Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli occupation of the West Bank


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  17:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of the West Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page is a WP:POVFORK of existing articles including Israeli-occupied territories, West Bank, Israeli settlement, Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967, Area C (West Bank), Palestinian territories, Judea and Samaria area, Israeli Military Governorate, Israeli Civil Administration, West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord and others. It was created 4 months ago in violation of WP:PROPAGANDA by two an editor who strongly supports Palestinian "resistance," User:Nableezy and an editor User:Nishidani (corrected text:) who strongly supports the Palestinian cause, one of whom WP:OWNS the page. The perspective of the page creators is relevant because the article was immediately tagged for POV by User:Graeme Bartlett. It has been the subject of constant, interminable, repetitive, unresolvable POV discussions on talk page ever since. A minor point is that the page when created was 162kb, which creator knew to be excessive. The excessive length problem has been ongoing, a fact that bears out the reasons for our longstanding practice of covering aspects of this topic in separate pages. Diligent, experienced editors have established on talk that the POV problems with this page cannot be resolved, but from the moment it was written it has been clear that there was no need for this WP:POVFORK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - and obviously so. You can't have a POVFORK from multiple pages, and beyond that, this article is currently at 120 kB of readable prose. It cant be merged in to its parent article (which is West Bank). The personal attacks in the nomination notwithstanding, this is an obviously notable topic, with sources very specifically treating this as its own topic. The idea that because it deals with a topic that the nominator finds uncomfortable means it is propaganda is kind of funny but not at all important. One of the more obvious keeps in the history of AFD. An obviously notable topic, one which currently has 295 reliable sources cited dealing explicitly with this topic. The most basic WP:BEFORE search, if that were even necessary given the number of sources already cited, would disabuse somebody of the notion this is not its own topic. Some users dont want the Israeli occupation covered. That is a position that is fine for an individual to hold. It is however not one that is relevant to the goal of building an encyclopedia. As far as the patently silly claim that the sources are "cherry-picked" or "POV", please, look at the source list. Among the 295 sources, 28 are published by some university press. 72 of them are from peer-reviewed journals. The rest mostly from top-class publishers like Routledge, Brill, and Taylor & Francis. This article is sourced to the very best available reliable sources. Some people just dont like what the sources say.  nableezy  - 17:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is important to note that reliable sources can also disrupt the balance of an article - there is no dispute over the reliability of the vast majority of sources, but there is a dispute over the balances of sources. It is probably important to also note that the only defense of this balance provided by the authors is that the "ethnic breakdown" favors "Jewish" scholars over Palestinian ones, and that this means the article cannot be biased. Personally, I consider this defense problematic for numerous reasons. --  No COBOL  (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The primary author of this article has now produced another defense, and so I will mention it here for completeness; their defense, summed up as fairly as I can, is that due to Israeli Bias the balance of reliable sources is wrong and thus this article should not reflect that balance. --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is important to note that the users who are claiming that there are NPOV issues, namely you and Icewhiz, have yet to bring any reliable sources that demonstrate any type of NPOV issue. They simply claim that based on feeling that the balance of sources is off. Im pretty sure your personal feeling is not what determines NPOV on this website. As far as only defence, that is verging on a purposely untrue statement. Please dont do that.  nableezy  - 16:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is more or less the definition of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy . This article is a rather obvious NOT fail. Notably - WP:NOTESSAY - the article is written in essay form as an anti-occupation treatise. Furthermore, as the nominator points out, it is a WP:POVFORK of several articles that pre-exist this article and cover the Israeli military administration in the West Bank (or in all of the occupied Palestinian territories) and which are in a reasonable WP:NPOV state. Creating a new article on a particular subset intersection (occupation & West Bank) of the conflict is not an excuse to place an article that diverges from NPOV in a severe fashion - a POVFORK. Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy  Per WP:TNT .The sources were cherry-picked to presented one sided WP:POV essay.You can see at the talk page the discussion about serious problems that this article have --18:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)


