Talk:Palestinian enclaves/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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


Review by Szmenderowiecki[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Stability (criterion 5)[edit]

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)[reply]

Text (criteria 1-4)[edit]

Collapsing implemented comments for readability - General remarks, first third
General (initial) remarks[edit]

The first thing that struck me (which point was also made during the first review of the article) was the length of quotes, but these have been appropriately trimmed and even larger quotes are used in other GA/FAs, so I'm fine with the explanation and their usage. I am also satisfied with the breadth of coverage, though I'll have to admit that I don't have particularly deep knowledge of the topic, so some professional might say that something's missing/something was coatracked. Earwig did not detect any plagiarism from what I could see, but I believe the text uses too many in-text quotes, which could be easily paraphrased. Unfortunately, the person/people who were writing this text do not seem to notice that some of the sentences are written as if Google Translate was used, so there will be a lot of sentence rewriting so that the text is in English. I can also say that on the first look, the text did not have some serious NPOV, V or OR issues, which bodes well for the nomination, but I might find some issues when drilling down in the article. Please ping me when you are done with the first portion of corrections (there are quite a lot of them), so that we can proceed with the following parts.

First third[edit]
  • Lead
    As well as the comparison often drawn between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, the enclaves are also referred to as bantustans and figuratively as the Palestinian archipelago, among other terms. --> The enclaves are often compared to the nominally self-governing black homelands created in apartheid-era South Africa, and are therefore pejoratively referred to as "bantustans" or figuratively as "the Palestinian archipelago", among other terms. (adapt the markup to the text; wikilink some part of the sentence to "Israel and the apartheid analogy")
  • Onceinawhile comment: This sentence was subject to a very long-winded debate on the talk page about eight months ago, so I am keen not to impact the stability of the article by changing it too much. In particular there were a number of editors strong against labelling the term bantustan as performing only a pejorative rather than descriptive or other normative function. The syntax could certainly be improved though. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I haven't read the RfC. In this case, remove the "pejorative" label (though it would be consistent to include it due to it appearing in the body). Other than that, my rephrasing follows the spirit of option B, it's just less awkward, so it should stay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done although I am not entirely convinced, I have followed your proposal word-for-word. I agree it is less awkward. I separated out the final clause (re archipelago and other names) into a new sentence, as it seemed to confusingly imply that these other names were somehow related to South Africa. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "islands" first took official form as Areas A and B under the 1995 Oslo II Accord; this arrangement was explicitly intended to be temporary with Area C (the rest of the West Bank) to "be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction" by 1997; no such transfers were made Run-on sentence, split into two or three parts; some contrasting conjuction (however/but...) should be put btw 2nd and 3rd part.
  • Para 3: awkward repetition of "bantustan" in two consecutive sentences -> delete "bantustan/" from the first sentence, as this will make the prose more stylistically correct and remove potential NPOV concerns (particularly that none of the two quotes given in i-j include the word "bantustan").
  • Para 4: same for the word "impact".
  • Names
    Para 1: 1. Please use single and double quotes consistently, and use them on all words if we are talking about labelling the territories. 2. spell UNDP in full, add the abbreviation in (parentheses). 3. If you quote something, do not paraphrase the quote - use the exact same words. Or else remove the quotes and then paraphrase. I'd rather you did the latter.
  • Onceinawhile comment: I have gone through and fixed the " vs '. Now the only place were ' quotes are used is when we have a quotation embedded within another quotation. I have fixed UNDP. On the final point - please could you let me know which paraphrasing you are referring to? I couldn't find it. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote that goes "Israel has systematically segregated Palestinians communities into a series of archipelagos (referred to variously as isolated islands, enclaves, cantons, and Bantustans) under an arrangement referred to as 'one of the most intensively territorialized control systems ever.'" (in the original, it's "The State of Israel has systematically segregated Palestinians communities into a series of fragmented archipelagos (referred to variously as isolated islands, enclaves, cantons, and Bantustans) under a system that has been deemed “one of the most intensively territorialized control systems ever created.") - differences underlined. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onceinawhile comment: Thank you for this. It looks like the quote actually came from p.54 (the citation incorrectly states p.15, which has slightly different wording vs p.54 – hence your markup); it also missed off the final word which was in the next column. I have fixed both these matters.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: 1. The spaces are often referred to pejoratively as "Bantustans" while Israeli critics and others make the popular comparison to the territory set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa. The name "bantustan" is considered to have economic and political implications that imply a lack of meaningful sovereignty. --> The enclaves are often pejoratively compared to "Bantustans", particularly among those critical of the Israeli policy towards Palestinians, in reference to the territories set aside for black inhabitants in Apartheid South Africa. The label implies that the areas lack meaningful political sovereignty and economical independence. (wikilink: Criticism of the Israeli government, "compared to" -> Israel and the apartheid analogy; move other markup features to the new sentence). 2. According to Julie Peteet - who is she (scholar, UN official)? 3. The quote of Julie Peteet should best be paraphrased.
