This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dragged this (before and after comments edited out) back out of the archive. I am assuming we do still want to look at these elements now the RFC is finished. If not, tell me, I will delete it all and we will start over :)

Beginning archive content

1. Archipelago reference moved after bantustan reference

• Agree. Nishidani ( talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Open air prison reference deleted

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

3. Bantustan reference prefaced with "Critics refer..." ==> [See RfC above, which covers this question]

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

4. Debolding of all alternative names ==> [See RfC above, which partially covers this question]

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

5. "...most outstanding..." quote deleted

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

6. Reference to "A number of US-Israeli peace plans" deleted

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

7. "Bantustan option" deleted

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

8. "...group of non-contiguous..." sentence moved down

• Move back up Nishidani ( talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep where it was – it is a more helpful if earlier. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• No opinion at the moment will wait to see how lead develops. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

9. Clarification re Area C being "the rest of the West Bank" deleted

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

10. Not in version: [Proposal to expunge references to Bantustan altogether] ==> [See RfC above, which covers this question]

• That violates WP:Lead summary style. Nishidani ( talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per wp:lead and consistency with sources. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, this is self evident by the article content. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

11. Move Francis Boyle reference in footnote c down to the main body

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

End of archive content Selfstudier ( talk) 17:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I implemented 1. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Only one of six notes in the lead after the bolded "bantustans" actually supports the notion that they are called bantustans (or a variation). The others are merely comparative - that these are like bantustans. Which is very important, but not what the article says. The lead needs serious work. I was going to take up the GAN but I am not interested when the lead's citations/notes are not verifying the content. Urve ( talk) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Urve: That occurred because of an RFC over whether or not bantustan ought to be bolded in the lead and all those (like a..) refs in the lead were added by myself in support of that argument (you would need to read the RFC to get it, the mess up above). The conclusion of the RFC was that they are referred to as bantustans and it should therefore be bolded as an alternative name. There are plenty of suitable references in the article itself. There was also a discussion about not having refs in the lead and having them only in the body but that didn't proceed at the time, maybe it should now (otherwise we would have a couple dozen refs sitting there). Selfstudier ( talk) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the refs used for that sentence are not correctly used. They should be the ones that specifically say widely called bantustans, not ones that use the term. nableezy - 21:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cites in the lead are fine. As long as they actually support what is being said. These almost entirely do not. There is a side question as to whether it is synthetic to call the analogy "popular" anyway, but that is secondary to source-text integrity. Urve ( talk) 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Urve: thanks for pointing this out – it has now been fixed. The other refs were supporting the first clause in the sentence, not the second clause. I do think it looks a little ugly having so many refs side by side in the lead – a number of them could be consolidated. Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The popular thing came from a closer, who chose to summarize the debate in that fashion. He was essentially referring (I think) to the "like a../ referred to as../ "compared to.." references which are plentiful, so I think it is not absolutely necessary to retain that at this point, the main principle is that they are referred to as bantustans apart from the popular comparitive. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Palestinian enclaves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

After reading the article twice and looking over the criteria again, I'm not sure I am able to review this article as well as it deserves. I was worried it would be a quickfail on stability, but it is not in my judgement. I'm going to ask for a second opinion, and would ask the second-opinion-giver to fully take over the review. I hope this one can find the reviewer it needs! Ganesha811 ( talk) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quotes in the "Notes" section are so long and not even fair use (or necessary for the article) such that they're copyvio, but I could be wrong. Moneytrees (a copyright admin) might have a more informed opinion here? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The quotations in the notes section are consistent with right to quote. They are used to provide thorough attribution in what is a complex and sensitive subject, without overburdening the main article with too many in line quotations. This practice is often used in high quality articles in controversial topic areas. In the Israel-Palestine area, see for example Balfour Declaration (FA) and Mandate for Palestine (GA). Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are several excessive quotes in the notes section. I understand that quoting large portions of sources in order to combat claims of source misinterpretation and misinformation is commonly done in controversial topic areas; however, the non-free content criteria needs to be respected, a lot of the quotes are excessive and I wonder how much of the information in them is needed. I would request the article creator trim them down. I personally don't think the quotes in Balfour Declaration are really ok either, but past attempts to remove them have been met with resistance so they've stayed. Moneytrees🏝️ ^{Talk/ CCI guide} 23:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence above is not quite right - the Balfour Declaration quotes were trimmed down to where they are now, but they stayed because there was consensus for them to stay. It was discussed in a few different places, perhaps most notably at this ANI thread which included comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long." This is in line with our non-free content criteria guideline examples which state "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."

I have just been through the quotes in this article again in light of the above. There is not excessive quoting from any one source, and no quote is more than a paragraph long (the majority are 1-3 sentences, and the longest is 277 words). I will review them in more detail, to see which we can trim further.

Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Onceinawhile to enquire about review status. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, thank you for the nudge. I have now been through all the quotations one by one, and cut them down. The longest quote is now under 150 words; that is less than half of the 367 maximum length of quotations referenced above. Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Review will not be completed

I pinged Ganesha811 on their talk page, and they will definitely not be returning to this review. Accordingly, I have returned the nomination to the pool of those awaiting a reviewer without any loss of seniority—it will be one of the oldest unreviewed nominations, and thus likely to be picked up reasonably quickly. The next review will take place on a different page from this one. Pinging nominator Onceinawhile, so they know what is happening. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Palestinian enclaves/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Szmenderowiecki ( talk · contribs) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Review by Szmenderowiecki

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   All issues related to wording have been resolved. Now the article reads like proper English. :)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

   Good enough.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

   I've taken note of the rephrasings/expansions, I think it looks much better now, so I have no more issues with that.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Referred to second editor for consideration. No feedback for the enquiries.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All image issues are resolved

7. Overall: We are mostly finished as far as my review goes. The NPOV check remains, but as I said, I will ask another editor to consider that. I'm waiting for final comments regarding the NPOV issue.

   Pass/Fail:

Hello Onceinawhile, this is my first Good Article nomination review. Since the topic is controversial (subject to WP:PIA), I will keep particular attention on neutrality; I of course would encourage other people to also propose their remarks on the article.

Images (criterion 6)

I'll start from the simplest and least controversial part: images. I've substituted one image from jpg to svg version.

• AllonDrobles.jpg: I think it should be public domain as PD-UN-doc (we shouldn't restrict copyright where not warranted) as it was published as part of a UN transcript of a conference and it appears in the French version with a UN logo.

Other than that, the images lack alternative text. When this is remedied, this will be turned to green. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Onceinawhile comment:  Alt text added throughout Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Stability (criterion 5)

From the history of the article, I can conclude that the article has not been recently subject to edit wars and is fairly stable (plus it has 500/30 protection due to ARBPIA), so the article passes this test. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Text (criteria 1-4)

Final remarks

After some thorough review, I feel that the Israeli/pro-Israeli viewpoint is not sufficiently present in the article. It is obvious that the Israeli govt does what it does, but I think that the Israeli perspective there is lacking (if to discount Haaretz, which is known for being "Israel's most vehemently anti-settlement daily paper"). For example, the version proposed did not offer any examples where authors and politicians said that the Palestinian enclaves were not Bantustans, and AFAIK there are quite a lot of folks supportive of Israeli policies. However, being a non-expert in these issues, I will refer the NPOV question to a second person so that they could analyse if I'm right saying that there are potential NPOV issues hiding in the article and hopefully that other editor, if they find it necessary, will propose some adjustments and remedies. I'm waiting for the corrections to be made, or discussed in case of problems, after which the article will be reviewed by another user. I hope you won't have to wait for another three months for the review. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The only core NPOV issue here so far, unless I misunderstood the discussion that determined the default title, was whether the reality of 160 odd areas of Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank, now or in the future, situated between Israeli settlements, were to be called 'enclaves' or 'bantustans'. The choice of the former does not resonate with the South African analogy, the latter does and it was thought therefore that it was 'neutral' to employ the term pro-Israeli sources prefer. The title is what that POV prefers, the alt name what the majority of sources commenting on Israeli political and planning thinking had in mind. This is amply covered in the body of the text.

