Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. There is around a 60/40 numerical majority in favour of deleting this article, but there are clearly issues as to the rationales for doing so. The most common rationale appears to be WP:POVFORK, but as pointed out in numerous places, there appears to be no agreement about which article it is actually a POVFORK of - indeed, I see at least six separate articles mentioned in Delete rationales. The large number of articles proposed suggest that this is actually an article that covers information from all of those articles, rather than forking material from just one. Furthermore, numerous Delete comments make no mention of which article it is a POVFORK of, which makes them less useful, and others appear to be invoking NPOV as a delete rationale, which it is not. On the canvassing allegations I would point out that it would normally be logical only to post a note on the talk pages of the articles which were claimed to have been forked from (although I appreciate that in this case that would have been a significant number of articles), rather than a talk page that posting on which could be perceived as alerting editors with a certain viewpoint. I will also note that the comments about the possible POV nature of the article's title may have merit, and it may be worth considering an RfC as to whether the current title should remain. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

West Bank bantustans

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

West Bank bantustans (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A POVFORK of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation, the subject is a narrative already covered by, and part of, Israel and the apartheid analogy. Any unique information not already included in 'Israel and the apartheid analogy' can be merged into that article or Oslo Accords#Criticism. An editor tagged it under CSD A10, but this was declined for having a different focus to West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is backwards. It is clear that you have no problem with the content of the article, you just don't like the title. I have yet to see a single source supporting the claim of POV here. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Not to mention that all those alleging "fork" are quite unable to show from where it is supposedly forked, the nearest thing is that which I mentioned in my comment, a single sentence in the Bantustan article. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I do have a problem its written in not neutral manner , critical sources are removed and so on also like other noted this topic is already covered in other articles in more neutral manner Shrike ( talk) 13:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Shrike, you keep repeating this but continue to avoid the question of do you have any sources to support your claim? For the avoidance of doubt, I mean sources that are specifically focused on the topic of this article - i.e. the land area of the West Bank allotted by Israel for its Palestinian population. Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The "Palestine Archipelago" in a United States Department of State presentation on Israel and Palestine, prepared in 2015 and updated in 2016
  • Keep As helpfully illustrated by the above confusion as to which other article this topic could best fit into, this important topic at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict touches on a number sub-sections of existing articles but cannot be appropriately covered in any one. As illustrated by the United States Department of State memo on the right (page entitled "Palestine Archipelago"), this concept is of great notability. It is the fundamental reason that the Two-state solution has been impossible to agree. The sources in the article are of the highest quality, with numerous academic articles focused exclusively on this topic. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • sadly: Keep, as the people voting to delete this article cannot even agree which article this is a POVFORK of (!): that illustrate the fact that this is a new subject, one that has been coming gradually, since 1967. (Btw, googleing "West Bank" Bantustan gives 47,700 hits, Palestine bantustan gives 71,600 results) Huldra ( talk) 22:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    As stated in the nomination, the subject is the Israeli occupation of the West Bank from the critical perspective of the Israel—apartheid analogy. So to some extent it is a POVFORK of both. Neutrally worded, the subject would most accurately be called 'fragmentation of Palestinian land in the West Bank' or similar, and phrased this way it is more clearly a fork of our occupation article, which already has a dedicated section on fragmentation. Bantustans being an element of South African apartheid, this comparison is part of the widely discussed analogy (hence the number of sources, most of which have apartheid in their titles) and doesn't belong in a separate article. It overlaps several articles because it is a single interpretation/POV/analysis of Israeli actions and various peace plans (a viewpoint which, I'd like to add, I personally have sympathy for – my concern about its suitability as an article doesn't stem from narrowly pro-Israel views). Jr8825 • Talk 23:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article needs per policy to satisfy notability, verifiability and NPOV which the DYK process does anyway so I don't see the rush to delete here. As to the fork, bantustans are mentioned only in passing in Israel and the apartheid analogy since Apartheid necessarily involves rather more than the mere creation of bantustans. Oslo Accords#Criticism, Trump peace plan and State of Palestine do not even mention the word bantustan so I don't really know why they have been alluded to. The naysayers appear to be casting around for any article they can claim as forked for this one, interestingly not mentioned is the obvious article Bantustan#Usage in non-South African contexts which does in fact deal with some aspects covered in this article by way of a single sentence:-

In the Middle East, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are sometimes described as Israeli bantustans. [1] [2] [3] [4] Jeff Halper in Haaretz wrote in 2018, "The ' Two-state Solution' only ever meant a big Israel ruling over a Palestinian bantustan." [5]

If anything, the appearance of the subject matter in two different articles but in no great detail, as well as past and current sourcing strongly suggests the opposite of deletion, that is creation, of a stand alone article covering the material. Subject always of course, to verifiability for which we have more than adequate sourcing and NPOV, where until now no actual evidence has been offered that the material is not NPOV. Note that the term "POV fork" is not a part of WP policy, it is merely a reflection of the subjective opinion of those who use it. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "One Democratic State: What's Happening?". 5 April 2018.