 * "'two editors who strongly support Palestinian 'resistance,' User:Nableezy and User:Nishidani"
 * Comment
 * Why is the word 'resistance' placed in inverted commas, and what do you mean by that insinuation? Can you point to me anywhere where I wrote I support what Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Palestinian suicide bombers, Fatah, Tanzim, and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine do etc? If you cannot do so, I take it that this is a deliberate attempt to smear me, and possibly reportable. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * corrected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not satisfactory. What does ' an editor User:Nishidani (corrected text:) who strongly supports the Palestinian cause,' mean? What cause, wshose cause, because there are several,none of which I support, i.e. that of Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Fatah, Tanzim, the Palestinian National Authority and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, or even the BDS movement, which are all at logger-heads? I strongly support human rights in numerous articles, beginning with Tibet, the Philippines, and aboriginal people. If you want a neutral description it should be 'Nishidani, who strongly supports human rights for Palestinians in the occupied territories'. I)f you dislike the ref to 'human rights' then simply erase your insinuation that I back any Palestinian 'cause' of whatever nature. Otherwise it remains a personal attack by a generic insinuation I second any cause any Palestinian engages in. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * lol, same question for me.  nableezy  - 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For USER:Nableezy it is probably in reference to a box on their user page, which states "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable.". All the same, it has no bearing on these discussions and should probably be hidden in a box. --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Snow keep It is really very easy: the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has broken multiple international laws, and brought incredible hardship on the Palestinian population. This has been meticulously documented (by academics, UN, and human rights sources) over these last 50 years; making old anti−Apartheid activist in South−Africa saying that the West Bank is much worse than it ever was in South Africa. Some people want to push these nasty facts under the carpet, ineffect to censor Wikipedia. They should not be allowed to do so. (If you don't want to portrayed as nasty: then stop acting nasty. The truth will out.) Huldra (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As for WP:OWN....there must be hundreds of village articles where I have contributed the greater part of the  material  in them ...my WP:OWNership of these articles is worth exactly 0, as we all know. That is in fact exactly what WP:OWN says. And when was the fact that someone has worked a great deal on an article, (or, in my case: a set of articles) something to be held against one? Huldra (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep as this is a ridiculous and plain pointy nomination. For once a scholar with WP experience is writing an excellent and, considering the "allowable" size, quite comprehensive article from scratch on a topic he's an expert on and as usual blind ideology minded hate for everything that makes this subject better known to the laymen is trying to trash it, hoping the WP mob will do their "best" for their dirty job to work as intended. Disgraceful chutzpah but to no surprise at all. WP is nothing more than social media after all.--TMCk (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is without question a notable topic that has been the subject of untold hundreds of thousands (at a minimum) of sources, be they works of scholarship, news stories, textbooks, general interest reference works, primary accounts, primary government statements, and more aside. Indeed, it is one of the most globally significant topics of recent history and contemporary significance in existence and when looking into this inquiry I was a little blown away to learn that the article has only existed since 2018. As to the POVFORK question, I don't think it holds up as an analysis when applied to any of the target articles mentioned by the OP; the topic of the article title is a discrete one and one which there is ample sourcing to discuss own its own unique terms with the title definetly being the obvious WP:COMMONNAME used in sources by and large, if we look at the entire universe of WP:RS on the topic.


