Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupied Palestine


 * 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   redirect to Palestine.

Numerically, there is about a 2:1 split in favor of deletion. On both sides, many opinions are of questionable persuasiveness. On the "delete" side, many consist of blanket references to policies such as POVFORK whose applicability to this content is less than clear; and many "keep" opinions make an argument in political terms rather than in terms of our inclusion rules. The low quality of the discussion, sadly typical for this topic area, makes consensus difficult to assess.

But there is a compromise solution: many opinions on both sides indicate that they would also accept some form of merger or redirection. This allows us to read the discussion as a whole to reflect consensus that the use of the name "occupied Palestine" should be covered, but not in a separate article.

To implement this, I am redirecting the page to the article about the general region of Palestine; to where (subject to editorial consensus) content can be merged from the page history to describe the use of this term as one of several names used by some for this region or parts of it. Of course, should a more appropriate merge/redirect/disambiguation target present itself, it can also be selected by subsequent editorial consensus (this discussion does not go into much detail about that).  Sandstein  05:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Occupied Palestine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Obvious WP:POVFORK should be merged with Palestinian territories. The article was redirect until one user has decided to turn it to the article Shrike (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just from looking at the article without having studied the sources it is describing a separate concept to the Palestinian Territories, thus it is not a POV fork in my view. Whether it is justified as an article is another question, but I think the grounds you have put forward for deletion are not valid. Dlv999 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect (possibly to with Palestine; I'm not convinced there's any content that needs to be merged). It roughly describes the same area as the historical region of Palestine (as opposed to the Occupied Territories which are only a small part of it) and allowing this extra article is just going to confuse people.  There's no need to have an article for every term that's used to describe an area, particularly when it's of the form adjective+proper noun.  Redirecting to Palestinian territories might also work, as even though it's not the same exact region, it may be the article that most people want. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Concur with Shrike. A clear case of WP:POVFORK. Can & should be merged with Palestinian territories.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and/or redirect. Jiujitsuguy said it's a "clear case" but without giving any reasons. Generally, if something is clear it's easy to explain why it is so. Colapeninsula said it is "going to confuse people", but that has nothing to do with violating NPOV. If there is something unclear in the body of the article, then let's team up and clarify it. AfD is not cleanup. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a fork because it's another name for something that already has a Wikipedia article. You don't have 2 articles on the same thing just because it has multiple names.  I'm not 100% certain it's forked for reasons of promoting an anti-Israeli agenda, although that's certainly one possible reason to create yet another article to refer to the area south of Lebanon and west of Jordan, but it's certainly a duplicate article.  The question you need to answer is: is there any information that would be better placed in this new article than in any of the existing articles on Palestinian history and politics?  If not, delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Jiujitsuguy. Some content may also fit in at Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Really the only content I can see worth saving is the last paragraph, explaining the use of the term by other nations. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: The article is about a term used officially by some countries like Iran, Syria and Lebanon, and unofficially by a large numbers of arabs. The reader may seek about this term which is definitively not equal to the internationally used term "Occupied Palestinian Territories". The term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is very well defined by United Nations, International Court for Justice and other international organizations, it's not that like "Occupied Palestinian Territories" could be used for any land that Israel claims or administers but which Palestinians want to have for themselves. "Eretz Yisrael" article is another name for the roughly Palestine region. The Eretz Yisrael article started with: "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎‎ ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is a biblical name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant (also known as Canaan, Palestine, Promised Land or simply the Holy Land)". "Promised Land" yet another term roughly for the same area and concept as "Eretz Yisrael". The article "Palestine" itself is saying that "Eretz Yisrael" is another name for the region. So should we redirect "Eretz Yisrael" & "Promised Land" articles to "Palestine" article? The "Palestine" article in it's actual form is talking about a region keep changing it's borders by time. It's not suitable for any of "Occupied Palestine", "Eretz Yisrael" & "Promised Land", whose borders and/or concepts are much more precise. 3Princip (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If we delete and merge this article do we also need to delete and merge Judea and Samaria Area to West Bank ? The cases appear rather similar.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No because this article about Israeli administrative district.But if you think there is a case for AFD you welcome to propose one.--Shrike (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the article is almost entirely about the name of a spatial object according to one nation state, and its status, which is of course the same as the status of the West Bank because they are the same spatial object. Having articles about the names given to spatial objects and their status is fine by me but decision procedures need to be consistent across the topic area because using different rules for the same spatial object based on naming preferences would be wrong in a number of ways.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and return to a redirect any potential content for this article name can easily fit into sections of the target article (including the lede using both terms if necessary), and expanded there, as the two terms are too close in coverage to justify 2 articles. it was previously built up some years ago, then turned into a redirect. I know there is considerable debate about how to characterize this region, but this is just too narrow a distinction.