaves are three noncontiguous areas: Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank", and I don't think that's an accurate summary of what all the RSes say, as it doesn't describe the fragmentation within the WB, and in fact presents the WB as a single, implicitly contiguous, canton, which it isn't. Similarly, I'm not sure whether this Yambert quote which describes a viewpoint circa 2000 informs whether we should say in wikivoice, present tense, without restriction, that enclaves are often called bantustans, in 2021. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

My reading is that unless he says "which they refer to pejoratively" that you cannot claim that he is in fact attributing what he says is commonly called to a specific grouping. And yes, the usage bantustans is not new, in fact you will find sources referring to "ever-shrinking bantustans" or things along those lines, to discuss how this process has been continuing unabated over time. nableezy - 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Earlier, you wrote you think often is not correct, and you later objected to my calling the request that I take a wholly unsourced belief that it is incorrect and prove that my reliably sourced statement that "often" is correct to be a non-sequitur to be an issue. Sorry, but saying one must prove a reliable source correct when they have no reliable source disputing it is indeed a non-sequitur on Wikipedia. We challenge reliable sources with other reliable sources. Not with personal opinions not grounded in any policy. Here, you now have two solid sources that not only use the phrasing, which again is taken as evidence for common usage across Wikipedia, but directly back up the statement that the term is commonly used. Do you have anything of equal reliability that challenges that? Anything of any reliability at all? nableezy - 20:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think he forgot mine: "We drove through Ramallah and into Area B. The wall ran parallel, half a kilometre to our right, as we travelled along a Palestinian road built seven years ago to link what are popularly described as “Bantustans”, those Palestinian villages fragmented, encircled and isolated from the West Bank by the wall and its check-points."

State Crime Journal Vol. 5, No. 1, Palestine, Palestinians and Israel's State Criminality (Spring 2016), pp. 81-108 (28 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0081?refreqid=excelsior%3A4b431ec14b0b7b708bf7dc341a551a02#metadata_info_tab_contents (Penny Green is Professor of Law and Globalisation at Queen Mary University of London and Director of the International State Crime Initiative).

Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. pp. 256–. ISBN  978-0-19-045908-6....each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions. Selfstudier ( talk) 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor @ Levivich: has suggested multiple bolding but policy says "If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology"." I think the Names section we have should be kept and I prefer bolding bantustan along with one other, canton probably. The argument that there needs to be some mystery number of sources to establish wide usage is ridiculous, what is needed is for sources contradicting the sources that say there is wide usage of which I have seen precisely zero. Where do people think that all these different sources (hundreds of them) using bantustan in this or that way come from? It's because it is a widely used comparator, duh. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not "policy" you're quoting... Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 17:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, you wrote above that the handful of sources below are not enough. How many sources do you want? I can provide more, especially if we open it up to news sources. But how many is enough? And why would bolding "bantustun" preclude bolding any other significant alternative name? nableezy - 17:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I had the reverse impression, that he sought to bold more, not less. It is difficult to get a handle on it after the top two, a not very scientific source review suggests that canton might be the third one, the archipelago seems a more geographical thing rather than political and not so many sources, it's nice to put in the lead and all for the imagery but perhaps not bolded. Fragmentation is often used but that goes back to the process versus place discussion which is not resolved ftb. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah and I'm fine with that. Im asking why he thinks that bolding bantustan would preclude bolding any other term that can be verifiably called a commonly used name for the topic of this article. nableezy - 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that bolding bantustan would preclude bolding any other term that can be verifiably called a commonly used name for the topic of this article. I think that bolding "enclave", "archipelago", and "bantustan", and nothing else, would be giving undue weight to those alternatives over the others (canton et al.). I think for now we should just bold enclave tbh. Then worry about the whole "proposed" thing. And the whole does-it-include-Gaza-and-EJ thing. And when-did-it-start thing. And then the what-do-they-call-it thing, and then rewrite the lead with all those parts "correct", or at least, per sources. To answer your question above about how many sources, the number of sources we should look at is equal to the number of sources that meet an objective source criteria (such as the one I suggested in the "Sources" thread now in the archives: recent books by academic publishers, and peer-reviewed journals with an impact factor above 1). However many sources there are that meet that criteria, we should look at. In that thread I got to 18; I think since then you and others have brought up maybe something like 4 more, so there's around 20 that I know of. When we look at "are enclaves proposed or already existing?", "when did they begin?", "what are they called?", etc. etc., we should look at what all those sources say about those questions, and we should write that. To do what I'm proposing means not looking at what three or five or ten sources say, and not looking at what sources that do not meet the criteria say. The idea is to have a source criteria that will capture the mainstream view, and then to summarize the mainstream view, no matter what it is. I honestly don't know, if we look at all 20-whatever sources, what they're going to say about what names are used and in what context they're used. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 03:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont really see how WP:DUE supports that position. Sources that dont discuss alternate names dont mean that they promote the idea that there are not commonly used alternate names. And do you include all the sources that actually use "bantustan" and not just report on them being called that as being in that set of sources? nableezy - 04:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I think sources that explicitly discuss nomenclature should be given more weight when it comes to nomenclature. (Mention > use.) Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Of the sources that discuss nomenclature, what names have you found to be reported as being in common use? I know of at least one. nableezy - 04:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't look at all ~20, but off the top of my head, canton, and, pejoratively, open-air prison and ghetto, I remember being reported as being in use. I don't remember which are common or otherwise qualified. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no mainstream in the sense you mean, there is no single word to describe these spaces, although we are pretending that it is enclaves by virtue of a vote. It is transparently obvious that the whole point and purpose of the RFC is to somehow downplay the significance of "bantustan" usage. In pursuit of that objective, you and others have tried to slice and dice by (1) requesting sources that actually call enclaves bantustans and (2) then asked for sources that specify wide usage and now that those have been successfully produced, seek yet more ways to evade the obvious conclusion. Even though they are commonly called bantustans, that comparison is not exact. Because of that, a lot of sources (which we have not typically considered because we did not wish to tangle the article up in SA apartheid comparisons) parse their usage of bantustan by way of comparison (they are similar to, look like, etc) to the SA setup which I think is probably where the RM closer came up with his "popular comparison". If anything is "mainstream", that way of tackling it is probably the most common approach of all. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course there's a mainstream, and of course there is a single word to describe these spaces: it's enclave. We had an AFD about this, and an RFC about this, and multiple RMs about this, and have posted like two dozen sources that meet objective reliability criteria (recent academic books and peer-reviewed journals with impact factor >1) that use "enclave" in their own voice. The topic of this article is: "Palestinian enclaves". That is a topic about which there is a great deal of scholarship. That scholarship uses the word "enclave", which is why Wikipedia uses that word. I haven't tried to "slice and dice", I came up with an objective source criteria and posted a bunch of sources that meet that criteria, and others posted more, some two dozen so far in total, and I have said repeatedly that what alternate names we use should be based on an analysis of those sources. This approach is neutral and methodical: first gather sources based on objective criteria of reliability, next summarize them. When two dozen sources that meet the criteria all call it "enclave", that's the mainstream. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont think anybody should have a problem of trying to bring together the sources that you said youd like compiled. I still want to understand the objective criteria you would propose for what would be a significant alternative name that per LEAD and OTHERNAMES we should bold in the first sentences. The scholarships uses enclaves, it also uses bantustans. Archipelago has been, from my reading, described as a result of the process, not a name for the areas or the process of creating them, but if some source says it is commonly referred to as that then sure that one too. Im just still unclear on what youre looking for to demonstrate that something is a significant alternative name. And do you agree or disagree with the idea that what Palestinians refer to it as, being one of the involved parties here, should be included in those significant alternative names? nableezy - 17:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is going to have a problem trying to bring together the sources because it was already mostly done a month ago at Talk:Palestinian enclaves/Archive 1#Sources, which are listed again on this page at #To do list and sources, and there are more below at #Requested sources and in various other discussions. These sources, or at least some of them (I think maybe all, but I haven't gone through all of them) explicitly give alternative names: there's no guesswork or tea leaf reading involved, they're explicit about what the alternative names are, and that can be seen already in the quotes that have been posted on this talk page. If the consensus of sources say that "bantustan" is a name widely used by Palestinians, then we should say in wikivoice that "bantustan" is a name widely used by Palestinians. In terms of whether that's enough to bold it, I'm not sure. It depends on what else we're bolding (if anything), it depends on what the common alternative names are per the consensus of RS, and it depends on how the sources describe those names. For example, some sources distinguish between pejorative names (bantustan, open-air prison) and non-pejorative names (enclave, canton). If that's the consensus of RS (I'm not sure), then we should not bold the pejorative names, but perhaps they should still be in the lead somewhere. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"bantustan" is in common use and has been for some time. The proof for that statement is in the article itself, one only has to read it. The best sources are all compiled there already, I just added some for the "popular comparison" which we have mostly ignored up to now and I could sit here and add new ones in that particular category all day long. I am not really concerned with the other names, they are all used but not that commonly, one might perhaps bold canton. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested sources

During the RFC process, additional sources were requested showing explicit support for calling enclaves bantustans and for the wide use of the expression bantustan. These sources were produced, are shown below and were subsequently complained of by Wikieditor in an additional comment to his "vote". Also subsequent to their production, it was alleged that all these sources were not only unacceptable but "biased" for what they say and so that specific issue was taken to RSN noticeboards, strictly unnecessary since it is perfectly clear by simple inspection that the sources are valid rs. To correct possible misapprehension created by Wikieditor's post fact commentary above, we are not here attempting to satisfy POVNAME nor is it true that these sources "were reviewed in the prior move discussion" as these sources are new sources in addition to the multiple sources previously present in the article, although several of them have been added to it subsequently. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources that explicitly support that these "enclaves" are widely or commonly called "bantustans"

Sources that explicitly support that "enclaves" are referred to as "bantustans"