 * As to any issues with neutrality, there are to obvious points to consider: 1) The most well known principle of our deletion policies is that we do not delete simply because an article has internal content issues, where such issues are amenable to correction. 2) Let's be perfectly honest here: there has never been in the history of this project an WP:AIPIA article which began life in a state which all of the most likely to be invested editors agree was neutral, and there won't be one in our lifetime. Like all articles in this area, this one will require careful work, compromise and mediation to get it to a state of acceptable equilibrium with our policies and the various users who have very strong feelings on the underlying subject matter. It is not unlike hundreds of other articles in that respect, and there's just no way there weren't going to be people frustrated with its starting point, no matter how much it leaned towards typical Israeli or Palestinian views (or towards the views of certain of our editors, whether or not they subscribe to such perspectives themselves). I get that this article's very existence signifies a lot of work for the community and probably a fair deal of conflict, but those factors are not in and of themselves sufficient to vitiate the obvious notability analysis or the importance of the topic such that we would not allow the article. Snow let's rap</b> 02:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * query / comment - Note this is a NOT/POVFORK nomination, it's not a question of sources. Where do we stop at splitting up the Military-administration / Occupation of the Palestinian territories (a topic already well covered by several Wikipedia articles)? Do we create an Israeli occupation of the northern West Bank (Samaria), Israeli occupation of the central West Bank (Binyamin), Israeli occupation of the southern West Bank (Judea), Israeli occupation of the eastern West Bank (Jordan Valley)? Note this isn't an arbitrary division - this matches Israeli civil (Mateh Binyamin Regional Council) and military (Binyamin regional brigade on Hebrew Wikipedia) administrative/unit lines. After that split, do we do (cities/villages) Israeli occupation of Jenin and Israli occupation of Qabatiya? And then (neighborhoods) Israeli occupation of Balata and Israeli occupation of Rafidia? and after that Israeli occupation of the al-Masri family home in Rafidia? Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully Icewhiz, that is both a strawman argument and a non-sequitor. Nobody is, on this page at least, proposing any such additional aricles. Nor is any speculative determination about such theoretical articles (which are by no means likely) necessary or relevant to determining if the article in question here is appropriate under our policies.  And you may wish to dismiss sources from this equation, but that is clearly not realistic given the policies and editorial determinations that underpin any such analysis in an AfD.  "Israeli occupation of the eastern West Bank (Jordan Valley)" is not an article subject that is the express focus of hundreds of thousands of reliable sources, while "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" is; therefor your theoretical articles do not have the same immense WP:Notability argument going for them that this article does.  Questions about any further articles are red herrings, unlikely as they are to occur--and anyway these arguments are properly the subject for separate AfDs if said articles ever did come to exist. Let's keep discussion focused on the here and now and the content that is in the purview of this AfD, rather than going off into the weeds of speculation about articles that don't exist. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 08:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-do your WP:BEFORE - as the occupation of the lower-Western Jordan Valley (which is unique both in Israeli security concerns and in terms of demographics - you actually chose the worst possible example from the list above) is in fact the subject of thousands of reliable sources - more so than the West Bank separately from the Occupied Palestinian territories (which the West Bank is the major part of). Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's say you're right (I personally doubt very much that it's the case that there are more reliable sources in the world which discuss the Jordan Valley than those which discuss the West Bank in general, but the question is non-dispositive here so I don't see the point in debating it)--that still does not change the principles I alluded to one whit. Nothing is to be gained about discussing the WP:N analysis of an article which does not exist and which nobody is proposing in this AfD.  It's still a strawman argument and still irrelevant to determining if this article's topic is notable (which, clearly it is, if anything under the sun in the contemporary world is) and if it otherwise conforms to the policies relevant to a deletion discussion. If you wished to propose the Jordan Valley article, I'd say have at it, but it's clear you don't.  But it is not appropriate or constructive for you to attribute such a stance to the proponents of this article when they have advocated no such thing.  Again, let's please keep things focused on the presently existing content and how policies apply to it. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 09:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant argument is this article being a WP:POVFORK of Occupied Palestinian territories which is about the Israeli occupation in the oPt overall - the West Bank comprising some 93.937% of the oPt. The topic overlap between both articles is significant (more so than the Jordan Valley for instance). POVFORKs are generally deleted or merged back into the parent. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Um Occupied Palestinian territories is a redirect to Palestinian territories. And that article is not, as you repeatedly claim, about the Israeli occupation in the oPt overall. Please dont misrepresent the situation, it is quite unbecoming. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pt and oPt (variant names) is defined by the Israeli occupation from 1967 onwards and covers that period - it is about the Israeli occupation.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you even looked at that article? It has a section that deals with, poorly, the occupation. But pretending that article covers the occupation, much less that it is about the occupation, is just silly. All the more so given that anybody can oh I dont know, click the link and see for themselves. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Draftify. As it stands, the article has several NPOV issues that means it would fail an AfC review, primarily due to the imbalance on sources between the various "sides" - the Israeli "side" is not a fringe view, and so should be adequately recorded. An example of how this plays out is where the article discusses biased language; it goes into depth on the use of biased language by those favoring Israel, but does not mention biased language by those favoring Palestine, even though it includes a (pro-Palestinian) source from which an excellent example can be obtained, where it complains about the use of "suicide-bomber" as opposed to "martyr". As such, it should be moved to draft-space until those issues are corrected - I believe the article has merit, and so should not be deleted unless while in draft-space it qualifies under their deletion criteria. --  No COBOL  (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be a reasonable compromise. I can see no supportable cause to delete this article under policy, but I can't claim that the way it reads in many places in its long read does not attest to neutrality issues. Perhaps the article's proponents can be convinced to move it to draft space if the "other side" will give assurances that they will not try to take advantage of the situation to expunge it from Wikipedia altogether; if both sides can agree to work in good faith to bring the article to a better state...well, I can't say I'm hopefully that this approach will be endorsed by both the proponents and the opponents to its existence, but I think its worth considering. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 08:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The only way I can see it being deleted is if it is abandoned and reaches the sixth month mark. Perhaps we could add to reduce the chance of even that happening - the article in question is an indisputably promising draft, so that should not be objectionable. --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem would be in convincing the article's proponents to accept the temporary demotion out of mainspace; they will be concerned (perhaps reasonably) that the opponents of the article will attempt to block it's being moved back into article space once it is out. And unfortunately, I don't think it's permissible (or even necessarily advisable) to have a time limit for an article in draftspace such that it is moved back into mainspace automatically at the end of that period in time. I suppose both sides could agree to submit the issue to a neutral editor or group of editors at AfC and let them make a determination about whether it is ready for mainspace again, free from any active boostering from either side. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 09:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's a good point. I like your solution as well; to flesh it out, maybe when the authors believe the article is ready for submission they submit a RfC specifically for the AfC community, and if the consensus of that community is that the article is ready, specifically in regards to NPOV issues, it can be returned to main-space? --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The delete vote were for Userfy that is the same draftify as I understand --Shrike (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * More or less; close enough that a closer could consider the three -ify !votes together, anyway. But I do think for the present article draftspace would be the better place. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 09:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, in sum,  Human rights in China,  Human rights in Russia Human rights in Tibet and dozens of other articles should be deleted, or put away to be redrafted? For they do what this article does. This is different (save for the Tibetan case) because the human rights abuses do not occuer within a country, but beyond its legally recognized borders, hence 'occupation', moreover.
 * Several editors strongly upset by the article keep harping on WP:NPOV, as though it meant that for the 20 odd voices of known human rights/international law violations, the 'Israeli' justifications must be given equal weight, meaning that rather than facts and mechanisms, half of the article must cover justifications by various representatives of the occupying power. They haven't addressed the point raised here. An article like this must mention the use of torture, for example, since it is deeply documented (over 3,000,000 hits in google). The two Israeli High Court discussions were mentioned; one could add many Israeli spokesmen denying it exists (documented) or saying it is necessary; one could link to a sub-page documenting torture used by the various Palestinian authorities (though this is about Israel's occupation, not the PNA or Hamas's abuses, which however are intensely documented in numerous articles). Ultimately the topical realities are not going to disappear or be 'neutral' in the odd sense proposed here, i.e. balancing an 'Israeli' perspective against a 'Palestinian' perspective. The article is not about political justifications, or partisan spokesmen's views: it is about the facts and mechanisms of an occupation. No one objecting has denied that what is thematically outlined here is unreal, a gross misrepresentation. No objector is denying all this happens there. They are objecting either to the unfairness of this material being marshaled on one page or to it being documented, certainly in the detail demanded by the most voluminously documented conflict area in modern history.Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You and USER:Icewhiz need to remember WP:WAX. As for the rest, nobody is seeking WP:FALSEBALANCE. What is being sought is WP:BALANCE, and that is achievable even on topics where the balance will never be 50:50. An example of this I have raised above; the section on bias in the language of the occupation is relevant in both directions, and including just Palestine's perspective on this is an example of where WP:BALANCE is not meet, and seeking to meet it is not an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Answer the query. Why is this absurd uproar not visible with comparable articles on other countries? The problem of balance in the section you mention is that Israel has a dozen official, semi-official and public bodies with extensive resources and a high public profile, scrutinizing, contesting and distributing the results of their analysis of what they see as pro-Palestinian bias, whereas there are close to zero Palestinian official or unofficial bodies doing the opposite, and little of that material gets into the mainstream.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We reflect the mainstream, it is not our job to WP:RGW and reflect non-mainstream sources. You wouldn't want Bezalel Smotrich's annexation plan (including a surrender-or-transfer ultimatum) all over the article (e.g. Haaretz coverage), would you? Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article reflects the scholarly mainstream. Everything in it is standard fare on any contemporary university-level course on the topic in Israel's top institutions of learning, from whose tenured academics much of the documentation comes, as opposed to what you find in newspapers.
 * Could editors not transform this into a repeat of the huge motherlode of argufying on the talk page? Making just one more policy link WP:RGW is not an answer. It justs adds to the speciously impressive flurry of vague flag-waving of WP:POVFORK, WP:PROPAGANDA, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NPOV, WP:TNT, WP:OWN, WP:WAX. WP:BALANCE, etc.etc. while refusing to address a simple query,'what makes this article uniquely problematical when parallel articles on the same issue,     Human rights in China,  Human rights in Russia Human rights in Tibet have met with no such deletionist urgency? That done, let outside editors whose views are unpredictable voice their views here. Otherwise they will be put off by an unfocused WP:TLDR pastiche developing. Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could some neutral administer examine his. I regard the gratuitous insinuation made in my regard in the AfD proposal to be offensive, and have asked it be withdrawn, and it is being hatted as 'off-topic', when indeed the abusive insinuation still stands there? Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * These repeated claims about "balance" and "NPOV issues" have not once been backed up by sources. On the talk page NoCOBOL has claimed that not including an Israeli system for registering land title makes including that they closed off the former Jordanian system "undue weight", while apparently not realizing that Israel did not create a system when closing off the old one. Each claim of "undue weight" or "imbalance" has had one thing in common. No sources have been provided to substantiate any part of the claim. This article is NPOV, it reflects the balance of reliable sources. The topic is not one that has a lot of praise for Israel. That does not mean that it is not "neutral". People have been making wholly specious arguments about POV and they keep forgetting the important part. You need reliable sources demonstrating that a view is significant to be included. And none of yall have brought any such sources. Instead we hear complaints that a peer-reviewed journal published by a university press is a "cheerleader for Palestinian resistance". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — Looking through the list of articles that are supposed to cover this information, I'm really surprised that this article hasn't existed previously: Wikipedia certainly needs an article that directly covers this subject. The lede is relatively well written and quite impartial in its treatment of differing pro/anti Israeli/Palestinian views — in fact I think the lede would be improved by the elimination of some of this back and forth. - Darouet (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede begins: The Israeli occupation of the West Bank began on 7 June 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to the present day. No link to or mention of the Six Day War, no hint of the fact that the occupation began as a result of invasion by the armies of several neighboring states with the was goal of exterminating Israel. This lack of balance pervades the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly because that isnt what happened? But sure, Ill add six-day war. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue can easily be resolved by adding "...began on 7 June 1967 during the Six Day War, when Israel..." -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "occupation began as a result of invasion by the armies of several neighboring states with the was goal of exterminating Israel"