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - A cursory search for "occupied palestine" in Google books suggests that there are plenty of sources using this term that could be used to build an informative article that discusses the term at the meta level, just like Judea and Samaria Area. Both Occupied Palestine and Judea and Samaria Area are POVFORKs but in the acceptable sense of "Articles whose subject is a POV".  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a POVFORK at all. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Titles should adhere to the Neutral point of view. Occupied Palestine is just another name for the Palestinian territories, the first being prejudicial. We don't have separate articles for Occupied Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Marokwitz (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article remains restricted to talking about the term itself, what it means, who uses it, is it so different from articles like Third World and First World ? It seems analogous to me. I'm not sure neutrality comes into it. What the words happen to be is out of our hands and it seems a lot more neutral than articles with names like Geography of Burma...no such place.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is about the term itself (not the geographical entity), then it is not notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Where are reliable secondary sources discussing the term itself, as required by the notability criteria? Marokwitz (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could potentially buy that argument because I don't know the answer to your question.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep For consistency across the IP topic area. We have an article for Judea and Samaria Area so it is reasonable to have an article for Occupied Palestine. Also I find the argument that this is a POV fork of Palestinian Territories unconvincing because they do not refer to the same territorial area. Dlv999 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its just the less neutral name for the Palestinian territories. There is nothing in this potential article that cannot be included in Palestinian territories.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: For those who are still saying that it's just another name for Palestinian territories, do you have even read what borders the sources in Occupied Palestine article are talking about? It's not the same area, Palestinian territories does NOT have borders with Syria nor with Libanon; Totally different, the "Occupied Palestine" term refers to a region corresponding to what was the borders of the british mandate on Palestine. 3Princip (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking at the content of the article, it's clear that it was not created for encyclopedic purposes. For just one of the recent examples: "carried out by the West in its attempt to wrest the Holy Land from the Arabs." The topic is not unique enough to warrant its own article. The exact same information about some Israel haters denying its existence and considering all of it to be "occupied" is covered in other articles such as Palestine, Palestinian territories, and Israel, so this is most obviously a WP:POVFORK. We don't give separate articles for every distinct name used by various people to refer to the same thing. If we did, then we would have separate articles for USA, United States, United States of America, America, etc. Another note is that we don't have articles for similar countries that face the same nonsensical attacks, such as people who claim all of America is occupied as it was stolen from the Natives. "Occupied America" is a very prominent term and yet it does not warrant its own encyclopedic article. The information surrounding that claim is contained within other articles, where appropriate. The same should apply for this case. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are basing your judgment on a version of the article (containing "carried out by the West in its attempt to wrest the Holy Land from the Arabs.") that have been submitted recently by anonymus 89.139.190.175 as its first contribution out of total of 4 contributions. The article has been tagged to deletion on that version. 3Princip (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is correct. I based my judgment on the version of the article at the time of my viewing. That was just one example I gave to explain why it should be deleted. I assume since you did not respond to the other several points I made, that you do not have any convincing rebuttals to those points. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * About your other points: USA=United States=United States of America="Occupied America". Occupied Palestine≠Palestine(the article about a region whose boundaries have changed throughout history)≠Palestinian territories≠Israel. We have an article about West Bank but also about 98% of it which is Judea and Samaria area. The article is a stub and could be expanded, if you want to help expanding it you are welcome. 3Princip (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Judea and Samaria are notable names, recognized as such by the most reliable historic and academic sources. "Occuppied Palestine" is an Arab dig against Israel and holds no such notability. It can be referenced in other articles as a term, and content from this article can be merged elsewhere (though it seems that such content is already all over the I/P space). But because it exudes a blatant POV stench, it's not suitable for an article, nor an article title, that should be neutral. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete "Occupied Palestine" is actually the name of the total area which  includes the State of Israel, Jordan,  (which was also part of the British Mandate for Palestine) and the current Palestinian territories.  The name "Occupied Palestine" has recently taken on a new meaning which does not include Jordan, and does not recognize the existence of the State of Israel. It is a new term that denotes a particular anti-Israel bias and as such is not neutral. Isn't there already an Israeli-occupied territories?   Opportunidaddy (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by the United Nations and other international organizations, governments and others to refer to the territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria." (from the article itself). It's just not the same as "Occupied Palestine". 3Princip (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability with a staunch POV aroma. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Google book research gives 44,300 results (skipping the first page which talk about Occupied Palestinian Territories), not talking about Google search itself which gives 1,130,000 results nor the 4,010,000 results for Arabic "فلسطين المحتلة‎" and 12,700 results for Hebrew "פלסטין הכבושה" Google search (the Arabs and Jews are the most related to the subject). "Occupied Palestine" is the official name for Israel+Palestinian territories for some UN members countries, and they use it in almost every single official speech. It's even written in the Iranian passport (there should be like 70,000,000 passports where the term is written on it). 