  2. ^ "One Democratic State: What's Happening? – OpEd". 8 April 2018.
  3. ^ Eid, Haidar. "Declaration of a Bantustan in Palestine". www.aljazeera.com.
  4. ^ "The Zionist Union's plan for a Palestinian Bantustan". 10 March 2015.
  5. ^ Halper, Jeff (21 September 2018). "Opinion The 'Two-state Solution' Only Ever Meant a Big Israel Ruling Over a Palestinian Bantustan. Let It Go". Archived from the original on 21 September 2018 – via Haaretz.
Comment: These quotations are hardly an indication of notability of the use of the term justifying the existence of a separate article - especially coming as they do from one-sided and unabashedly anti-Israel sources, i.e., palestinechronicle, eurasiareview, aljazeera, even haaretz; they represent examples of the attempt to associate Israel with apartheid as part of the political effort to undermine it, and would be best noted of examples of such in the already existing article on this topic. Chefallen ( talk) 18:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Well, those were the references given, they only made it here because I copied what was there. That's actually another reason for creating this article, it uses far better sourcing. Having said that, I always find it remarkable that all sources not in conformity with the Israeli narrative are described as partisan and anti-Israel. What existing article? People have alleged a fork of at least half a dozen, none of which it is a fork of. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is not a "POV Fork" of Israeli occupation of the West Bank. That article is gigantic so it is reasonable to create a new one with more detail on one aspect. An article about all the plans to create a Swiss cheese Palestinian state is sorely needed. I agree that the title "West Bank bantustans" isn't great, but that is no reason to delete the article. The topic is clearly encyclopedic. ImTheIP ( talk) 23:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I am looking forward to the WP:RM discussion that those wishing to bury this topic will undoubtedly open once this discussion comes to an end. I thought a lot about the name when starting the article, but was unable to find any name more frequently used than the current title. Part of the problem is that there is no official name, ironically because Israeli politicians try to avoid talking about this unattractive aspect of their proposed and existing arrangements. Ariel Sharon is confirmed to have called them bantustans in multiple sources, and the US State Department has called them islands and an archipelago. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per rationale presented above - GizzyCatBella 🍁 00:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, POVFORK of existing articles, notably 'Israel and the apartheid analogy' where the use of this term should be covered in a NPOV manner; an article on this topic including " bantustans" in the title completely fails WP:NPOV by using an intrinsically one-sided and highly dubious and contentious term, used to promote an accusation by one side in this conflict to slander the other by association.
Furthermore, it can convincingly be argued the the term is quite false, since South Africa excised pieces of its own territory that were part of South Africa since its formation as a Union in 1910 to create the bantustans in order to deprive black South Africans of rights and citizenship within South Africa, whereas the Palestinian territories were not part of the State of Israel at its formation in 1948, are not internationally recognized parts of Israel, and the Palestinians living there are not, nor have ever been Israeli citizens, quite the opposite of the status of South African blacks and the bantustans.