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done I removed the word pejorative per the comment further above; also it was not in the sources given and it was duplicated in the subsequent clause above critics. I also added the "but not exclusively" in reference to the talk page discussion on that topic, and the breadth of usage that we have in the sources. On Peteet, I gave her background and paraphrased part but not all of the quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 (quotes): 1. Sharon didn't seem to say that. It was others who said that the best summary of his views was the advocacy for a Bantustan-like entity, but it doesn't seem that Sharon himself referred explicitly to the areas as "Bantustans" or to the plan as "Bantustan plan"; 2. James Baker - use this link, as it is more accessible while containing exactly the same text; 3. Amos Elon's quote is not present within Levy's article - it seems you might have wanted to quote this 4. Gorenberg does not himself use the word. The passage containing the word says Allon’s answer was an updated version of his plan. He had realized, he later explained, that Palestinian autonomy under Israeli sovereignty “would be identified as…some kind of South African Bantustan.”, so it's Allon who's using the quote. 5. Avi Primor's quote seems pretty much irrelevant, so I'd propose to delete the quote and simply cite the Haaretz article, which does an indirect comparison with Bantustans; 6. Benvenisti's article is good for the purpose of the article, but the quote is irrelevant, again. It doesn't even contain the word "bantustan" despite it appearing 6 times in the article. 7. It would make sense, from an NPOV standpoint, to name the folks who oppose the labelling of Palestinian enclaves as bantustans as well (Michael Kinsley, for example, see Polakow-Suransky, 2010, p.235) - find those folks, too. 8. You can add some organisations, too, such as UN.
  • Onceinawhile comment: Hi @Szmenderowiecki: with respect to your point 7, on this article's talk page a huge amount of effort was put in over many months by numerous editors (with a wide range of apparent political viewpoints) to find all the relevant sources on this bantustan-label topic. In all that talk page work and debate, no reliable source was found to provide a meaningful argument against the term. Your suggestion is a good example of this – (1) the quotation of Kinsley in Polakow-Suransky is actually from an opinion piece in Slate (the online magazine which Kinsley founded), which was subtitled Jimmy Carter’s moronic new book about Israel; and (2) the quote given is then cut off – the full quote is "Palestine is no Bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews." So even if it was more than an opinion piece, its equivocation means it cannot be construed as Kinsley arguing that the term is wrong. Putting this aside, the article tries to avoid this issue by not providing any argument as to whether or not the term bantustan is appropriate. Personally I would be happy to add in such a debate, but coherently-argued "against" sources have not been found by any of the editors, and I do not want to create a one-sided view. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. If we can cite Amos Elon, Schiff and other journalists and political commentators, I think Kinsley's opinion is relevant too, since we speak of "bantustan" used in various contexts referring to the Palestine. That said, I've reached to the full article and I can agree with your conclusions. Anyway, I think citing the article will do nothing bad, as quite a few pieces are opinions or book reviews (as Kinsley's piece happens to be, too). I'm disappointed by Polakow-Suransky's sleight of hand, though.