Sources attributing "bantustans" to critics/suggesting more limited usage

At the risk of feeding into this obvious violation of WP:TALKHEADPOV, whereby talk page headers should not be used to communicate a content position, I think some balance is in order. First of all, many of the sources provided under each of those "headers" does not even relate to what the header suggests. The HDR report does not "explicitly" use the term bantustans. Second, it's not clear that such support is "explicit" in many instances either, especially where one sources notes its a pejorative. And finally, none of this negates the bias concerns raised below, which are especially relevant when considering whether a source is appropriately reliable for attributing a loaded term to widespread or more limited usage. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 02:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources marked requested above were produced at the request of "your side" during the RFC to support the mentioned statements, the ones I have now marked not requested were requested by no-one and you are merely inserting them into another section for effect. I could equally randomly add a hundred sources here to show usage of bantustan in many different contexts. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier This is absolutely incoherent reasoning. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you believe sources are available to support your assertion, you are entitled to supply them. The same goes for anyone else. Hiding them under a subheader "sources no one requested," even though they are clearly relevant to the discussion, is juvenile and I would expect better from you. I have noted this at ANI and don't expect to see this again. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We were asked to supply sources and we did, you can supply as many sources that no one has asked for as you like but put them in your own section. You are not even replying to anyone, you just shoehorned these into this section to be pointy. More of your tiresome antics, keep going. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not "who asked for them," it's what's relevant to the discussion. These are. So for you to justify deleting the ToC links for these sources while presenting others under pointed headers -- it's just inexcusable. Readers are entitled to review both. I asked this conduct to stop at ANI. I hope you'll oblige. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 23:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm keeping the diffs as I go now, save me time later. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the above

Note just in case some read too fast and miss the obvious, as has unfortunately happened too frequently (or widely) here:

The Palestinian areas will be nothing more than “Bantustans,” it is frequently said in Israel,

The only correct grammatical construal of this is that, 'it is frequently said in Israel' is a parenthetical clause defining 'Bantustans'. I.e. the analogy is widely/frequently understood in Israel, and not just some foreign outsider view. It is formulated neutrally, implying neither Israeli criticism nor Israeli endorsement, not to speak of Israeli realism. Nishidani ( talk) 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Even a brief look at these sources indicates they are each partisan commentators on the subject, and none of them provide any first-hand information to confirm the term "bantustans" is widely or "popularly" used.

• Jerome Slater, a historian who contends that the reason there is no peace in the MI is attributable entirely to Israel. See here.
• Christopher Harker, makes regular use of the terms "Israeli settler colonialism"
• Penny Green, who has compared Israel to ISIS

These sources don't even pass the smell test. I find it baffling that users can parse every syllable in the New York Times to discern bias and dismiss statements contrary to their position as "throwaways," yet present these sources without any context as to the WP:PARTISAN nature of the author's views. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN is available for testing your hypothesis. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry what lol? Books published by university presses are generally considered reliable. nableezy - 23:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This one is from the Israel and the Apartheid analogy article - Settler policy imperils Israel's foundations, Financial Times, 21 February 2013: "Faced with widely drawn international parallels between the West Bank and the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, senior figures in Mr Netanyahu's Likud party have begun to admit the danger." Selfstudier ( talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesnt quite do what I was trying to compile here, which are sources that explicitly say that these "enclaves" are called "bantustans". Not that they are compared to them. nableezy - 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Nableezy: There is a difference between reliable and biased. This is a select presentation of sharply biased sources, all representing the same point of view, as if it is somehow evidence of that view being "widely held." Mainstream sources like the NYT attribute the bantustan analogy to critics; earlier, these same users called the NYT hopelessly biased, yet here are bandying about sources that are engaged in open advocacy. You can't have your cake and it it, too, and we're not going to ignore the issues of bias that's obvious in these sources. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 23:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it is a listing of sources of the highest quality, per WP:RS (scholarship), that directly support what you, without any sources at all, claim is untrue. On Wikipedia, several rock solid reliable sources are given more weight than the unsourced opinion of a partisan editor (also please actually read WP:PARTISAN, you may be surprised at what it says). If you have any sources that support your contention please bring them. If you would like to challenge any of these sources, WP:RSN is thataway. But just stomping your feet and saying I dont like these sources is not one of the available options. And no, I am not taking a select presentation of sharply biased sources, all representing the same point of view, as if it is somehow evidence of that view being "widely held.". I am bringing actual reliable sources that explicitly say that the phrasing is indeed widely used. I have yet to see a single source challenge that statement that now has a handful of scholarly sources supporting And, oh by the way, news sources are unequivocally worse sources than scholarship. Maybe Levivich can explain that one, since I know for sure he has been in support of higher quality sourcing standards in other articles. I wonder if that carries over here. nableezy - 23:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And here's a (very) pro Israeli source "The word “Bantustan” is often used to describe Israel’s policy for a future Palestinian state. It might look like that, superficially, but it is not. Bantustans were intended to pen blacks into defined areas that served as labour reservoirs. Israel’s aim is to keep Palestinians out and to have as little to do with them as possible." https://hsf.org.za/publications/focus/issue-40-fourth-quarter-2005/israel-is-a-democracy-in-which-arabs-vote Says it all, right there. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, what makes these sources so high quality? Because they are written by academics with strident views on a particular subject? They are certainly usable, they are also limited by the fact that they are written by individuals with sharp and occasionally inflammatory views on the subject matter. Acknowledging this isn't "stomping my feet," it's pointing out the obvious, especially when you and others claim bias when I note that the NYT noted that this analogy is typically drawn by critics of Israel. Selfstudier, the source you just mentioned specifically rejects the bantustan analogy, which indicates it is not a universally held view as Onceinawhile earlier seemed to conclude (without evidence). Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The 15-year-old Benjamin Pogrund article which Selfstudier quoted proves my point because even this very pro-Israeli author explicitly confirms that they look alike. But, just to make it rock-solid, here is another article from Pogrund from a few months ago: [1] For Pogrund, who lives in Jerusalem where he continues to writes books about South African history, the idea of Palestinian enclaves within sovereign Israel is reminiscent of the bantustans in apartheid South Africa — non-contiguous territories the racist Afrikaner government set aside for blacks. “The bantustans were simply a more refined form of apartheid to mask what it really was,” said Pogrund, who was born and raised in Cape Town. “One of them had 15 areas that were unconnected to each other; we called it a nonsense state. The same now with whatever Palestinian state comes out of this, with a whole lot of bits and pieces here and there — it’s a nonsense state.” Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