3Princip (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Silly point. "Israel sucks" churns out 236,000 ghits. Go ahead start Israel sucks.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is "Israel sucks" used in UN members diplomacy? having 12,700 results for the Hebrew "פלסטין הכבושה" (which is the official language of State of Israel the opposed country to such a term) indicate that the term really exists. The Yedioth Ahronoth newpaper alone mentioned it 712 times always inside a quotation sign; the term DOES exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Princip (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will WP:AGF and assume that you do not speak Hebrew. Because if you did, you would know that the vast majority of those google results refer to the West Bank/Gaza, not all of the former British Mandate for Palestine. Therefore, these search results actually support deletion as they indicate that this is just a WP:POVFORK. You would also have noticed that most of the results link to the exact same article, which is why these games of "how many Google results can we find" don't prove anything. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of the 712 hits in the Google search in Yedioth Ahronoth are repeated or linked to a talk page, but still the numbers of different articles is significants. I have stopped at page 6, and already found 15 distinguish articles              . And no, they don't refer to West Bank/Gaza, they refer to Israel (Acre, Naharya, Kiryat Shmona ,Northern border with lebanon, etc.) If you insist to redirect the Occupied Palestine to another article as a POVFORK then it should be merged to Israel. 3Princip (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Convert to DAB between Israeli-occupied territories and International recognition of Israel. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is obviously a POVFORK and is rather redundant, considering there is an article on Palestinian territories already. There is simply no point to this article, other than to broadcast the POV of the editor.  In accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, this article should be deleted without a doubt.  The article is also a COATRACK, in which the subject at hand is hidden behind the bias and POV of the editor.  This is just an attempt to add bias and POV to a Wikipedia article, for whatever agenda the editor may have, and should be deleted immediately. --Activism1234 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to be a COATRACK article, "coat rack should be almost completely obscured by hats and coats.". 3Princip (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete A WP:POVFORK which should be merged with Palestinian territories.' Ankh '. Morpork  12:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: vestigial, poorly-sourced POVFork. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK, etc. etc. Poliocretes (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've just found this; not really related to the meaning of the term "Occupied Palestine", but it shows that the term "Occupied Palestine" was used as an Example Model in the definition of other terms (to help the reader understanding what the writer want to tell easily). 3Princip (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a WP:POVFORK that has become (and will apparently continue to be) a receptacle for anti-Israel material despite 3Principl's reversions.--Geewhiz (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First: it's not of Wikipedia intentions to hide informations just because they are anti-Israel materials. If there is any information violates Wikipedia rules, please point to it directly explaining the rule it's violating.
 * Second: Any one who has knowledge about the Arab-Israeli conflict surely know that the people who use the term "Occupied Palestine" when using it refer more to Israel, while the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" or just "Palestinian Territories" refers to West Bank/Gaza; the sourced containings of the article will not be just deleted, it will be merged to another article; so what do you suggest? moving these "receptacle for anti-Israel material" to the article Israel itself?! I'm for separating this article alone. 3Princip (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Palestinian territories, Palestinian National Authority, Palestine, State of Palestine, Israeli settlements, West Bank, Judea and Samaria area, International law and Israeli settlements, 1948 Palestinian exodus, Controversies relating to the Six-Day War - these articles and many more discuss "occupation" in the sense that it is used here. No need for more, especially an article as POV-laced and cherry-picked as this one. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect/Merge – after having a thorough look at the sources and content that constitute the article, my conclusion is that it's not a topic appropriate to an encyclopedia but rather to a dictionary or a glossary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would be one thing if there was agreement among the sources that "Occupied Palestine" is an established term, but in reality about half the sources use the expression "occupied Palestine" with a lowercase "o," implying that what we're dealing with is an arbitrary co-occurrence of terms rather than a genuine collocation. I might be persuaded to reconsider if there were more clearly encyclopedic content in the article, such as when and by whom the term was used originally or what political/cultural implications it encodes. Instead, the article's just a haphazard collection of instances where the name is used without any meaningful discussion of background for its own sake. The POVFORK argument re Palestine also reinforces the argument that the article doesn't merit keeping as anything other than a redirect.—Biosketch (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It happened that some of the sources choosen to be put in the article use "o" not "O". Even this doesn't imply a big deal, but you can check other sources not listed there, and remeber that these sources put the phrase occupied Palestine inside a quotation mark.
 * The article is a stub and could be expanded, you can help if you want by adding what you beleive important "when and by whom the term was used originally or what political/cultural implications it encodes". Others may add more informations later too. 3Princip (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that, unless capitalised, it is simply just another adjective applied to the topic of Palestine -- no different from "rocky Palestine", "mountainous Palestine" or "hot Palestine". "Hot Gossip" is a dance troupe, "hot gossip" is simply my opinion that my piece of gossip is salacious. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about other sources (in the article and outside) that capitalize the term "Occupied Palestine"? there are a lot. 3Princip (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this is an article about the name itself, which is notable quite apart from the geographic area.  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.