2. I've reviewed the talk page and I can state that the pro-Israeli editors have repeatedly failed to produce a list of scholarly resources, but I can't say for sure they simply don't exist. As for a reviewer, it's super important for me to understand that NPOV is preserved before I put the imprimatur of GA status. For now, I only have an indication NPOV is preserved; but given the abundance of pro-Israeli outlets and positions, and the possibility that there might have been filibuster efforts on behalf of editors opposing the article additions (no accusations made here), it is extremely strange there are only two sources (both not of the highest quality) referring to the concept, barring those appearing in the second discussion of Archive 1, which do use "Bantustan" in various contexts (and which I'd ask you to mention in the "Names" section, as they belong there, even if the authors associate the usage of the term with the far left or Israel-haters: [1], [2]). They are admittedly not top-notch but IMHO are good enough for this exact purpose (the first is a peer-reviewed article while the other has been reputably, though not academically, published); I also believe that it doesn't matter that they don't have their own WP articles yet.
  • Onceinawhile comment: I just read the Proquest article linked in the comment above. The relevant references used by the author are "Palestinianfacts.org" (ref 22), an unreliable anti-Palestinian propaganda site now removed from the internet, and Wikipedia itself (ref 23). Any sources which cite Wikipedia are unusable, per WP:CIRC. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2a. I think I should ask Shrike, Wikieditor19920 and 11Fox11 to provide more sourcing (among the "many" they claim exist) that would provide a pro-Israeli point, and then adapt the text accordingly (if they don't, I will have to dismiss their comments about POV and move forward with the nomination).
3. As for point 1 for Para 2 (quotes): I've also seen the discussion about whether Ariel Sharon actually referred to the areas as Bantustans. I'm still not convinced, however, that he certainly did that (and that's quite a strong claim); though I'll admit there's high probability it happened. It's more or less the same likelihood as with the reported usage of bantustans in context of Palestine by Moshe Dayan. Since we don't have certainty, I would still suggest to remove it or to state that he probably used this phrase too, based on third-hand accounts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onceinawhile comment: Done 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. For 1 (Sharon) I added the word "reportedly". On 8, a UNDP report is quoted in the paragraph above, and I am keen not to overload the section. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Szmenderowiecki: thanks for bearing with me during this process – it has taken me longer than I hoped. I am pleased to say that we are down to just one last topic (phew!) - this point 7 above that we discussed three weeks ago (with related discussion on these sources at Talk:Palestinian enclaves#NPOV Balance). I believe your proposal was to add Kinsley and Havardi,. I have to admit I am struggling to figure out what to write about them and how to write it. I was wondering whether @Shrike: might be willing to draft something for consideration? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kinsley and Havardi could be listed among the other people already present in the article. It might get too long, but then GAs don't require perfection, and that list seems pretty relevant IMHO. I am open to any proposals offering specific remedies, particularly from those who claim that problems still exist in the article. The review is still open, so maybe something new will appear in the process. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: The process of creating the fragmented enclaves has been described -> add "also"
  • Israeli planning ...,
    Para 1: paraphrase Stone's quote
  • Allon Plan: In his view, not to give back to that country Palestinian land outside of the territory proposed for annexation for Israeli settlement would leave Palestinians with an autonomy under Israeli rule, a situation that would lead observers to conclude that Israel had set up an arrangement akin to "some kind of South African Bantustan". -> In his view, if Israel did not give back the Palestinian lands that were not supposed to be annexed for Israeli settlement to that country, it would have to leave Palestinians with an autonomy under Israeli rule. This, Allon argued, would lead observers to conclude that Israel had set up an arrangement akin to "some kind of South African Bantustan". (Move this sentence to the very end of the paragraph - we should first describe the gist of Allon's plan and then the motives behind it).
  • 1968 Jerusalem plan: 1. The masterplan defined the need to ensure "unification of Jerusalem" and prevent a later division -> The masterplan set the objective of ensuring the "unification of Jerusalem" and preventing it from being divided in the future. 2. The plan called for Jewish neighborhood construction in stages beginning shortly after the war with Ramot Eshkol, French Hill and Givat HaMivtar "closing the gap in the north of the city. -> The plan called for the construction of Jewish neighbourhoods in stages, which started shortly after the Six-Day War. In particular, the new settlements of Ramot Eshkol, French Hill and Givat HaMivtar closed the gap in the northern parts of the city. (Also, watch out: you're using "neighborhood" and "labour" in one article, so stick to either Commonwealth English or American English). 3. Then in the 1970s through early 1980s, in the four comers of the annexed areas, Ramot and Neve Ya'akov in the north and Gilo and East Talpiot in the south. The third stage included Pisgat Ze'ev in 1980 and "the creation of an outer security belt", Ma'ale Adumim (1977), Givon (1981) and Efrat (1983) on high ground and beside strategic roads in the Palestinian area. Har Homa (1991) and attempts to achieve a link between this neighborhood and Ma'ale Adumim, known as the "Greater Jerusalem" plan. -> The second stage took place in the 1970s and early 1980s, when Ramot and Neve Ya'akov in the north and Gilo and East Talpiot in the south were built. The third stage included Pisgat Ze'ev in 1980 and the creation of the so-called "outer security belt", which consisted of Ma'ale Adumim (1977), Givon (1981) and Efrat (1983), built on high ground and next to strategic roads in the Palestinian area. The most recent endeavours included the construction of Har Homa (1991) and the so far unsuccessful attempts to connect Ma'ale Adumim with other Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. (given the location of Har Homa, it is extremely unlikely they wanted to go from there to Ma'ale Adumim).