The gravamen of the second NPOV issue is whether those enclaves or bantustans are territorily continuous or discontinuous. Both 'enclaves' and 'bantustans' imply discontinuity in English (one enclave being separated from the other).

So, figuring out in what precisely consists NPOV is extremely difficult, since we have the pro-Israeli default term in the title, and the 'pro-Palestinian' alt name in the first para of the lead, and the text sums up the objective realities associated with both terms (which, apart from the difference in connotation, refer to the same reality - a discontinuous, broken chain of Palestinian 'settlements' with a projected (and at the moment de facto) Greater Israel. The best we can do is, as I think has been endeavoured, to describe the history of the idea, and the ways it has been implemented. I gather you think, perhaps I'm wrong, that more space should be given to Israeli arguments that the model for Palestinians is a net good all round? Nishidani ( talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really. What I basically mean is that in multiple discussions in which editors whom I can reasonably assume to take the pro-Israeli side (consciously or not) have only been challenging addition of material, instead of finding material of their own (which is a very annoying thing, as I've personally experienced on Wikipedia). That, however, is no indication that the material is nowhere to be found; rather, it did not surface at all. I have to be sure that the article gives adequate balance to each side. That is not to say it must be 50/50, or that any of the main authors of the article here have done a lousy job finding sources (actually, with such a mass of good-quality sourcing, I'm more than satisfied with the coverage). What I simply do here is an extra precaution against the possibility that this article, as pro-Israeli editors may contend, has skewed coverage in favour of Palestinians, by insufficiently reflecting the pro-Israeli commentary on the history of Palestinian enclaves/bantustans (not the history itself, which, barring a few details, like the 2000 Camp David negotiations minutiae, has facts that can't be reasonably disputed). Hence the enquiry to find publications that might be worthy of addition to the article representing "the other side" for consideration. To be clear, it's not as if I demand that the Israeli perspective be more prominently shown if there indeed are no good-quality sources covering that (which I find personally a little puzzling). If no one responds with the list of articles for consideration in a reasonable time framev (say, a week), I will simply move on with the review, as I've stated (see point 2a).

As for the title, I wasn't speaking of the title at all. In fact, the move discussion and the RfC happened back in Dec 2020/Jan 2021, and I, as a reviewer of this GA article, have no power to override the conclusions of both the RfC and the RM discussions. Since both "enclaves" and "bantustans" are used in reference to the territories, they can be used interchangeably, though for NPOV considerations, we shouldn't stick to bantustans only or enclaves only - and that's only so much I can say. That's not a problem I was thinking of, though. In short, it's more or less the same as presented in the previous paragraph. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

@ Szmenderowiecki: thank you very much for this excellent review. I will begin working through it and ping you again when these comments are resolved. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say thanks for your attention to detail, and for your continued comments and support on this. The article is looking much better already. I believe I have now implemented all but four remaining comments, for which I am going to clear my head to think through further. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, any news/ideas on the above points? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ Szmenderowiecki:, yes I have been busy gathering a number of additional sources to address the points (primarily the Jerusalem question). I have just resolved / responded to three of the four open comments, and will be addressing the remaining one (para 2) over the coming days.

In the meantime, I am conscious that the other editors (those you mentioned in para 2 part 2a above, and those who have been discussing on the article talk page) have not provided any sources. I am not sure how I can prove a negative, other than for us to keep asking them. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You needn't prove the negative (which you in most cases can't) and in fact, needn't worry about that, either. The time is running up, because I can't be stretching the review into infinity. I will simply leave a note to the second reviewer about the lack of response. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 15:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Before I transfer this to the second editor's opinion, I have a few remarks to leave for the second editor to consider.

• The only potential issue that is left in the article is the balance of the points of view in the article, which I would ask the second editor to review. While some editors have raised the point of NPOV violations, I have unfortunately seen no specific remedies, or sources for consideration, which could somehow deal with what is said to be the article's problem, and that despite repeated calls to propose them. (The only one discussed was inclusion of Ross's quote, but ultimately the section was IMHO rewritten in such a way that better summarised the main article of the section, which is Camp David negotiations). What we are most interested in is whether RS sources, or, better still, academic sources, show the article's subject from a perspective other (perhaps positive) than is already presented. Personally, I am more inclined to the nom's arguments which said that this was not the case, partially because the sources used all seemed to be very good and partially because of lack of meaningful action of those saying that some problems existed.
• All other issues have been resolved as far as my checklist went, but if any problems appear with any of the other points that I haven't captured, feel free to suggest the solutions for them.

Because the review has not received any feedback for almost a week since I was done with all points of the checklist, I believe it's appropriate to thank all editors for the input made to improve the article and to close my part of the review. Cheers, Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Onceinawhile greetings, I will take over the secondary review and carefully read the prior discussions and talk page discussions. I am familiar with with WP:ARBPIA sanctions and Israel/Palestine editing in general. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him •  talk) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah, thank you. Looking forward to discussing this with you. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Review by Shushugah

As a whole, I get a very good summary of the development of the various partition/enclave plans from a Palestinian perspective, but am missing the Israeli perspective on it. For example how it relates to hyper growth of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (which Israel doesn't consider to be settlements in the latter), security considerations with border fence/apartheid wall. The following line from Israel and the apartheid analogy aptly describes it, which you could copy.

The barrier has been called an "apartheid wall" by Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network. Israeli officials describe the barrier, constructed in 2002, as a security fence, limiting the ability of Palestinian terrorist groups to enter Israel and making it difficult for them to carry out suicide bombings.

I have more specific feedback below.

Missing sections/content

I generally get a good sense of the Pro Palestinian perspective on the Batustan term/analogies and criticisms of the various partition plans, but I do not get a good sense of what the pro Israel perspective is, except for specific quotes/responses here and there. To concreletely help with this I'd suggestion the following sections

• == Bastustan analogy== section should adequately summarize why pro Palestinian activists/scholars use it, and why pro Israel supporters distance themselves from it (in most cases). It heavily relates to Israel and the apartheid analogy and that article would be a good guideline for a more neutral way of summarizing multiple view points. Another related suggestion in next bullet point:

• Israel's foreign relations with Batustants and or apartheid South Africa. You could move the bit about Ariel settlement/Bisho there and further contextualize it, for example West Bank/East Jerusalem's lack of global recognition in 1987 was comparable. ^[1] Simularly, the quote from Chomsky about the similarities/differences would be more relevant here.

• Settlements section already exists, but needs further expanding. A lot has happened in the Settlements since the year 2000.

Excessive usage of notes

While being sensitive to the fact that contentious topics benefit from notes, I concur with prior reviews that there is excessive number of notes and their lengths. Some of these would benefit from being content in the article directly, for example about the political connotations/implications of using canton/enclave over bastustan, is a very interesting topic, which is not present in the article at all. This quote hidden in a hatnote is one example.

Ariel Sharon...The latter indicates a structural development with economic and political implications that put in jeopardy the prospects for any meaningfully sovereign viable Palestinian state. It makes the prospects for a binational state seem inevitable, if most threatening to the notion of ethnic nationalism.' (Farsakh 2005, p. 231)

Given the length/numericality of the various plans, I'd move Palestinian enclaves#Key issues to be the 2nd section and perhaps rename it == Background context == or something to that effect, to elaborate what's at stake. Otherwise, I'm reading all of this, but not knowing why any of this even matters/is contentious.

Lede

• It jumps right into Area A/B, without ever defining them. If it's not so important, you could rephrase it to something like:

The area of the West Bank currently under partial civil control by the Palestinian National Authority (Areas A and B) was composed of 165 "islands" under the 1995 Oslo II Accord. This arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; however, no such transfers happened to this day.