All agree that Peteet is a key source. Pogrund's position is identical to hers, with the sole difference that, after drawing out numerous examples of similarity in the analogy, she says Israel does not use the 'enclaves' as a source of labour, whereas SA did. hence the analogy is not correct. Pogrund simply states this one minor difference in the following terms:

“The bantustans were simply a more refined form of apartheid to mask what it really was,”

The analogy therefore cannot be disowned because of Peteet's singular minor difference for

(a) Peteet was wrong in the first place (also historically, i.e. the situation in Gaza for 2 decades prior to 1987). In 2020 133,000 Palestinians now work in Israel and the settlements

(b) in sociological methodology, a single feature of comparative difference does not destabilize the congruency of an otherwise strongly (even by Peteet) documented analogy. Were that so, comparative theory would be invalidated, since every cross-cultural comparison cannot but evince minor differences between the compared realities. Monarchies the world over differ far more pronouncedly in their specifics (i.e. an ' absolute monarchy ' as opposed to a constitutional monarchy) than does a WB 'enclave' and the SA bantustans.

In this sense, Peteet's dissenting viewpoint should be definitely noted, but it cannot determine whether or not enclave is the more conceptually accurate term than Bantustan.

We do know that it is official policy, with Israel leaders like Netanyahu asserting that “Israel is not a state of all its citizens … Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and them alone” , to vigorously challenge any public analogy between the rigorously ethno-territorial separation practiced by South Africa and Israel in the occupied territories. That POV abhorrence of the analogy is being reproduced in many arguments here. Okay. But the official view of a state cannot be passed off as conforming to what scholarship generally affirms, i.e. the strength of the analogy and the influence of the SA model on Israeli policy. Nishidani ( talk) 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, many sources go out of their way to state that the comparison with SA apartheid is not exact, apartheid 2.0 is quite common, to signify a different and in some ways worse thing than SA apartheid. Those constructively using the word bantustan are simply taking advantage of the imagery to make their point not asserting an SA parallel per se. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why these sources are high quality. Particularly the lines When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. and 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. Oxford University Press, Taylor & Francis and Duke University Press are all such well-regarded academic presses. International Security (journal) is a peer-reviewed journal published by MIT Press. We base our articles on scholarship, and that does not change simply because an editor seeks to disqualify sources on the basis of the perceived politics of the author. The NY Times is an amazing source for the news of the day. Not for taking a fragment of a sentence and seeking to use it well beyond what it supports (the NYT saying that critics have likened these places to bantustans does not in any way refute that it is either also not used by people besides "Israeli critics" or, and this is the important part for bolding it as an alternative title, widely or commonly used). nableezy - 04:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have at no point said that any of these sources should be disqualified; I said exactly the opposite and agreed they can be used. But the fact that these sources are from sharply opinionated authors indeed limits their usefulness, and they should not be accorded excessive weight. The NYT isn't being used for the "news of the day" and the article cited isn't a "newsy" article. It's coverage of the longstanding debate that touches exactly what we're discussing here -- the usage of the term "bantustans" to describe these enclaves/etc. and its connotation. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 09:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is why the NYT is not anywhere close to being a better or even equivalent source as actual scholarship. You keep confusing "sharply opinionated authors" (which can fairly describe you here) with scholarship. Wikipedia places the vetted views by the academic community as being the highest quality and most reliable of sources. Full stop. These academic sources all support that the term bantustan is a widely used name for the topic of the article. You still have not come even close to addressing that rock solid fact. nableezy - 13:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we have any objections to characterizing usage of the term as "often" / "widely" / "popularly" / "frequently", I suggest we simply pick the one which we are most comfortable with. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we see the sources that say that the authors of the sources provided are "sharply opinionated", please? Sources were requested and sources were found. The usual way to balance things up (if unbalanced) is to cite contradictory sources so we want sources stipulating rarely, infrequent, not widely used and unpopular. I think it's quite difficult to find these when it is clear from the article itself that it is used a lot and has been all the way back to 1967 and even more so now. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy which can fairly describe you here, No, actually, that's not "fairly," this is a personal attack and also complete nonsense. My points are grounded in policy and can be applied to a source on any side of the spectrum. You, on the other hand, accuse me of "sharp opinions" and ignore the constant POV-pushing by other users on this page, including accusations of Israelo-centric, conspiratorial nonsense about the NYT, and a host of other comments. Curious. I suggest you go back to read more on what an ad hominem is, which you're keen on linking but not following. Claiming the sources are "academic" over and over again is not a counter to the caution we need to exercise when using clearly WP:PARTISAN sources, which the ones provided are. "Full stop." Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think my calling you a partisan editor is a personal attack then you calling the named living people above partisans is a BLP violation. Glass houses. nableezy - 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, it is appropriate to recognize a bias in a source. The authors of each are prolific for commentary on Israel that is highly critical and has repeatedly veered into the controversial, if they have any sort of public profile. See the links I provided above. If you were to apply this same logic to a "pro-Israel" source (Alan Dershowitz is one example), that would be perfectly fair game. It's great that you did the research to find a source; that doesn't mean we silence commentary on those sources. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, no, this won't do at all. We now have a fair sized selection of acceptable sources and it will not suffice to trot out the usual "they hate Israel" argument, you really need to clearly and unambiguously discredit these sources and I doubt that you will be able to do that. Better still, produce contradictory sourcing but as I have already said, that will be just as difficult. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What you're not understanding is that "academic" doesn't mean "unimpeachable" and if you are presenting a source as above commentary or criticism, then we're not doing our job as editors. Nowhere have I said that these sources are not credible or worth of use in the article. They are -- but not for what you want to use them for. Objective media sources attribute this view to critics, and the sources you cite are—surprise—critics. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Being a critic is only relevant if there is a credible other side. All credible commentators on climate change are critics of the phenomenon. And all credible commentators on these enclaves are critics. In three months of discussion, I have not seen a single reliable source which argues that these enclaves are a good thing. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the argument even is anymore, afaics the main purpose of this rfc seems to be to dredge up any kind of argument at all in order not to have bantustan as an aka in the lead. It says in the article right now in the Names section "Critics, including those using the term pejoratively, frequently describe the areas as "bantustans," a reference to the territory set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa." and if that is right and all the evidence indicates that it is, then you cannot avoid bantustan as an aka.(idk why what is actually in the article was not given as a choice in the RFC if it comes to that) Selfstudier ( talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor, I have not said my sources are unimpeachable. I have however said that there are no other equally or more reliable sources that dispute what they say at all. You, a random person on the internet, are not a reliable source. Your personal opinion is not relevant. Do you have any sources that dispute what now has a handful of scholarly sources supporting. And once again, please try to get this point. I am not using sources that call what our article calls "enclaves" "bantustans" as evidence that they are commonly called "bantustans". I am bringing a number of indeed unimpeachably reliable sources, and if you want to challenge that then please say so and we can see what the crowd at RSN thinks of a source list with 3 university presses and a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles explicitly supporting the contested statement, that flat out say that the topic of this article is in fact widely referred to as bantustans. Do you have any sources that challenge that? I do not care what you think of the politics of any of the authors, there's a reason why publisher and peer-review matter here. Are there any sources that dispute the statement that the topic of this article is widely referred to as bantustans? nableezy - 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You, a random person on the internet, are not a reliable source. Your personal opinion is not relevant. Here we go again, this is utter and complete hogwash. It is the job of editors to review sources and assess them for reliability, bias, and whether they can be used to support article content. That's exactly what I'm doing, and that's what you're doing as well -- we just happen to perhaps disagree, specifically on whether these sources support the "widely used" wording. I think they are "widely used," but by critics, and that is bolstered, not weakened, by the sources you have provided here. The available information about these scholars indicates harbor strong and controversial views on the subject matter in question. They are not neutral commentators on a debate like the NYT, they are participants in the debate, so taking their word alone that an analogy is "correct" or "widely accepted" is ludicrous when objective sources recognize that this bantustan analogy is indeed one raised by critics. A source provided by Selfstudier confirms that this is used as a pejorative. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

On the 4 January, in response to a request you read up on the sources in order to have your evaluations of them taken seriously you said you felt no obligation to read all the documentation on which page content was based. It was sufficient to read the talk page, half of which seems composed of your divagations

Today is the 17th, almost two weeks later, and, you write It is the job of editors to review sources and assess them for reliability, bias, and whether they can be used to support article content. That's exactly what I'm doing

I regard favourably that admission you realize our advice was correct. It has taken you two weeks to come round to that view, but it is perhaps the most striking result of the humongously tedious argufying that has been forced on the page over the last half month. It's one of those Neil Armstrong moments, one small step for you, one huge step taken on behalf of the rest of us. At this rate, we may have consensus on one or two other niggling points within the decade (though unfortunately I won't be round to pop the champagne cork with the younger set in here when that happens). Nishidani ( talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