  • Drobles and Sharon plans
    Para 1: 1. Just to reduce ambiguity, I'd propose to replace "their [settlements] main architect" to "its [policy] main architect". 2. across the full depth what does it mean in English?
  • Para 3: Masterplan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 1979–1983, Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem, 1979, authored by Matityahu Drobles(s) -> Masterplan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 1979–1983, authored by Matityahu Drobles and published by Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization in 1979. (wikilink Matityahu Drobles; besides, is his surname really written with double s?)
  • Para 4: Plans including the Allon, Drobles and Sharon master plans as well as the Hundred Thousand plan, never officially acknowledged, were the blueprint for West Bank settlements. Plans, including the Allon, Drobles and Sharon master plans, as well as the Hundred Thousand plan, which has never been officially acknowledged, were the blueprint for the West Bank Jewish settlements. (add internal link to Hundred Thousand plan); convert parenthetical referencing to normal reference.
  • Onceinawhile comment: I have done the first sentence here. Please could you confirm what you mean by "add internal link to Hundred Thousand plan", and which parenthetical reference you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that (hint: start with a hash, then write the name of the chapter, e.g. #Oslo Accords or the next part of the review :)). The parenthetical reference is (UNHCR 2013, p. 31) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onceinawhile comment: Thank you.  I have fixed the parenthetical Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Road to Oslo
    Para 1: According to the former deputy director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's department for Africa, Asia and Oceania, then ambassador and vice president of Tel Aviv University Avi Primor, writing in 2002 According to Avi Primor, the former ... Oceania, who was an ambassador and vice president of the Tel Aviv University at the time of writing.
  • Para 2: PLO leader Yasser Arafat -> unwind PLO abbreviation, write PLO in (parentheses); "Plan for West Bank and Gaza Strip" -> add "the" in front of each entity.
  • Para 3: "Published in 1983, the "Ministry of Agriculture and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization, Master Plan for Settlement for Judea and Samaria, Development Plan for the Region for 1983-1986" aimed at building settlements through 2010 by attracting 80,000 Israelis to live in 43 new Israeli settlements in order to raise the total settler population to 100,000 and for whom up to 450 km of new roads are to be paved" -> the "Master Plan for Settlement for Judea and Samaria, Development Plan for the Region for 1983-1986", co-authored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organisation aimed at attracting 80,000 Israelis to live in 43 new Israeli settlements (for which up to 450 km of new roads were to be paved) in order to raise the total settler population to 100,000 by 2010.
  • Para 4: Shortly afterwards, Shimon Peres the new Prime Minister of a Labour-Likud national coalition government - add comma.
  • Para 5: 1. In 1984 elections, Labor and Likud, on opposite sides of the debate over territorial compromise were forced into coalition and any thought of land for peace tabled - that's not exactly in English. There should be a comma after compromise. 2. Second sentence: remove first quotes; Rabin -> Yitzhak Rabin. Split into two parts (second part: Additionally, the Israeli settlements ..., italicise de facto. 3. "but 15 years later" - comma after later; 4. Last sentence should be split in two. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing implemented comments for readability - rest of the article
Second third[edit]
  • Oslo Accords
    Para 1: "Unesco summit" - UNESCO should be in ALL CAPS
  • Para 2: 1. by the end of 1999 the West Bank had been divided into 227 separate entities, most of which were no more than 2 square kilometres (0.77 sq mi) - a. if you abbreviate miles, you should abbreviate kilometres for consistency; b. most of which were smaller than 2 km^2; 2. c.1005km2 -> c. 1005 km^2 (use Convert template); 3. last sentence - split the last part of the sentence from the rest: "In fact, no such transfers have been made to date".