• This paragraph is only mentioned once in the lede, with no further ellaboration beyond the linked note. It should be expanded, removed or at least moved into the body: The consequences resulting from the creation of these fragmented Palestinian areas has been studied widely, and has been shown to have had a "devastating impact on the economy, social networks, the provision of basic services such as healthcare and education"

Nitpicks

• Greater care is needed with spelling of politician's names, for example Benjamin Netanyahu was spelled Binjamin, and Shimon Peres was spelled Simon Peres. I corrected some Hebrew spelling (and matched with provided Haaretz source), which is reasonable to not expect English editors to know

• Avoid WP:weasel words/phrases. If there are disagreements/disputes over terminologies, state them clearly instead of hoodwinking that there's controversey, for example with West Bank vs Judeah and Samaria etc.. a hatnote could clarify at the first mention of Judea Samaria (or West Bank), that the former is the Israeli government's term for the same geographic areas.

• The creation of this arrangement has been called ^{by whom?} "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century." just mention that Journalist Amira Hass says this. She's obviously a notable journalist on this topic.

• This has been referred to as the "Bantustan option".: I mistakenly understood this as referring to Trump peace plan rather than all the different peace plans. Considering the source exists before Trump's plan, it cannot refer to that anyways. Should also clarify WHO's referring to these plans as the "Bantustan option".

• Reduce the number of "Main article links" in Palestinian_enclaves#Land expropriation I'd go with Land expropriation in the West Bank

There are some more things that I may add, but for now, these things stood in terms of the requirements of breadth, neutrality, layout/structure. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him •  talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@ Shushugah: thank you for these excellent comments, and for your edits that implemented a few of the comments already. I need to take a little time to digest how best to interpret some of the wider comments you have made. In the meantime, I came across an interesting article from David Remnick, editor of the The New Yorker, entitled " The One-State Reality: Israel’s conservative President speaks up for civility, and pays a price". It includes the following statement which explains why it is so hard to provide an equal weighting of “both points of view” in this article: Israeli politicians often speak of the country’s singularity as “the sole democracy in the Middle East,” “the villa in the jungle.” They engage far less often with the challenges to democratic practice in Israel: the resurgence of hate speech; attacks by settlers on Palestinians and their property in the West Bank; the Knesset’s attempts to rein in left-wing human-rights organizations; and, most of all, the unequal status of Israeli Palestinians and the utter lack of civil rights for the Palestinians in the West Bank. [My underlining.] The rest of the Remnick article is a very interesting read, of broader interest, despite being 7 years old.

In a similar vein, we should be cautious with terminology like "the Israeli perspective" and the "pro Israel perspective" on a topic like this one. It is like asking for "the Chinese perspective" and the "pro China perspective" on the Xinjiang internment camps; I know a great many Chinese people who are pro-China and not one of them supports what is happening in Xinjiang. I assume what you mean is the Israeli government " line" on the topic; unfortunately consistent with the Remnick quote above, I haven't managed to find an official line on this topic anywhere. I like your idea about using the lines on the settlements or the wall, but if such comments don't directly address the enclaves then we would need to be careful to use them only in their specific contexts.

Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Onceinawhile Uninvolved editor here: maybe it makes sense to state this difficulty as simply as possible, paraphrasing Remnick as a source? -- asilvering ( talk) 00:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing review

Congratulations Onceinawhile and Selfstudier for working to incorporate my feedback and improve this article. The restructuring of the layouts, and addition of a table to provide visual clarity are major improvements for the readability of an incredibly complicated topic! I am closing this 2nd nomination as successful! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him •  talk) 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I feel that most of the sources one-sided pro-palestinian I propose to add following book [3]. The author talks about banthustan concept and then tells that such notion at page 62 is popular among far left I suggest to add this to the article when we discuss the term.
• I suggest to remove long Carter Quote. IMO it give WP:UNDUE weight to one-sided book that was heavily criticized for its bias [4], [5]
• There are more issues so that article can be GA material I will get to them soon. Shrike ( talk) 16:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually he does not say that the Bantustan concept 'is popular among (the) far left'. What he does is make a rather bizarre argument, that then contradicts itself in the sentence you want to add.

Jeremy Havardi actually says that people like Ronnie Kasrils, Meron Benvenisti, Jimmy Carter and Archbiship Desmond Tutu, Max Blumenthal and John Mearsheimer are engaged in a 'bigoted assault upon Israel'. These people are not examples of 'far-left' radicals. Kasrils was long a member of the Communist party when he was an activist, like many SA Jews, against South African apartheid; Benvenisti was deputy mayor of Jerusalem; Tutu is a Nobel Prize winning religious figure; Carter was the US President who made the agreement between Begin and Sadat; Max Blumethal is certain a radical, nothing evil in that. Mearsheimer is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and like Benvenisti a political scientist of the realist school. So they have nothing in common, other than, since 2004, remarking on the extraordinary historical and structural similarities between SA bantustans and the fragmented townlets engineered by Israel on the West bank by people known to be inspired by the SA model, a view that extends from the far left to notable centralists and moderates having different outlooks and backgrounds from several different countries.

Having quoted them at length – and what they say is now recognized by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem, none of those 'radical left organizations' – he concludes:’These are the central diatribes about Israel that emanate from today’s radical left but which are starting to filter through to more mainstream thinking.’ Jeremy Havardi, Refuting the Anti-Israel Narrative: A Case for the Historical, Legal and Moral Legitimacy of the Jewish State, McFarland & Company, 2016 ISBN  9781476622972 pp.61-62, p.62

So, that is a self-goal. One can't win an argument by identifying a small minority that use it as 'radical leftists' (except in hasbara disinformatsiya) to imply that everyone who developed or uses the argument is, by guilt association, a 'radical far-left' activist. Rather than 'refuting the anti-Israel Narrative', he has provided extensive evidence that the view is mainstream, entertained by major figures in the world of religion, politics, mainstream scholarly studies and of course, also by people 'on the left'.

The book is RS, but it's rather pointless citing the concluding tidbit about this being a 'far-left' emanation which infected the mainstream. It gained notoriety when Israel and Jewish politicians and political scientists of distinction wrote up the historic record of how the SA model came into effect. It can be used, but as a secondary reference to the broad span of notable people who entertain this viewpoint. Nishidani ( talk) 16:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As to the Carter quote, no. It is a very terse yet comprehensive summary of the designed fragmentation already in place by 2000, from a figure whose knowledge of the situation is intimate, because he was, as President, a political insider privy to negotiations (see the relevant wiki pages) endlessly misrepresented. Nishidani ( talk) 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In your view those figures are mainstream the author doesn't say that. We may say that the term emanated from far left but entered mainstream discourse Shrike ( talk) 17:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not my view that 4 of the 6 are 'mainstream'. There is no evidence in his book that the view 'emanated from the far left', to the contrary, so it cannot be used for that statement, since he lacks any authoritative credentials as a scholar of the topic, and documents the exact opposite of what he concludes. Nishidani ( talk) 19:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget that Moshe Dayan and I.F. Stone both used the term in 1967. They are most definitely not considered far left. Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Thanks Shrike. Appreciate the collaboration here. A few thoughts:

• Harvadi does not appear to be a professional historian, but a school teacher and director of the UK arm of advocacy organization B'nai B'rith. Having said this, his book is reliably published and I don’t object to its inclusion. I couldn’t see in there anywhere his own view on the bantustan terminology question though?
• Carter is core to this, being a former US president (we mention most of the others during the relevant time period), and he is the only one who has written extensively on this subject. The source you provided – Havardi – comments on Carter’s work as an archetype of the commentary on this matter, and provides numerous Carter quotes, as do many others. So Carter is quoted by “all sides” of the political spectrum on this topic.

Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest to the body of the article we may attribute his view.
• The question is how it quoted and what the context. Carter was not on those negotiations he have no special knowledge of what happened there. Carter view can stay but it should be like Ross a short quote in the reference. Shrike ( talk) 17:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually ex-Presidents are duly informed of high level details even in their retirement. Nishidani ( talk) 18:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont actually think that book is reliable, McFarland & Company specializes in sports publishing. The author seemingly acknowledges that the views he is opposing in this book are the mainstream. I dont see how that qualifies as needing any WEIGHT, and I dont see how the author has any expertise on the topic, and several much more reliable sources dispute entirely what he writes. nableezy - 17:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• My views regards the comments on sources: Mr Havardi is, as Onceinawhile correctly described, an advocate working for the Anti-Defamation League, but since we want to include the breadth of the usage of the word "bantustan" in context of Palestine, let his voice ring. Even if that's a non-mainstream view, among 10 examples of usage of bantustan as a description of the territories, we can include one or two per WP:BALANCE. Responding to Nableezy's comment, McFarland & Company, Inc. is an American independent book publisher based in Jefferson, North Carolina, that specializes in academic and reference works, as well as general interest adult nonfiction. It is certainly a well-regarded publisher.

Havardi makes the claim about the bantustan analogy being a far-left concept, but among the personalities involved in calling out the enclaves as "Bantustans", calling all of the people he mentions (as well as those cited here) far left is a stretch. Indeed, I wouldn't say that either Carter, Tutu or Mearsheimer can reasonably be even called left-wing (Tutu is a self-declared socialist, but his policies on the ground don't seem to be particularly characteristic of the left-wing politics). It is certainly Havardi's opinion, but I don't see any reflection of it in fact, so I have to side with Nishidani here.

I can also agree that neither Stone nor Dayan are left-wing, so this is a good reason not to quote Havardi's assertion. But we can surely quote cite him simply for the diversity of opinions.

• Jimmy Carter's book: while the book itself has received pretty substantial criticism, I rely on the description provided in its own Wikipedia article, which is IMHO very well-written, and the best I can say is that this book is controversial. We don't require sources to be neutral, therefore, I advised to include the two sources in Archive 1 to the article. On the other hand, I'm convinced by the arguments of those saying that the full quote belongs (I haven't ordered its trimming). For one thing, it has a long but very good description directly pertaining to the topic from the highest federal official in US serving in the years when he could already talk about Drobles and Allon plans (the former appearing during his presidency), and it is quite common knowledge that ex-leaders are normally well-informed of the minutiae. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article is better with the full quote than the trimmed one, and thus should stay in the form it is now.

What interests me in particular, if you've actually started the discussion, is to find more pro-Israeli sources of similar quality to those present in the article, because they might be underrepresented but I don't know if that's indeed the case. I'm waiting for the list for consideration. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you response. I will look into it. What about giving more space to Ross i.e give full quote and do a little trim to Carter. So their will be equal contrary to Carter he was part of the negotiations to the very least he should get the same space. Shrike ( talk) 20:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think trimming down Carter's quote is unwarranted, but Ross's quote, on the contrary, could be well expanded, I have nothing against it. Let's see the implementation. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It might pass RSN, but this is considerably more on the popular publisher side of an academic v popular publishing house. And by the books own position, his is a minority view, saying the book argues against the press and the policy establishment. There have to be better sources for that pro-Israeli position. nableezy - 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

One has to be very careful about how much weight one gives Dennis Ross. His book certainly became dominant in the 'blame-the-Pals' viewpoint (which given his authority became 'mainstream'- momentarily). The veracity of his reportage as a 'neutral' participant was challenged by Norman Finkelstein, The Camp David II Negotiations: How Dennis Ross Proved the Palestinians Aborted the Peace Process, Journal of Palestine Studies , 36:2 Winter 2007 pp. 39-53. One should read that before considering how much weight to assign to him as a balance to Carter Nishidani ( talk)

Some might bridle nervously at the use of Finkelstein for this point. But he is far from alone. The Camp David breakdown has a considerable literature, little of it vindicating Ross's extremely partisan and simplistic story, for a personal story it is, one of vindicating Israel and blaming the Palestinians that consistently distorts a very complex reality (He was so biased he even heatedly reprimanded Israeli negotiators who were disposed to make territorial 'concessions' ( Ehud Barak indeed dismissed many of Israel's best Oslo period negotiators from Camp David) that gave back more Palestinian land than he personally thought (he was supposed to be a neutral US broker) suited the 'needs' of that nondescript people (nondescript because in his book he denies that Palestinians have any ethnic unity other than a generic 'Arab' identity)). Compare for example, Myron Aronoff, 'Camp David Rashomon: Contested Interpretations of the Israel/Palestine Peace Process,' Political Science Quarterly, 124: 1 Spring 2009 pp. 143-167, which is a meta-analysis where Ross is somewhat primary, and has the benefit of the wisdom of detached hindsight and scholarly regard for historical sources. Nishidani ( talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To meet Shrike's point, I have added from Aronoff Barak's dismissal of the Bantustan criticism which, together with Ross's point, is closer to NPOV. Barak's remark can be read as an Israeli POV, which was what was required (even if many Israeli negotiators disagreed with him). As Aronoff's essay shows, close historic analysis will tell you rather rather than national POVs, events like this are muddled battles not only between national camps, but inframural, with dissenting views among both Palestinian and Israeli politicians and negotiators as to what eiter nation required. If we were to become more historically literature, and faithful to scholarship, our articles would slowly erode the cheap binary I/P stereotypes of one POV vs another. The details always undercut such simplistic narratives. Nishidani ( talk) 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, that's going a good way forward (the edit with Barak).

Regards Finkelstein, Norman is himself pretty controversial (so much as he was denied entry to Israel for some reason), and the account of Ross is from the first-hand negotiator in the process, so I don't see the problem here, though no one claims Ross is neutral. Since Ross's view, for at least some time, was pretty much mainstream, we should mention it and display it prominently. Now whether we should mention it as an account to which we oppose Carter's without any extra commentary or we provide some on his narrative from say, Finkelstein is another matter. Personally, I think some extra commentary is warranted, and Finkelstein is a good example. If there's any other piece of commentary supporting/opposing Ross's theses, I'm ready to evaluate it. Btw, use [6] this link for Finkelstein as it's more accessible. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't propose using Finkelstein. I don't thinking anyone has successfully challenged the extremely close 'forensic' historical work he has done for spin or misreportage. His accuracy is never under challenge. His 'attitude' is (even by Palestinians and the BDS movement leaders). Disliked intensely by both sides, and therefore, in my view, pretty close to neutral because he is writing to the facts, not to a POV constituency. His removal from tenure was political. He spend years in the wilderness publishing in small presses, but in 2017 the University of California published his minute history of Gaza's tragedy to general acclaim. That brought him back to the mainstream. The fact that he cannot set foot in Israel is neither here nor there. Neither can dozens of major mainstream academics, many of them Jewish. Aronoff, while more rounded than Finkelstein by noting also Ross's criticisms of Barak, concludes:

The analysis of Israeli and Palestinian narratives employed by Dennis Ross is an anachronistic national character approach that treats culture as if it were homogeneous for all groups within society -whereas it is always contested- and as static, rather than as dynamic.' pp.164-5

One could elaborate extensively on that, Ross's book being thorough ly 'orientalist' in its skew(er)ing of the adversary's 'Arab' mentality, which means he can't, just as most of Barak's critics within Israel also argued, grasp the reality of the 'other' he is negotiating with, or trying to 'figure out'.

There are numerous other sources one could use. One early one, Jeremy Pressman, 'Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?,' International Security , 28:2 (Fall, 2003) pp. 5-43 is balanced in its analysis of spin on both sides but does remark:'In this article I argue that neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian version of the events at Camp David and subsequent talks is wholly accurate. The Palestinian version, however, is much closer to the evidentiary record of articles, interviews, and documents produced by participants in the negotiations, journalists, and other analyses.' But, that's from 2003, and we probably need later historical studies.