At this point I'm just wondering how much more mileage you're going to try and squeeze out of that diff. I never said people shouldn't read the relevant sources. At all. And we'll reach consensus when the RfC concludes. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point here. No, these are not "participants in the debate". These are academics writing in the area of their academic expertise in books published by the most prestigious university presses on the planet and in peer-reviewed journal articles. We are not "taking their word alone", there is not a single source that disputes what they report as fact. And when academics writing in their area of expertise in books published by the most prestigious university presses on the planet and in peer-reviewed journal articles say something is a fact, like oh say that these "enclaves" are commonly called "bantustans", then we on Wikipedia accept that as a fact if there are no equally or more reliable sources disputing it. Again, do you have any sources, any at all, that despite that "bantustan" is a term commonly used to refer to the topic of this article? Because, again, there are several rock solid sources that flat out state that fact. And yes, your personal opinion on the politics of the academics writing in their area of expertise in books published by the most prestigious university presses on the planet and in peer-reviewed journal articles is in fact entirely meaningless here. nableezy - 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Here, how about this. Are you challenging any of these sources' reliability for the statement of fact that these places are commonly called "bantustans"? If so, which ones. nableezy - 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think their unreliable per se, but I think they are overrepresenting how widely used the "bantustans" terms are because of their bias on the subject. They may simply perceive wider usage than evidence supports, and they really don't offer anything but a conclusory statement to back it up. This is contracted by reporting from the NYT and other outlets which attribute this analogy to Israel's critics, probably are more capable of offering a mainstream, objective take. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 02:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You think they are overrepresesnting something because of their bias? You think your personal feelings mean more than actual scholarship here? And no, it is not contradicted by the NYT, and no the NYT is not probably ... more capable of offering a mainstream, objective take. One more time, are you challenging the reliability of any of these sources listed for the statement of fact that bantustan is a widely used term to refer to what our article calls "enclaves". Its a simple question, Id appreciate a simple response. Because if you are we have a process for getting further views as to the reliability of the sources for this statement. If you are not then we can cut the charade right here. nableezy - 04:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think their unreliable per se, but I think they are overrepresenting how widely used the "bantustans" terms are because of their bias on the subject.

Have you any idea of the puerile conceptual error of remarks like that, in the context of what you have been saying?

You are in no position to judge whether the content of a given number of texts overrepresents the situation unless you have read and mastered all of the relevant literature, something which you admit you don't do. Nishidani ( talk) 08:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, your relentless and belligerent POV pushing, and intentional misunderstanding of where the WP:ONUS lies for sweeping claims, is tiresome. Nothing you have presented supports the claim that this term is widely used by anyone except for critics. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've repeated that phrasing dozens of times, and 4 editors have patiently wasted some weeks pointing out every flaw in your assertions, always introducing articles that give the lie to your claims, or introducing new angles, or teasing apart the obvious unfamiliarity with the topic your relentlessly self-repetitive posting displays. Technically, the extra dozen miles these editors have gone through to get you to move a millimeter from your entrenched position, means that no one, at this point, need respond any more, because all of your points have been exhaustively answered. Nishidani ( talk) 18:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing you have presented supports the claim that this term is widely used by anyone except for critics.

You have the following quotes from the following sources:

• Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN  978-0-19-045908-6. each segment of the "state" would be further subdivided into enclaves ("Bantustans", as they have been widely called) by the Israeli settlements, highways and military positions.
• Yambert, Karl (2012). The Contemporary Middle East: A Westview Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN  978-0-429-97253-9. Palestinians noted that Israel's proposal for the West Bank left Palestinians with three unconnected cantons (often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans"
• Harker, Christopher (Associate Professor at the Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London) (2020). Spacing Debt: Obligations, Violence, and Endurance in Ramallah, Palestine. Duke University Press. ISBN  978-1-4780-1247-4. This checkpoint system enabled Israel to severely curtail Palestinians' freedom of movement within the Occupied Territories, particularly during the second intifida. Oslo thus transformed Palestinian cities into enclaves, which are often referred to as Bantustans to invoke explicit comparison with the Apartheid geography of South Africa

Which of these sources are you challenging for the statement that these enclaves are "often referred to" or "widely called" as bantustans? Please actually answer the question. Because they explicitly say, despite your claim that "nothing [has been] presented that supports the claim that this term is widely used by anyone except critics", that the term is widely or often used. Beyond that, can you tell me where in WP:OTHERNAMES it says anything about not including as an alternate title a widely used name because it is critical or used by critics? nableezy - 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Wikieditor has declined to say which source he is challenging, I've decided to cut to the chase and take the issue to RSN myself. WP:RSN#Palestinian enclaves and sourcing for an alternate name nableezy - 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The arguments that this a perjorative name and as such should not be bolded in the lead are based on no policy. Nothing in WP:NPOV supports the idea that widely used names should not be bolded, in fact NPOV says exactly the opposite. I sincerely hope the closer of this RFC evaluates the arguments and does not simply count heads, as there are a number of votes that do not even attempt to wave at our policies and instead seek to turn NPOV on its head. nableezy - 01:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There also seems to be a fairly solid consensus at RSN that the above sources are both reliable and directly support that the term "bantustan" is widely used. nableezy - 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Nableezy: There is no consensus at RSN for anything, and I suggest scrolling up to see what I've already responded to before claiming I haven't look at what you provided. The notion that WP:POVNAME is satisfied by a limited group of highly opinionated sources was already rejected in a prior consensus. WP:RSN is for determining whether sources are reliable and may be used, it is not a forum for content proposals. As I stated earlier, these sources are usable but not for what you've suggested here. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The arguments that this a perjorative name and as such should not be bolded in the lead are based on no policy Just wrong, the policy is WP:POVNAME, and it applies to both article titles and "alternative" titles. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 06:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Afaics the relevant policies are WP:ALTNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES:

Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.(as is the case in the article right now, the version put up by the RM closer)

Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article.(as is the case in the article right now)

Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them.(as is the case in the article right now).