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done (I left out the "in fact"). Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "Swiss Cheese" -> lowercase for cheese; would be advisable to take inside quotes.
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done (I also added a little more detail to explain the Swiss cheese label) Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly nothing more to add.
  • Subsequent peace plans
    Para 1: "would have conceded Palestinians 97% of the West Bank" -> would have handed control over 97% of the West Bank to Palestinians.
  • Para 5: 1. "Road map for peace" -> road should be lowercase; 2. "Bantustan model.In March 2002" add space; 3. "In March 2002, Israel began Operation Defensive Shield and commenced the Israeli West Bank barrier which frequently deviates from the pre-1967 ceasefire line into the West Bank." From what I read construction of the barrier started in June 2002, so it's misleading to couple the two; also, add comma before which.
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done I removed "March" so it now describes all of 2002. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 6: 1. It emerged that in private Sharon indeed had openly confided, when as Foreign Minister for the Netanyahu government, to a foreign statesman as early as April 1999, that he had in mind the Apartheid Bantustan example as furnishing an 'ideal solution to the dilemma of Palestinian statehood'. -> It later emerged that in private, Sharon had confided to a foreign statesman as early as in April 1999, when he was serving as Foreign Minister for the Netanyahu government, that he believed the apartheid-era Bantustan provided "an ideal solution to the dilemma of Palestinian statehood". 2. When d'Alema, at a private dinner he hosted for Israelis in Jerusalem in late April 2003, mentioned his recollection of Sharon's Bantustan views, one Israeli countered by suggesting that his recall must be an interpretation, rather than a fact -> When Massimo D'Alema recalled the discussion during which Sharon explained his preference for Bantustan-like Palestine, one of the guests, who attended a private dinner the Italian Prime Minister hosted for Israelis in late April 2003, countered by suggesting that D'Alema's recollections must be an interpretation rather than a fact. (D'Alema must be capitalised throughout; few people rid the footnotes, so we should mention D'Alema's name, too). 3. You don't need to quote D'Alema's answer - paraphrase it. 4. Another Israeli guest present at the dinner deeply invpolved in cultivating Israeli-South African relations Another Israeli guest, who was present at the dinner and who was (deeply) involved in cultivating ties between Israel and South Africa, ...; 5. "into three fragmented entities" -> needs colon.
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done 1, 2, 4, 5 all complete. On 3, the D'Alema quote is only seven words, and given the subject of the sentence is about precision I think it is elegant for us to be precise too. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 8: to minimize the amount of land on which a Palestinian state would exist by fixing facts on the ground to affect future negotiations -> you mean something like fait accompli politics? The current wording is pretty awkward.
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done I deleted most of that clause as it was most duplicative with the first part of the sentence. I also added a link to the article Facts on the ground. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 9: remove quotes, paraphrase all of them, also: These findings were discussed with the Israeli government; the Israelis "never challenged those findings" -> These findings were discussed with the Israeli government, which never disputed them.
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done First quote shortened (I didn't completely paraphrase it, because Rhodes is already paraphrasing Obama so better to stay as precise as we can); second quote paraphrased as suggested. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done Both acronyms clarified. I have left the remaining quote as it is only 6 words, and therefore difficult to accurately paraphrase without copying. The rest of the reference to Svetlova is a paraphrase. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trump peace plan: there's no particular reason for which to highlight Cohen's quote -> introduce back into text by rephrasing it; The plan in principle contemplates a future Palestinian state, "shrivelled to a constellation of disconnected enclaves, following Israeli annexation," while a group of UN human rights experts said "What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world." -> The plan in principle contemplates a future Palestinian state which would be, as the Financial Times describes, "shrivelled to a constellation of disconnected enclaves". A group of UN human rights experts also sided with the opinion, saying that "what would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world." Similar opinions were expressed by Daniel Levy, former Israeli negotiator and president of the U.S./Middle East Project, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory Michael Lynk.