We're looking for specific mentions of the 'bantustan' interpretation of what Israel offered. Many sources cite the 90-91% restitution of the land occupied, but fail to mention how that is mapped. The maps point to discontinuity, whereas the land size 'offer' looks 'generous'. Pressman comments on this narrative:-

on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was not forthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections.'p.16

The difficulty lies here. POVs are one thing, even in history. We control them by close data analysis. Both Ross and Barak must be represented for denying that bantustans would be the result. But a huge mass of analytical material states that Palestinians read the proffered maps, not in terms of sq.miles, but continuity/discontinuity. We can hardly say Ross and Barak are misleading. All we can do is provided the data (in perhaps a footnote) and tweak the contrast we already have in text, between the continuity vs discontinuity narratives. Nishidani ( talk) 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please include it in proportion to the prominence of their explanations. I will see, based on the arguments presented here and the implementation in the article, the new version, possibly including such sources. I'd like to remind you, though, that the topic is not about calling the areas "bantustan" but the Palestinian enclaves in general, including their bantustan aspect. Therefore, while you didn't want to include Finkelstein, or Pressman, I think that their commentary, if it can be included in the article (and it certainly can), should not be hidden from the view of the readers.

As for "hiding in the footnote", I don't think the discontinuity and the continuity theories should be presented differently just because what appeared in fact was fragmentation. That is precisely, in my view, the question of neutrality - we briefly present the main arguments of the negotiating sides in an equal way (Ross on the one side and Carter on the other) and we briefly present the prevalence of scholarly positions on the topic (because there is a separate article for Camp David). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 18:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not reluctant about using Finkelstein/Pressman or any of a score of other scholarly studies on minutiae relevant to the issue. What I was doing was citing them to show aspects of the larger context digging up stuff that readers of the talk page, and editors, might find useful. The problem with the Ross/Carter contrast is that most expressions I have checked of the Israeli POV (Ross) consist of curt dismissals. I simply cannot recall, or find even now, a close analytical refutation of the enclave/Bantustan argument in 'pro-Israeli' sources. Carter cites, by contrast, details on the ground which, in his view, means that the enclaves are effectively bantustans. I.e. he doesn't assert or dismiss, but draws out the implications. That was my reason for being uneasy with an expansion of Ross. With due diligence we may well find a source presently that counters the inferences and details Carter outlines, and that, indeed, would fit a balancing statement. Cheers (and by the way, thanks for the meticulous review). Nishidani ( talk) 09:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Shrike, Nishidani, and Onceinawhile: The nomination process has been stagnant for five days. I would like to get some input on the questions that remain unanswered. Also, courtesy pinging other editors who have participated in this discussion: @ Wikieditor19920, El C, Levivich, and Drsmoo:, to suggest any new ideas that you might have while reading the discussion and the GA nomination, in particular as regards the unanswered questions and some suggestions. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 21:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There are other several points that need to be addressed IMO:

1.Situation before First Intifada there was free movement of people and goods as far as I know.

2.Explain that checkpoints is a security measure to stop Palestinian terrorism

There are additional points that exist I hope to cover it on weekend Shrike ( talk) 19:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Shrike, I am fine for you to add these points. A couple of notes:

1. The terminology "free movement" is incorrect. Freedom of movement usually implies a person can live in the different areas. What you are correctly referring to is that between 1972 and 1989 Israel issued a general exit permit for Palestinians to allow them to work in Israel between 5am and 1am (see Israeli permit regime in the West Bank#History). They were not allowed to stay overnight. If we mention this we should point out that this mirrored exactly the model the South African bantustans - see e.g. Bishara & Usher describing the situation today: "...even more restricted than in the bantustans of South Africa, where at least you could travel to work..."

2. We would need to balance such a statement with an explanation of how the checkpoints have evolved. Per United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: "It is becoming apparent that the checkpoint and obstacles, which Israeli authorities justified from the beginning of the second Intifada (September 2000) as a temporary military response to violent confrontations and attacks on Israeli civilians, is evolving into a more permanent system of control that is steadily reducing the space available for Palestinian growth and movement for the benefit of the increasing Israeli settler population."

Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, fair enough. For now, I'd ask you to finish the rest of the points of the GA review (or discuss them in case you don't agree). The NPOV question is important, so maybe we should finish other points to concentrate on the possible NPOV issues, if any indication of these appears in a reasonable time. Thanks for reminding about my request. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Szmenderowiecki, OK that sounds like a good plan. I am working through the rest now. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I must have missed it, what is the source for the Fox News/Ross thing? Re "the map", there was no final map presented (only an earlier map reflecting what the Palestinian side said was the Israeli offer), the map by Ross is a map according to Ross version of events, this should be clarified (either the Ross map is not mentioned or we need to mention both maps). The idea here is not to rewrite the Camp David article according to one narrative or another, if so we can then give over more space to Taba/Clinton parameters as well (this is relevant context for the competing narratives at Camp David). Selfstudier ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Shrike: a quick reminder regarding the question of additional sources. Regards, Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A general comment, when we say we look for the other side of the argument, we need to be clear which argument we are talking about, it is not a case of pulling up this or that narrative for one negotiation or one event that occurred, in the first place there are always competing narratives and the article generally points them up when these exist. More importantly, this article is mainly about the development of enclaves/bantustans over a long time period from 67 to currently so what we want is sources discussing that not the minutiae of one or other peace negotiation. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I get it, but I'm not speaking of negotiations only. Your last point about the fact that this article is mainly about the development of enclaves/bantustans over a long time period from 67 to currently so what we want is sources discussing that not the minutiae of one or other peace negotiation is precisely what I have in mind, and we agree in this respect. As I said, the factual basis is in general not disputed. What was disputed here on talk is the absence or underrepresentation of commentary that would be favourable to these events (and there certainly is such commentary, as is with the case of refuting/trying to refute the apartheid analogy). This is the commentary that I labelled as "pro-Israeli", and it's this commentary that I am waiting for. (I won't be waiting for too long, though).

Re map: as far as I can understand, Ross was referring to the "generous offer" and comparing the old map to the new one. No final map appeared because the talks failed, of course. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 11:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For Camp David specifically, apart from Aronoff (briefly cited in the article) there is the earlier 2004 analysis, Waging Peace Israel and the Arabs, 1948-2003 by Itamar Rabinovich. Both of these (and there are others) are scholarly interpretations of what went on, not just the Ross/US version of events. If we want to make a meal out of Camp David, then the Fox News/Ross stuff is not it so either it has to go or we need an expansion with proper sourcing of all sides and not just the so called "orthodox" version. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we would be best not getting lost down that rabbit hole. The lead section of 2000 Camp David Summit says Reports of the outcome of the summit have been described as illustrating the Rashomon effect, in which the multiple witnesses gave contradictory and self-serving interpretations.; I think that is the overall tone that the relevant section in this article should take as well. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I copied over that bit + refs from the Camp David article, then we only need to figure out what else we might need beyond that from the other material that follows it. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think not much. I'm satisfied with the section as is presented now. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If we want to keep the Fox/Ross, then apart from it needing a source, we will need to expound further on the other POVs ie revisionist, eclectic and so on per Aranoff/Rabinovich. It would be simpler to just remove the interview material which gives undue preference to that particular POV (orthodox). Even the percentage ref is problematic because the sides did not calculate %'s the same way (they still don't). Selfstudier ( talk) 12:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The source for the interview is here: [7]. Unfortunately can't find the Fox News interview.