There are plentiful reliable sources both in the article and above to show that this is a significant alternative name, the RSN discussion is clear cut on policy grounds, your personal opinion notwithstanding. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC) WP:POVNAME is about the title of the article. This is not about the title of the article. Which makes that hand wave towards policy especially confused. As far as consensus at RSN, every person who has commented save Wikieditor has agreed that these sources are reliable and support the statement. Anybody can look at that here. You disliking a consensus does not make it less of a consensus, sorry. nableezy - 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A few editors said the sources seemed reliable, and also acknowledged that they are biased. There was no consensus on the narrow issue we discussed here, nor does a discussion on RSN have any bearing on wording or article content here. Nableezy, this edit violated the consensus-required imposition. The discussion is currently roundly opposed to bolding of any alternative titles, and the bolding should not be restored unless there is a consensus for it. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Every editor who has commented agreed that the sources are reliable for that statement. And no, your edit violated that requirement. The discussion is an RFC that will need an uninvolved admin to close, not an involved editor declaring his side the victor despite policy being emphatically opposed to his positions as repeatedly demonstrated. Your edit is the re-revert here, and I expect you should be sanctioned for it. nableezy - 22:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN certainly does have a bearing since much of your argumentation consists of dismissing (and I see you are still doing it even now) entirely acceptable rs that was produced on request. Your revert in the lead not only undid a (relatively) long standing text, it went against the (informal) agreement to maintain the "consensus" lead for the time being (ie the version put up by the RM closer). I have reverted you on this talk page as well where you even sought to extend your argument to a section header against GTG guidelines. This doesn't seem like dialling it back, I have to say. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

not an involved editor declaring his side the victor Nableezy, when you declared (and still declare) consensus at RSN, was that not the same as this? The fact that sources are biased means they are of limited use for certain purposes, especially to claim a view is widespread. That concern is doubled when other mainstream sources do not repeat the same view and attribute to to critics. Scrutinizing a source for bias, especially for sweeping claims, is absolutely appropriate and what we should be doing, so it's rather hypocritical to on the one hand, slam me for noting bias the sources you provided, and at the same time claim bias in sources I provide, like the NYT. The key difference here is that all of those articles were written by openly opinionated commentators/academics, whereas the article I cited was from the news section of the NYT. Apples and oranges to compare the two.

And no, RSN is not for hashing out content differences—that is what this page is for, and if you fail to persuade at the content page, RSN is does not present an alternate forum for you to argue the same points and then claim to override the decision-making process here. Regardless, I don't think this will be an issue. There is no indication of any "consensus" at the discussion you linked. Of the 7-8 editors who are involved in that discussion, literally maybe six of them are all editors who migrated over from this talk page to that thread to argue the same points, and maybe two additional editors commented to vaguely weigh in on the issue. One such editor did not dispute the apparent bias in these sources. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 02:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

An allegation was made that the sources produced following a request made as part of this RFC process were unsatisfactory as rs and biased for what they say, although even a simple inspection of those sources indicates that they are perfectly acceptable rs. In the face of repeated denials from yourself, those sources were taken to RSN for scrutiny. All sources are biased, the only question is the degree, bias is not of itself a reason for dismissing rs simply because you personally do not approve of what they say. The two "additional editors" did not "vaguely weigh in", one said "These sources are sufficient to state that the term is in common use." and the other said "All the sources look reliable to me." These continuing misrepresentations of prior and even current discussions are becoming exceeding tiresome and I would like you to stop doing that. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Literally every single person except for you that has commented at RSN agrees that these sources are reliable for the statement that bantustan is widely used, full stop. Your view on bias of sources is backed by literally no policy. Yes, a consensus exists at RSN that these sources are reliable for this statement. You not liking that is unsurprising but also unimportant. nableezy - 14:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Results of the discussion

El_C, a few weeks ago you placed a consensus required limitation on this page. We now have an RfC that shows the following results:

1) General consensus for noting the bantustan analogy in the lead 2) General consensus around Option A (7/15) with Options B and C seemingly splitting the remaining votes 3) Unclear consensus on bolding bantustans

Editors who opposed the result in 2) are now unable to accept the outcome of the discussion, seemingly violating a specific DS on this page. At what point does this conduct become actionable? Or does the consensus among the majority of involved editors have to be subsidiary to the will of the few who are willing to closely monitor this page and revert to their preferred version? Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

General consensus is not determined by a headcount. Ill post at ANRFC to ask that an uninvolved admin determine what the consensus is, something that does not fall to an involved party. nableezy - 17:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