 * This is one of the I/P area's main problems, lack of knowledge among editors of even the basic facts of the area's history. E. M. Gregory's reference to an invasion by the armies of several neighbouring states' cannot but refer to events 19 years earlier in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War which runs:
 * "On 15 May 1948, the ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine'"
 * The Six-Day War 19 years later, after which the occupation started, began with an Israeli strike over 19 airfield from El Arish to Cairo (400 kms away) and further west. Jordan's West Bank forces, under unified Egyptian command made thereafter some minor retaliatory counterstrikes, then withdrew, and Israel occupied the West Bank. My impression is that many protesting editors are upset because they are surprised at reading things they knew nothing about, and prefer the information to be deleted, rather than to learn something, a bad move in cognitive science. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Insulting, dismissive comments about fellow editors do not help. You could AGF, failing that, I restate: The Six Day War began when Nasser pushed the UN out of Sharm el-Sheikh as the preliminary move necessary to blockading the Straits of Tiran which, as Israel had formally warned Egypt, would be regarded as a causus belli. Israel was as good as its word. Knowing that Egypt has a powerful air force, Israel responded to the blockade of the Straits by taking out the Egyptian air force with a preemptive strike.  After which the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq invaded with the announced intention of obliterating the Jewish State.  POINT IS: the article is written to make Israel look like an unprovoked aggressor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq never "invaded" Israel in the Six-Day War. Egypt never entered any part of Israeli territory in the entirety of the war. Same for Syria. Same for Iraq. Jordan, from what I recall, fired across armistice lines, but never actually went past any. You are mistaken on matters of basic fact, and are apparently upset that your misimpressions are not relayed as though they were fact. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * all this historical background — abridged, on both sides — is important for some part of the article body, but not for the lead. Otherwise there would be an interminable list of justifying antecedents that would make the lead impossible to resolve. The inclusion of "during the Six day war" in the first sentence certainly allows readers to read about that event if they like. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of overstuffed ledes. I am, however, acutely aware of the importance of NPOV phrasing in ledes. This is why I first proposed an extraordinary committee of some kind to hammer out an NPOV page. Before I brought this to AfD, convinced that the only solution is to delete this POV article since the topic is covered in more depth and in a less POV fashion on existing pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are ‘ascutely aware of the importance of NPOV phrasing in ledes',(?!!) why here to cite one of dozens of articles on Palestinian terrorist incidents you write, did you fail to mention the context of the incident, 31 Palestinians shot, starting with firing on a funeral cortege, in the period just prior to Meisner's killing while on patrol? Pull the other.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would add one further comment: at least two solid sentences should be drafted, probably appearing in the third paragraph, describing 1) The Israeli government's most basic position on the need to control the territory for their security concerns, and 2) U.S. overt or tacit support, since this is a major aspect of the international dynamic. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Question: What is the benefit of moving it from mainspace to either draft or userspace (and is there a meaningful difference between the two)? Why is it better to be edited outside of mainspace rather than in mainspace? Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  22:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is a major difference, but I support draft space because as it stands the primary author has expressed a clear intent in this discussion to not create a balanced article, due to their belief that the balance of reliable sources is "wrong" due to pro-Israel bias in such. Sending it to draft space until this is resolved will hopefully encourage the contributor to correct this, rather than insisting on this violation of policy. The other reason is because this is a controversial topic; to allow it to stand for months or longer as an imbalanced work in the main space will provide encouragement to others wishing to push their views. See diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIsraeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank&type=revision&diff=882027130&oldid=882025737 --  No COBOL  (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood Nishidani's comment. In your diff, despite the strange indent, I think Nishidani is responding to your "the section on bias in the language of the occupation is relevant in both directions, and including just Palestine's perspective [is not balance]". Nishidani says that it is not possible to balance Israeli/Palestinian views in that section because there are no available Palestinian views on that topic. I had a quick look at what I think is the article section and I don't see any I or P views—the sources seem to be from independent parties. That is all immaterial because content is judged on its text, not on what opponents think might be in the mind of the text's author. What text is so egregious that the article should be removed from main space? Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A few points.