That's really not RS, is it? "HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct? ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.HUME: Right." Seriously? I can cherry pick, too:) We need a scholarly interpretation of this interview or at least a third party, if one can be found. If it is notable, some commentator will have picked up on it, somewhere, let me see if I can find something. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole interview was read into the Congressional Record of 22 April 2002 (the following day), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2002-04-22/pdf/CREC-2002-04-22.pdf, at the request of Mrs Feinstein, Dianne Feinstein, presumably. OK, this is a step up from Havurah Shir Hadash and it gives some additional context, even if it is political context. We still need some third party/scholarly input to that. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Then the day after that, a third party review that includes a Palestinian response disputing the Ross/US version of events, Hassan Abdel Rahman, the Palestinian representative in Washington since 1994, at a forum sponsored by the U.S. Institute for Peace:

Some in this town say, 'Well, the Palestinians deserve it. They brought it onto themselves, because they were offered a very generous deal in Camp David, and they rejected it.' And this lie has been perpetuated so often in this town to the point where it has become a fact or appears to be a fact,"

Selfstudier ( talk) 17:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

As for the expansion, I would like to see the implementation to see if what you propose is any improvement, though in my opinion, the balance is more or less preserved. The problem is, if we remove the orthodox viewpoint, I see it as giving undue weight to the revisionist opinions (which, as the name suggests, are not necessarily the mainstream ones). If there are three, instead of two viewpoints, we should include the third one if it has enough prominence. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Aranoff gives the nod to the third school of interpretation, the eclectic. The revisionist view is attributed to Malley/Agha, not to Carter who is talking about the subsequent Clinton parameters not Camp David. There is a fourth "school" attributed to Shlomo Ben Ami, a bridge between orthodox and eclectic. So our version is presently POV in favor of Ross/US(Clinton) version (the orthodox). Selfstudier ( talk) 14:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Selfstudier: do you have a source explaining the historiography in this way – i.e. the four schools? It would be a good addition at the main Camp David Summit article. We could then summarize it here, bringing out the relevant excerpt relating to the enclaves for each of the four positions. Onceinawhile ( talk) 14:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It's in Aranoff, already cited in the article (previously and again in the bit I copied over from Camp David, ref needs fixing up for consistency). Under the heading "Schools of Interpretation" (he makes use of Rabinovich 4 schools framework (I have this, too) for his take on it). I will see if it can be broken out in the way you suggest. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And lest we get confused by labels about what is "mainstream", this is worth a quick read Selfstudier ( talk) 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The only mention of bantustan/enclave/contiguity and such in Aronoff is the sentence we already had in the article to begin with, viz "He (Barak) calls the revisionist charge that he offered noncontiguous bantustans "one of the most embarrassing lies to have emerged from Camp David." The principal details of the 4 schools are little to do with this and I don't really see how we are adding value to this article by including yet more of the "orthodox" position than was in it already. It kind of feels as if we are casting around for "pro Israeli" things to put in the article and while I have no objection to that it needs to be on topic. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I fixed up the Camp David part so it is more balanced, Ross/Barak versus Hassan Abdel Rahman. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I echo the sentiment that the best course of action for the article would be to populate it with more neutral and mainstream scholarly depictions of the enclaves. This would be an improvement over the article’s current state: a collection of cherry picked sources that were chosen because they happened to use the term “bantustan” somewhere. Drsmoo ( talk) 09:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We added a bunch of them during the months of discussion that we had before, do you have any more? Happy to add them if you do. The cherry picking argument was made previously and quite rightly dismissed, 50 years worth of "bantustan" refs is not cherry picking, its a trend. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t recall it being dismissed in any substantial way. Do you mean dismissed by the editors who did the Cherry-picking? Certainly it hasn’t dismissed by the parties who’ve said this article is non neutral. Also, clearly there are sources that have made that analogy, however, contrary to what you’ve written previously, it isn’t the common name. The overuse of the non common name, resulting from cherry picking from the smaller and less neutral pool of sources that use the term, is why the article is in its current non npov state. Drsmoo ( talk) 12:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any pertinent sources? As for the rest, you have a short memory, go back and look at the lengthy discussions on these matters, bantustan is an altname. What do you mean by overuse, metrics please? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, personal attacks already, lol. Drsmoo ( talk) 13:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be a no on the sources, right? Selfstudier ( talk) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Szmenderowiecki: Just to show you the current environment on this page haha. Regarding metrics, Palestinian enclaves is used exponentially more often on both JSTOR and Google Scholar when compared with Palestinian Bantustans.

'	JSTOR	Google Scholar
"Palestinian enclaves"	112	501
"Palestinian bantustans"	19	80
Palestinian enclaves	2,810	18,500
Palestinian bantustans	724	4,080
"Palestinian enclave"	77	284
"Palestinian bantustan"	39	115
Palestinian enclave	2,945	16,000
Palestinian bantustan	509	4,070

However, in this article, "Bantustan" is found 118 times, while "enclave" is found only 58 times. This is a complete inversion of usage among scholarly texts, and reflective of the POV and cherry-picked nature of the article. Drsmoo ( talk) 14:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A couple of quick clarifications. Bantustan is found only 47 times in the main article, and the remaining usage is in the footnotes. A frequent function of the footnote quotations is to provide clear support for any sentence which might require it, so it is natural that there are more footnote quotations using the term bantustan than there are for enclave. Secondly your statistics above do not reflect the many months of discussion on the relative frequency of these terms, which carefully parsed the actual scholarly usage. Your statistics don't do it justice - the versions in quotations used an infrequent version for bantustan usage ("Palestinian bantustan(s)" is not that common as the adjective Palestinian is usually deemed unnecessary from the context) and the versions without quotations greatly overstate the Palestinian enclave(s) numbers (enclave is too generic a word; many of the articles in the non-quotation-marks enclave searches you reference above do not relate to this topic). Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing some usage of the word bantustan to enclave where that works. Of course, it would be even better if you would produce some of the scholarly sources you are referring to containing the words Palestinian enclaves and we could include those. In all of the prior discussions we repeatedly asked for these to be produced and none were, for months on end. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just put "Palestinian enclaves" into Google (I get 18,300 results), let me know which sources you would like to include. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping you from adding any sources or material. nableezy - 15:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The stats show what they show (I was able to reproduce these), but these mean little alone. I mean, the article name reflects the prevalence of the term, but I have only seen two articles that we could call scholarly that would support the viewpoint. Please paste the links/citations to the relevant sources for consideration here and stop quarreling with each other. I need the former, not the latter.

As for changing bantustans to enclaves... so long as we don't refer to the areas as bantustans only or enclaves only, and so far as we don't distort the quotes, I am in general OK with that, so you may proceed with these changes. The sources are more important, however. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 15:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with @ Drsmoo notion I think the article is unbalanced and hence I propose to start RFC to hear community input from uninvolved editors mostly who doesn't usually operate in this area about whatever this article meets WP:NPOV policy and if not what should be done to fix it. I of course don't need anyone approval to start such RFC but I first like to hear from @ Szmenderowiecki about this idea. Shrike ( talk) 16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please point out the RFCbefore. I'd suggest you also have a look in the archives. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The previous discussions included plenty of points and satisfied RFCBEFORE Shrike ( talk) 16:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Which previous discussions and which points? You need to identify the issues involved that you think have not been adequately resolved. Normally, there is a discussion containing them, I don't see one here. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, I am sceptical of the idea of starting an RfC in order to determine whether NPOV is preserved, as this RfC would not solve the potential POV problem but simply instead say there is one, which is not the point of RfCs. The objection you and a few other editors raised, was not that the editors who were the article's main authors misrepresented the sources (or, where they did, it was not a major NPOV problem but simply not noticing the explanatory footnotes), but rather that the article presents few sources looking from the perspective which is other than critical of the Palestinian enclaves

The problem with this argument, however, is that for the duration of the article's existence, I've seen only two examples in talk that would somehow qualify as sources (and one of them is of rather dubious quality). Instead of making the RfC and using up other editors' time, I'd rather propose once again to look in the list of sources that would qualify for inclusion, as other editors and I have requested since at least 24 October (I think three weeks is more than enough to look into Google Scholar or JSTOR and paste a few of them). If you believe some extra input from the outside is needed (I will refer the article to the second reviewer anyway), you may ping whomever you consider good enough for the role, but remember about canvassing. If the problem persists for some reason, some input from WP:NPOVN might be needed, and only after that would I consider an RfC (though I believe by that time either the problem will be resolved or this GA review will be suspended).