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done Also I moved the Cohen reference into the subsequent section, as it was primarily focused on annexation. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netanyahu annexation plan: Para 1: since you've already summarised Netanyahu's quote, it makes sense to get it in a footnote for reference instead of repeating it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done I reduced the paraphrase to remove repetition. I prefer to keep the quote because it is short and also important given it is the words of the plan's author. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last third (Key issues)[edit]
  • Jerusalem
    General remark: The section somehow feels not finished. For example, I can't see what is it about the Jerusalem Master plan 2000 that warrants mention here. Plus only relying on one person's opinion to present a "key issue" isn't something that I'd expect to see in a GA-class article. While Dumper provides an example of how East Jerusalem contributes to the fragmentation of the community, there should preferably be more voices saying that.
1. The Jerusalem Master plan 2000 reflects Israeli policy. The plan proposes the maintenance of a 60% Jewish 40% Palestinian demographic. -> The Jerusalem Master plan 2000, which proposes the maintenance of a 60% Jewish to 40% Palestinian demographic (in Jerusalem?), reflects Israeli policy. 2. Please paraphrase at least two of four Dumper's quotes and explain why Dumper's opinion is needed here (scholar, researcher, politician, UN official?...).
  • Onceinawhile comment:  Done Thank you for pointing this out. I have carried out a major rewrite of this section, adding to and upgrading the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Settlements
    General remarks: That sentence in a separate paragraph should be merged with either of the two, while the last (mentioning the plans) should in fact be the first; plus the fragment should be also expanded with some more information and insights into the situation. As far as I understand, there should more or less be a section describing the quality of life in the enclaves (IDK, poverty, corruption, Israeli policing, flight of young people to Israel proper/elsewhere, if such stuff exists), particularly since the influx of Jewish settlers, but I don't see it. I hope more information could be found on the first two topics, because I don't think these two paragraphs broadly discuss the "key issues".
  • Onceinawhile comments:  Done I have reordered all these paragraphs and combined them into one, which I think reads well. We do have a comprehensive article covering the main topics around life in the enclaves: Israeli occupation of the West Bank (currently linked in the first section of this article under Names). I prefer not to duplicate that article here, given its depth and complexity. I could certainly add a small subsection in the key issues section, with a main article link above it, but I am not sure I would be able to do it justice. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Land expropriation: paraphrase Financial Times quote; italicise all newspaper names in the article (Financial Times, Haaretz...); Highway to Annexation which concludes add "that the"
  • Contiguity: Post Oslo closure and separation (hafrada)-> Post-Oslo closure and separation (hafrada); paraphrase Peteet quotes; italicise hafrada; paraphrase Benvenisti and Indyk quotes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onceinawhile comments:  Done I also merged two paragraphs which were quite similar in nature. I paraphrased Peteet, and most of Benvenisti. I left the final Benvenisti quote and the Indyk quote, because they were so nuanced that I felt I couldn't do them justice with paraphrasing. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Final remarks[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comments[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Review by Shushugah[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • Greater care is needed with spelling of politician's names, for example Benjamin Netanyahu was spelled Binjamin, and Shimon Peres was spelled Simon Peres. I corrected some Hebrew spelling (and matched with provided Haaretz source), which is reasonable to not expect English editors to know
  • Avoid WP:weasel words/phrases. If there are disagreements/disputes over terminologies, state them clearly instead of hoodwinking that there's controversey, for example with West Bank vs Judeah and Samaria etc.. a hatnote could clarify at the first mention of Judea Samaria (or West Bank), that the former is the Israeli government's term for the same geographic areas.
  • The creation of this arrangement has been called[by whom?] "the most outstanding geopolitical occurrence of the past quarter century." just mention that Journalist Amira Hass says this. She's obviously a notable journalist on this topic.
  • This has been referred to as the "Bantustan option".: I mistakenly understood this as referring to Trump peace plan rather than all the different peace plans. Considering the source exists before Trump's plan, it cannot refer to that anyways. Should also clarify WHO's referring to these plans as the "Bantustan option".

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

References

  1. ^ Haapiseva-Hunter, Jane; Hunter, Professor Jane (1987). Israeli Foreign Policy: South Africa and Central America. South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-285-4.

Discussion[edit]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Closing review[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_enclaves/GA2&oldid=1146888428"