 * First, even if Palestinian issues with biased language were not covered in reliable sources that would not be a reason to exclude the Israeli issues with biased language if they were covered in reliable sources; that would be an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
 * Second, the existence of the section aptly demonstrates that the Palestinian issues are well documented, even if the authors of those sections are not Palestinian themselves - indeed, I do not understand the relevance of their ethnicity. Perhaps you could explain it, as this is the second time it has been brought up as part of an argument that the article is WP:BALANCED.
 * Third, it is not immaterial because this entire discussion is about whether the article meets NPOV guidelines; under the draftify policy guidelines, a page can be moved to draft space if three criteria are met.
 * The topic has some potential merit
 * The article does not meet the required standard
 * There is no evidence of active improvement.
 * The first of this is clearly met, and the second has been demonstrated through an analysis of the issues with the text, including this section - unless you are asserting that a section on biased language in an article on the occupation of the West Bank should only include biased language against Palestine?
 * The third part is where the opinions and intentions of the individual(s) working on it come in; the fact is that the creator has presented a reason against including the Israeli position that not only is not based on policy but is actively against them; this demonstrates that at the moment the article isn't being improved to meet these standards, and thus it would be a reasonable decision to move it to draft space to compel the editor, if they wish to return the article to mainspace, to remove their personal opinion about the balance of sources and merely reflect it. --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Point 2. Doesn't meet whose required standards? Point 3 is an utter distortion of my views on the talk page. It was protested that there was no attention to Israel's security needs, and I replied  the text mentioned these 32 times. No one replied.  Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood a comment and are now trying to justify your conclusion by grasping at straws. The article section uses reliable sources that are independent from the protagonists—that is good! Who, apart from you, mentioned ethnicity? What text is so egregious? Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nishidani mentioned ethnicity on the talk page as a defense of balance, stating "I did a breakdown by ethnicity of the original article, and from memory there were twice the number of Israel/Jewish scholars cited than of Arab scholars, while the third 'western' scholarly contribution lay in between. That was calculated. If there is an ethnicity bias, it is not towards Palestinians, and most of the authors cited from that journal are not Arabs." There is also the implication from your line, where you talking about Palestinians, and not pro-Palestinian viewpoints.
 * As for the sources, I'm not saying it is not good, I'm saying that for balance we should also include reliable and independent sources that document the bias in language that Israel faces - though on a personal level, I suspect that some of those sources are not so independent, as I doubt that an independent source would seriously consider the use of "suicide bomber" as opposed to "martyr" an issue in regards to bias.
 * As for the issues, we have covered those; though if I may ask you a question, would you support including reliable sources documenting the issues with language bias that Israel faces, and not just the issues that Palestine faces? --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I infer there is no egregious text in the article as none has been quoted. I just reread the language section and once again you have reached conclusions that are not supported by the text. Of course "suicide bomber" vs. "martyr" is a bias issue but mentioning that does not condone suicide or bombing or unthinking dedication to religious dogma. The text (added by Nishidani) includes Pallywood—seems pretty balanced. Is there any text in the section that is wrong? Any text that should be added could be discussed on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: The nomination is:
 * Procedurally flawed : it is positioned as a WP:DEL5 fork nomination, yet it uses an unrelated content dispute as the rationale. The nominator has not claimed that the existence of the article is POV (rather his claim relates to its content), which is the minimum required for the nomination to be valid.
 * Motivated by impatience : the nominator admitted that he proposed this after running out of patience to resolve the content dispute. This project needs more editors who are willing to invest the time needed to achieve consensus in difficult areas.
 * Misleading : In pointing to the article Israeli occupied territories, which covers four territories under occupation, the nomination did not reference that there are existing sub-articles for the legal/political status of three of those four individual territories (those statuses being: Blockade of the Gaza Strip, Annexation of East Jerusalem, Annexation of the Golan Heights). The topic of this article completes the set.