Tl;dr: don't start it yet, look for some good sources to balance. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 19:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem that most of the sources that discuss this issue only want to show one side of the coin and have a clear agenda so I am not sure if neutral article could be written about that. But even if accept that there are still problem with the article like WP:UNDUE quote of Carter without any counterbalance the Ross quote was removed. Shrike ( talk) 09:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Shrike: the subject of this article has been written on in detail by some of the world's most eminent sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists. They are sourced and cited in this article. Your attempt to poison the well with your first sentence is shameful.

Thank you for acknowledging that the "other side of the coin" does not appear to have published any reliable sources. This was the case during South African apartheid too - the pro-apartheid side did not publish serious research on the good things about the regime, and academia was mostly anti-apartheid. The same is true of other academic topics today - those who are pro-climate change or anti-vaccination rarely publish serious research supporting their views, because they are not defensible outside of rhetorical podiums and political arenas. Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added the Ross's quote back in citation after it being thrown out for some reason.

As for sources: we don't need the sources to be neutral, but we do need them to be usable. If you say there are no good sources for consideration, I will refer the review to the second editor because I'm done with the rest. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 10:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile has anticipated what I would have written. It is almost impossible (I've searched and searched) to find 'balancing' or positive quality literature on the enclaves/Bantustan or ghettoization precisely for the reasons given by Once. There is no dispute in sources 'pro-Israeli' or not, that the historic record of planning has consistently aimed to impose on Palestinians a fractured congeries of piecemeal zones. All sides agree that that is the geophysical and political reality that has emerged. The only significant dispute is whether those 150+ zones are to be called 'enclaves', 'bantustans' or 'ghettoes.' Enclaves won out in the RfC as 'neutral' because Bantustan evokes the apartheid analogy, while 'ghetto' creates problems in Jewish historical memory, but the POV remains exclusively in the title, nowhere else, since 'enclaves' is no less problematical, since it is widely viewed as euphemistic window-dressing. Well, consensus has determined that is to be the default term, so we stick with it. Once can't question the neutrality of the article Ghetto by noting the lack of academic sources that present in a positive light 'the other side of the coin', the perspective of the ghettoizers. Nishidani ( talk) 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I posted on Israel and Palestine wikiprojects Shrike ( talk) 09:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping anybody from adding any material that is reliably sourced and related to the topic of the article. If you think this article is lacking some source and material, add it. You dont need an RFC for that. nableezy - 02:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Camp David, Clinton, Carter etc

The "Ross quote" is included in cite 78 and the Palestinian response in cite 79 and neither one specifically addresses any of the enclave issues. Carter is speaking of the Clinton parameters not specifically about Camp David although the two things are related, his view as a President clearly has value and he addresses the contiguity issue directly. If there is a source disputing what he says I would be interested to see it. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Malley was also at Camp David so how to explain his 91% versus Ross 97%? This is the problem with cherry picking on a particular event and in the process ignoring details such as how these %'s were calculated (eg Israeli side excludes East Jerusalem). Selfstudier ( talk) 10:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

and here is a letter from the Palestinian negotiating team at the time:

...As it stands now, the United States proposal would: 1) divide a Palestinian state into three separate cantons connected and divided by Jewish-only and Arab-only roads and jeopardize the a Palestinian state’s viability; 2) divide Palestinian Jerusalem into a number of unconnected islands separate from each other and from the rest of Palestine;...

If we want to relitigate these events then we ought to do it at the relevant articles rather than trying to do it in this article. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If I were going to expand upon this part, besides the straightforward providing of up to date demographic data, then what I personally would be looking at is the kind of developments discussed here, and here in the sense that these show the current continuation of the plans described in the article. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources here. Shrike ( talk) 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If and when something is added, then by all means contest the sourcing. This is just a discussion following the GA reviewer comment "A lot has happened in the Settlements since the year 2000" Selfstudier ( talk) 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Footnote a seems out of place: how does it expand on the first sentence? Seems to me like it should be integrated to footnote b. JBchrch talk 16:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @ JBchrch: this has been fixed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Page 76 of the Amnesty report released yesterday [8] states as follows:

As mentioned above, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that “Arab citizens of Israel” is an inclusive term that describes a number of different and primarily Arabic-speaking groups, including Muslim Arabs (this classification includes Bedouins), Christian Arabs, Druze and Circassians. According to the ICBS, at the end of 2019, the Druze population stood at approximately 145,000, while according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Circassian population totalled 4,000 people. Considering the number of those defined as Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs together, the population of Palestinian citizens of Israel amounted to around 1.8 million, that is some 20% of the total population in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem.
Today, about 90% of Palestinian citizens of Israel live in 139 densely populated towns and villages in the Galilee and Triangle regions in northern Israel and the Negev/Naqab region in the south. The remaining 10% live in “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Ramla, Lod, Jaffa and Acre. As will be seen below, this has been the result of deliberate policies by the government of Israel to segregate Palestinian citizens of Israel into enclaves as part of the wider goal of ensuring the Jewish settlement and control of as much of Israel’s territory as possible.

Can anyone see where the "deliberate policies by the government of Israel to segregate Palestinian citizens of Israel into enclaves" are sourced in the report? This is obviously a very different thing from the legally-enforced segregation in the West Bank, as all Israeli citizens have equal freedom of movement.

Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly they refer to the expropriations of land from absentee owners. Alaexis _¿question? 07:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you please copy/repost your post to the Palestinian citizens of Israel talk page at the bottom, the 1.8million seem to tally with those we have been looking at there. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There is material about Israel situation p 146 and on. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course I0m a digital numbskull but has anyone else had the problem I have, using a laptop in a pub which when I google the report and call up the full pdf yields only the Arabic version, and resolutely refuses to allow me to access the Enbglish document? Nishidani ( talk) 18:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC).

Does clicking Once's link up above work? It gives me the English, no problem. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Once's link works, but the mystery remains as to why the site google gives if you search for it namely here, which is the English page only gives you the Arab text. A google misdirection? Nishidani ( talk) 21:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

At the left there is a drop down box to select the language. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

True. I had tried that. Inside the dropbox is Arabic. The scroll down tab to the right doesn't work, and Arabic remains the default choice and cannot be changed. It is extremely odd, since the page link states that it is 'en. Nishidani ( talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nishi, I've emailed you a copy of the report, in case you can't access it by normal means. -- NSH001 ( talk) 06:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This tired slipshod language, even in sources, has never made much sense. Here it intoduces the views of Meron Benvenisti. I don't think anyone familiar with his life and curriculum could call him anything other than a liberal in political terms, which however has no purchase in terms of Israeli politics. I think that kind of descriptive cliché pointy, as if any criticism of the occupation must be grounded in leftwing attitudes, rather than a broad culture of democratic sensitivity to human rights, which is not 'leftist'. Nishidani ( talk) 22:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting to change? Alaexis _¿question? 06:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