Therefore, it is best to cover both sides of the use of this argumentative term in an NPOV manner in existing articles on this topic rather than this intrinsically POV-ish POVFORK whose very title already predetermines and skews it to a one-sided position.-- Chefallen ( talk) 03:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
For the record, your assessment of the appropriateness of the terminology is both WP:OR, and incorrect. Israel excised pieces of the territory that it has controlled since its expansion in 1967 to create the bantustans in order to deprive Palestinians of rights and citizenship within Israel. Israelis in the West Bank are treated as Israelis, bringing the West Bank into an expanded Israel; as Eyal Benvenisti wrote in 1989, the border between Israel and the West Bank is not relevant for "almost all legal purposes that reflect Israeli interests". [1] [2] The setup for the last 50 years is nothing more than a complex legal arrangement to achieve exactly what South Africa did with the TBVC States. Your explanation is splitting hairs with legal technicalities, whereas the practical reality is an exact replica of the TBVC States. But as we all know, it is not for us to carry out our own research here. The fact is that a large number of neutral sources use this terminology for the Palestinian areas of the West Bank, both current and proposed, because there is no better word in the English language. This is only the second time that such a setup has been implemented in all of world history. Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ ACRI 2014, p. 6: footnote to "enclave-based justice."
  2. ^ Benveniśtî, Eyāl (1990). Legal dualism: the absorption of the occupied territories into Israel. Westview Press. ISBN  978-0-8133-7983-8. As this paper will show, the pre-June 1967 borders have faded for almost all legal purposes that reflect Israeli interests. However, with regard to the interests of the local population, especially those concerning civil rights, those borders still exist.
But the damage is done. The one-sided canvassing ought to imply that any "consensus" reached on this page can't be trusted. ImTheIP ( talk) 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
ImTheIP, There is nothing one sided here Please stop with baseless accusations as also Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Discussion_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_Bank_bantustans was notified
I missed that one, that is yet further evidence of inappropriate canvassing. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is in no way evidence of canvassing. Very clearly neutrally worded. We should be informing editors of ongoing AfDs within their remit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree that increased participation is a good idea. That's what Article Alerts are for. One can as well post in neutral locations, NPOV noticeboard, the IsPal collaboration site I mentioned (Audience). We should not be directing our requests for participation to editors with a predisposition to one side (editors at the Israel article for example). Using your argument I can now post the same neutrally worded invitation to pages where the editors are likely to be of a different predisposition. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I would invite you to do so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is in no way canvassing, and the suggestion that talk page watchers of the article Israel have "a predisposition to one side" is ridiculous and almost offensive. For pete's sake, yes, use {{ please see}} template and post on Talk:Israel, Talk:Palestine, other articles, the WikiProjects, and so forth. That's normal, expected, encouraged, good, and Selfstudier, you should thank other editors for taking the time to bring more participants into this discussion, rather than making inappropriate accusations of canvassing. Le v¡v ich 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
There was no canvassing here per the definition of WP:Canvassing. Rather, the notifications were in compliance with WP:Appropriate notification, which includes placing "a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" and "The talk page of one or more directly related articles", among others, which is what was done, and where a range of interested editors would likely see it; furthermore the notification was neutrally worded as "You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans" so as to comply wit the notification policy's directive to "avoid any hint of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way." It seems this canvassing contention is a Red herring to distract from the substantive policy arguments in favor of deleting this article and possibly redirecting its title. Chefallen ( talk) 18:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Note I have added ECP to this article as new editors are not allowed to contribute to AfDs, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc in the area covered by ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy or delete - the title is a POVFORK of multiple articles as noted in the nom and other comments above. If there is any policy-compliant content in this article that isn't in other articles (I'm not sure about that after reading it), it should be merged to those articles. I don't see a problem with keeping the title as a redirect. Le v¡v ich 17:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is a POVFORK. Perhaps redirect, but I do not believe apartheid is the correct target. I agree with the nom that Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation is likely the most suitable target presented here. A neutral split of Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation may be appropriate, and can be discussed elsewhere, but this isn't it, and I see no clear remedy as it partains to this discussion other than deletion. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It looks like this article is taking POV arguments better kept in Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation to make a case for Israel and the apartheid analogy. Its less an article than an argument. It looks like even the creator realized they had gone too far in the article and didn't use the "bantustans" wording in their DYK attempt. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 19:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are so many articles regarding different aspects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank with a clear critical tone (citing critical sources of course). The information in this article can easily be written in the articles mentioned by Jr8825.