And done. nableezy - 17:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND & WP:NOTAVOTE Selfstudier ( talk) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A minor point, but it seems a waste of administrator's time here with this closure request. Nableezy and Selfstudier's preferred position actually prevailed on 2/3 points, one by clear consensus for inclusion of the bantustan analogy (which I agreed with) and the other on the bolding of "bantustan," for which there was an even split and the default is to maintain the prior version. On point 2, out of three options, one garnered basically half of all votes and the other two garnered less than a quarter each, yes Nableezy refuses to accept the outcome absent a discussion closure, in an RfC over a single sentence in which 15 editors participated. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you not get about this isnt a vote? Like seriously, how is that not clear to you. Have you read even the opening paragraphs of WP:CON? Did you get to where it says nor is it the result of a vote? nableezy - 17:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how "consensus is not a vote" and "it doesn't matter what consensus is because everyone else is wrong" are always the arguments raised by those on the side unhappy with the result. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Its funny how people who very obviously have not even read the first two sentences of one of the pillars of this place seem so confident in making such silly pronouncements. nableezy - 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

With that DYK mishap out of the way, which let us never speak of again, I'm confused, Wikieditor19920. The RfC has yet to be closed, so there's no consensus (or lack thereof) to speak of. You are jumping the gun here. El_C 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C OK, I'll accept your weighing in here as definitive and will await a close. My only thinking was that per, WP:CLOSE, Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious. and here, there is a broad coalescence in the discussion and vote sections around Option A, and the outcome seems obvious. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To you. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, an WP:RFC isn't an "informal discussion." It is a formal dispute resolution request. El_C 18:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND: Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance. RFCEND #2 (The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time...) > #4 (Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion...). Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking. You missed this bit "If the matter under discussion is not contentious.... Selfstudier ( talk) 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A few editors contending it doesn't make it contentious. The full line is "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." To me, it's obvious that Q1 yes, Q2 A, Q3 no consensus to bold. But if an editor wants to have some other editor take up their time to close this, in the hopes that they'll discount the !votes and make it come out some other way, that's their prerogative. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 21:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To me it is obvious that the only way one arrives at "no consensus to bold" is if they dont weigh the arguments based on Wikipedia policy and instead count votes. But thats just whats obvious to me, and as an involved party it isnt really for me to decide such a thing. nableezy - 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not required. And yes, an uninvolved editor can close it. An involved editor declaring what the consensus of the RFC is appears to however be conspicuously absent from what youve quoted. I wonder why. But I for one think that question two should be ignored entirely, it presented a set of options that many of us didnt agree to at all. And that was raised in the discussion. And I hope that the closing editor takes into account the deficiency in trying to determine the exact sentence that should be used without looking at the sources at all. nableezy - 20:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich makes a great point. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Nableezy, you are basically asking for a WP:SUPERVOTE to close this out in your favor. All three options were present in the article for a period of time and nothing about Option A is "deficient" or not compliant with policy. It's just not your preferred phrasing, which is fine, but it is the preferred phrasing of the majority of those involved when presented with a plethora of options. And by the way, Levivich actually did not vote in favor of Option A, yet he seems to acknowledge the consensus around it. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 21:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I am asking for an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, to determine the consensus of the discussion. Again, read WP:CON at least up through the end of the second sentence. And I thought you accepted El_C's comment as definitive? There are any number of instances in which consensus of a discussion turned out to be the opposite of the numerical vote count. I have no idea if this will be one of them or not, I do however know that as involved editor it is not for me to determine what the consensus of a discussion I am involved in if it is isnt so blindingly obvious that no reasonable person can dispute it. And oh by the way, you disputed a unanimous consensus existed against you at RSN was a consensus at all. Proving why you are a poor judge of such things. nableezy - 21:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, I pointed out that a discussion where you claimed "unanimous agreement" glossed over more nuanced disagreements from two editors who had commented, something you continue to do. If anything, that discussion indicates that you will happily claim "consensus" absent a closure when you feel discussion has been in your favor, yet when the discussion doesn't go your way, you pull out every procedural backstop. This should have been resolved already, and there are more than just "numerical votes." Just as votes are not always determinative (though they frequently are), substance behind a position is not measured by how many characters you can fill up a page with. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 21:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Very obviously not true lol. Ive already asked for a closure. Youve already been told that this needs to be closed as formal dispute resolution. You already said you accepted that. And yet you still feel the need to what exactly? Argue against your previously accepted position? Set the record you likely already hold for most signatures in an RFC? nableezy - 22:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I accept El_C's determination that closure is the preferred course in this particular case. I also agree with Levivich's pointing out that closure is not always required for RfCs per WP:CLOSE. And I am raising why demanding closure can be abused for disruptive purposes, like where a limited discussion over a single aspect of an article reaches a conclusion, and then that conclusion is rejected by the dissenting editors because it didn't appear to resolve in their favor on every single point. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Then just wait for a close. This talk page is for discussing the topic of Palestinian enclaves. Not your beliefs about WP:CLOSE. You have apparently acknowledged this should be formally closed. So maybe let that happen now. Thanks. nableezy - 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)