'Leftist'/'rightist' descriptions, when not explicitly endorsed by the subject's known record but rather established by reflex newspaper opinionizing by third parties, should be dropped from articles, particularly if the person whose views are described has a wikibio. I.e., numerous papers will describe anyone opposing the occupation as a 'leftist', and anyone justifying it as a 'rightist', regardless of context. This is unencyclopedic. Nishidani ( talk) 14:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to follow the sources. If Korn says it's mostly used by the left then I see no reason to omit it. Alaexis _¿question? 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No practiced writer or editor follows sources obsequiously. We exercise judgment in selecting what has encyclopedic cogency, ideally. That is just Korn's corn: I see the epithet 'leftist' anytime a journalist is required to mention a view critical of, in this case, Israel. I for one have never seen anything identifiably 'leftist' left in Israel, let alone abroad in so-called 'left-wing' parties. The term is a polemical buzzword to alert the reader that what follows is suspect. Benvenisti was not a 'leftist' but a liberal, and to confuse the two is to succumb to a known 'American' talkshow/Republican cliché confusing the two (merging the traditions associated with Karl Marx with those that flow from John Stuart Mill). Nishidani ( talk) 16:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The label "Israeli left" is just a convenient way to describe a certain political stance and the people which profess it. It's not some kind of innate characteristic. You may think that he's not a true leftist but for the reader it's convenient as it gives some context using familiar terms. Anyway, it doesn't matter too much. Alaexis _¿question? 18:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• My impression is that "Israeli left" is frequently used as shorthand for Israeli revisionist historians, e.g. the New Historians. I think it would be WP:OR to reject the descriptor if it's used by RS on the basis that editors think it's inaccurate for a specific historian – since that would inherently involve a judgement/assessment of an individual's views by wiki editors. However, I think there may be a MOS:JARGON case for avoiding "Israeli left", if Nishidani's argument is that it's a term which carries a connotation/association that would be understood by those familiar with the literature/field, but which a layperson would not get. What would you suggest as an alternative phrasing? Jr8825 • Talk 18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should follow sources as per WP:RS policy but I might agree to reasonable alternative as per Jr8825 suggestion Shrike ( talk) 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Shrike.Duh.Sigh.

Wikipedia text

(a)Many researchers and writers from the Israeli left used it in the early 2000s,[31] (b)for example with Meron Benvenisti referring in 2004 to the territorial, political and economic fragmentation model being pursued by the Israeli government.[32]-

(a)Reflects the source:

As the closure of the West Bank and Gaza intensified, researchers and political writers from the Israeli left used the term ‘bantustanization’ to describe the process to describe the process that the Territories had undergone.

(b) is WP:OR when it writes 'for example’ because it illustrates (a) by citing Meron Benvenisti here (see also here )who is not mentioned in these contexts as a member of the Israeli left, irrelevant to any assessmewnt of his judgment, but as the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem (the most common denominator in google books). His presumed place on the Israeli political spectrum is immaterial to his views. Calling him a leftist means using a universal descriptor that cancels the fact he was a Zionist, liberal or leftist as one wishes, Nishidani ( talk) 22:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This article somewhat ignores the Israeli viewpoint, according which:

• The Israeli-Palestinian peace-process was never fully realized for several reasons:
  • The outbreak of Second Intifada, suicide attacks, and the rise of radical Islamist militant groups
  • The refusal of PLO leadership to accept later peace plans (including the 2000 Camp David Summit and the very generous offer by Ehud Olmert)
  • The Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007 showed that an Israeli retreat does not necessarily bring peace and prosperity to the region - exactly the opposite - it led to thousands of rocket attacks against Israeli citizens. The PLO no longer represents all Palestinians.

Vague statements such as "The "islands" first took official form as Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord. This arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; however, no such transfers were made." seems to skip these points. Tombah ( talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Simply adding unbalanced or neutrality tags to numerous well-established Israel-Palestine conflict articles without very specific reasons for doing so is not at all constructive. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely hope there are very good reasons for contesting the neutrality of an article that has been through GA review and had a very large number of eyes on it firstly in its creation and then as GA. So far I see no such reasons, what I see is opinion. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Such aimless tagging itself has often served a merely tactical function: to signpost to readers that an article is unreliable overall. As Self notes, this one has undergone serious external scrutiny so one needs strong grounds for tagging, which in any case, should focus on specifics, and not be generic. The hasbara rubbish posted above as an objection is immaterial to the topic: bantustanization is not linked to some failure in the peace process, since the processes described have persisted, and thickened before and through the peace process period, which died a decade and a half ago, after which Bantustanization became even more intense. Political talking points, hasbara or spin from Palestinians is the kind of stuff we should be avoiding. Encyclopedic articles must privilege what is known to have happened over POVs. Nishidani ( talk) 19:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You need sources demonstrating a connection between topics, not personal opinions. You also need to have attempted to correct any issues. Since neither of those things are here, I am removing the tag. This article also has gone through GA review, and no such issue of imbalance was ever demonstrated. nableezy - 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

We have File:Oslo II Accord map of Area A and B.jpg (caption: "Area A and B under the Oslo II Accord"), which is "Official map of the first phase of the "Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement", Areas A and B (with C being defined as the rest of the West Bank)" according to the Oslo II Accord page. But all I see on it are a ton of individual islands, not any explicitly identified "Area A" or "Area B". And the image itself is so small in resolution as to make the text on it useless. Can someone who actually knows what the two areas actually comprise make a map like File:Allon Plan.svg that illustrates them? DMacks ( talk) 16:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We could use this map. Alaexis _¿question? 17:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I like this map, with two reservations:

1) The light red / dark red is confusing – Area C should be a very different color

2) It doesn’t have a source and it doesn’t match with the official map that DMacks links to above. To answer DMacks’ question, on the official map, brown is Area A and yellow is Area B. I believe some parts of Area B were converted into Area A over time, but don’t have a source for it.

FWIW, the distinction between Area A and Area B has limited relevance in practice.

Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your (plural) explanations! I agree that this map is what I had in mind but the choice of color (contrasting vs similar) is at odds with the described relationships of A and B (similar, part of one stage of process) vs C (a separate later stage). DMacks ( talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This article reads like a white paper from a Palestinian rights organization - it appears to be primarily premised on the idea that the situation it's describing should not exist. While I'm personally sympathetic to that argument, it's not at all consistent with WP:NPOV. The neutrality of the article has been repeatedly disputed here nn the talk page and dismissed without convincing arguments. Factual accuracy does not make an article automatically NPOV, nor does the inclusion of some skeptical or moderated voices, and being granted GA status doesn't ban editors from disputing its neutrality. I have added a neutrality dispute template to the top of the article, and it should not be removed until consensus is demonstrated directly. GeoEvan ( talk) 19:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. This article has remained substantially stable since it was promoted to GA almost two years ago. Consensus can change, but any change would need to be clearly demonstrated. Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Once beat me to it. GeoEvan, you need to support an NPOV tag with an explanation of why you believe it is in violation. It is not enough to merely restate that you think it is in violation. Zero ^talk 03:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I did give a summary of what the problem with the article is - it's a bit of a stretch to remove the tag before even engaging in further discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list all the things wrong with this almost entirely POV article right now, so I guess I'll have to throw in the towel, but I remind you again that there are several other headings not far above mine on this talk page also disputing the article's neutrality. That is not at all what I would call a stable consensus. GeoEvan ( talk) 03:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The most recent one I can see was 16 months ago by a now-banned user. If it was unbalanced, someone would have brought a source showing a different mainstream point of view not appropriately represented in the article. That hasn’t happened.

Almost everything in this conflict is debated, and those “uncomfortable” topics (on both sides) which cannot be credibly debated face efforts to downplay them. This is one of those latter topics. Onceinawhile ( talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The world desperately needs an accurate, objective, source of information on the enclaves right now. The following statement is included as fact when it comes from the co-founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). “The consequences of the creation of these fragmented Palestinian areas has been studied widely, and has been shown to have had a "devastating impact on the economy, social networks, [and] the provision of basic services such as healthcare and education.”(k) 2600:6C46:547F:E920:60F4:6C92:4D63:802D ( talk) 16:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's from a journal, and judging from the rest of this article, the statement appears well founded. Do you have any source that contradicts it? Selfstudier ( talk) 16:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Trump peace plan map should be taken out of the lead and the only image there should be the map of the existing situation. It's more appropriate to put the Trump map in the actual section that talks about it, since it's just one proposal out of many. Evaporation123 ( talk) 05:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It is the only US-sponsored peace plan which had an official map showing the enclaves. Putting it side by side with the Oslo map provides a useful understanding to readers. Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

How about putting the Trump peace plan map below the Oslo map, and noting in the caption that it is the only US peace plan that had an official map? Otherwise, the average reader might not understand why that specific map is in the lead region Evaporation123 ( talk) 07:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)