 * The article’s development needs to continue, but this is not the way to go about it. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A WP:POVFORK nomination (DEL5), by its very nature, relates to the content of the article. So does WP:NOTESSAY. Occupied Palestinian Territories covers the West Bank+EJ+Gaza Strip - the West Bank comprising some 93%+ of the territory.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the article and sanction the alleged editor who brought this ridiculous, politically motivated hack job of a deletion nomination. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article that directly embraces this topic is indeed a must.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am grateful to for setting out so clearly why this nomination is without merit. --NSH001 (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Many reliable sources in the article (and weekly news feeds) treat "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" as a topic so WP:N is satisfied with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. WP:NOTESSAY refers to "essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)" but the many reliable sources in the article are the opinions of experts. Any unsourced personal feelings should be removed without trying to use an AfD for cleanup. Those advocating TNT/userfy/draftify have not given a policy-based reason. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's definitely not a delete, as the topic is undoubtedly notable and deserving of its own article, so the only choice for me was draft or keep. While I've voiced concerns about length and POV on the article talk page, these content concerns aren't usually a reason to delete or draftify. Echoing 's point, I don't see any text that is so egregious that it should be immediately removed from mainspace (and if I did, I could delete that text without having to move the whole article to draftspace). So looking at the requirements for draftifying, while I agree the article has (obvious) merit and doesn't (completely) meet all policies for length and POV, the third requirement, "no evidence of active improvement", is not met. Look at comparing the article on Jan. 25 just after 's now-famous 145k précis was reverted (378k) with the article on Feb. 5 when it was nominated for deletion (291k). That's almost 100k of content that was removed or moved to other articles, and I know those edits were in direct response to editors' concerns (mine included) raised on the talk page. I cannot in good conscience say "no evidence of active improvement". Quite the opposite, and I hope it continues, because if it does, we will have a FAC here. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * KeepThe topic is certainly notable and worth having an article for. I was the first to tag for unbalance in my patrol, but that is not the same thing as requiring deletion. Instead the article needs work, probably pruning to improve balance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is blindingly obvious. It is not a fork of any other article. It is a topic of great importance with a huge number of reliable sources. AfD is not the place to go for cleanup so all delete votes on the basis of not liking the content should be ignored. Tendentious argument should also be ignored (and the guilty know who they are).Zerotalk 07:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: not a POV fork; suitable for a stand-alone topic. Plenty of sources are available. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: This in not a POV fork. It a major topic for a stand-alone article, with manty available sources. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the analysis of Onceinawhile. The argument to delete is essentially about what content should be allowed on Wikipedia, with editors arguing, by appearances, that certain issues, no matter how thoroughly documented in the academic literature, should not appear here. There is no visible policy ground behind the call for deletion. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy Again and again, the same problem of adhering to WP:NPOV combined with WP:OWN approach, as mentioned above. The current status of this article doesn't match the minimum of Wikipedia standards.Tritomex (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What text in the article is a problem? Are 294 references not enough? Which of the references doesn't match minimum standards? Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - clear case of WP:FORK of West Bank (specifically area C), Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian territories, Israeli Military Governorate and Israeli Civil Administration. It is a common knowledge that the West Bank is a complex case, with Palestine being there on 40% of the West Bank territory under the Oslo Accords with Israel. This article is aiming to ignore Palestine's existence, which is frankly weird. My guess is that the authors of this article will spring out more and more useless articles, which will eventually end up in the delete bin. Better to create something useful, like Crime in the State of Palestine, List of prisons in the State of Palestine, Racism in the State of Palestine, etc. GreyShark (dibra) 20:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's please keep discussion focused upon content and policies, and away from wild speculation about what you think other editors may do in the future, that is impermissible on this project, outside of a handful of processes which take place in administrative spaces, and in any event, completely unhelpful to resolving the issues to be resolved here. Anyway, I see plenty of issues with the tone of the article, but an attempt to deny Palestinian existence is not one of them. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, is this a joke??? It astounds (but doesn't surprise) me to see such a well-referenced and undoubtedly notable article nominated for deletion. Neutrality concerns are not cause for deletion and should be worked out on the talk page. Elspamo4 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.