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 21:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment re unsubstantiated POV claims not a single editor claiming POV has bothered to bring a source which contradicts anything written in the article. Not one. I get that a group of canvassed editors do not like the title, but AFD is not about titles – that is for WP:RM. Surely if these "votes" are to hold water someone can bring a source to support the claims? Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment re WP:ARTICLESIZE for those editors suggesting this topic should be covered within Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank, I suggest you read WP:TOOBIG. That article is already 109,936 of readable prose. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The article alternates between the topic of a propagandistic term for promoting the Apartheid analogy, and the topic of the areas and current and proposed political divisions (while uncritically using the term to describe these areas). Most of the article is on the latter, presenting both the existing Oslo Accords divisions and certain proposed resolutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as equivalent to the Bantustans of Apartheid-era South Africa in Wikipedia's voice. This is a clear violation of NPOV. One could theoretically have an article about the term if it were notable on its own, or articles about the existing divisions or proposals (under neutral titles) if they were not already covered in their own articles, but splitting off an amalgamation of a propagandistic term and its referents is not something that can be done. Delete. (I was not canvassed to this discussion, incidentally.) -- Yair rand ( talk) 00:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe there are enough sources for this to pass GNG and there is enough content to justify a separate article from related pages. ★Trekker ( talk) 02:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with liberal doses of TNT. The article is a train wreck, presenting hard-line pro-Palestinian positions (which casts compromise on territory in a negative light) as fact. The article is a POVFORK, showcasing one-sided criticism to peach plans. Vici Vidi ( talk) 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is well sourced and covers the subject in detail. It passes WP:GNG. There seems no valid reason to delete.  MehrajMir  (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All of this material is covered in a more neutral manner in other articles. The title itself is also non-neutral, as it is pushing only a narrow point of view rather than representing a full perspective on the occupation proposals. I see no reason why this specific title should be a redirect either. Challenger.rebecca ( talk) 12:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious fork. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the very name of this article is an extreme example of POV-pushing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete yes, it's a povfork, and there are already other (better written) articles about Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that a merge or neutral split may be a way of salvaging any neutral reliable information. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as sufficiently sourced article about a significant concept which underpins several other topics. From what I see above, the delete !votes fail to point out what exactly is non-neutral in the text; I suspect these comments are about the title of the article only. The suggestion that the article is redundant with Israel and the apartheid analogy does not withstand scrutiny, because that article discusses a variety of matters largely orthogonal to this. Most of the alleged issues may be solved by a move to Palestine Archipelago, if it's confirmed to be the most sourced/common term (as it appears to be in the current state of the article). Nemo 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Nemo bis, The problem its not just about title but about partisan anti-Israeli sources, other articles that discuss this matter give more nuanced approach in NPOV manner. Shrike ( talk) 07:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Shrike, which sources exactly? Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @Nemo: I'm pretty sure it's not, but in any case, moving wouldn't work if the topic was the term itself. If the topic is the (pejorative) term itself, it's redundant with Israel and the apartheid analogy. If it's about the existing divisions (as indicated by the additions of certain "main article" links), it's redundant with West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord and also non-neutral for using a biased term promoting the analogy. If it's about both the current divisions and certain proposals as a category and trying to equate them all with each other and with bantustans... Well that's certainly heavily overlapping with existing articles, and I'm not even sure it's notable, but more importantly... I'm not quite sure how to explain this, but it's like having an article on "Stupid politicians" that goes into their places of birth and life stories. It's polemics badly disguised as encyclopedic content. People arguing about politics may promote the idea that certain proposals are equivalent to bantustans or archipelagos, and we can document them making the argument in articles like Israel and the apartheid analogy, but mixing up coverage of the argument with coverage of the referents is just POV. -- Yair rand ( talk) 08:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      Yair rand, it is about the part of the West Bank allotted by Israel for its Palestinian population, both currently and the proposed permanent status. It is not (and should not be) focused on the term bantustan, nor any particular analogy. That is why the article gives four different names, and tries to use them throughout: bantustans, cantons, islands/archipelago and Areas A+B. Unfortunately there isn't an official name, and bantustan seems to be the more common one used (I am open to being proven wrong on this). If you deleted the word "bantustan" from the article, there is nothing in there which would bother anyone. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
How is the term pejorative, exactly? There is an article, Bantustan. Your issue is not the term itself it is the usage of it in relation to Israeli proposals for resolution of the Israel Palestine conflict, particularly the most recent evolution of the idea, the Trump peace plan, which invariably involve some form of "bantustanization" a term used by Meron Benvenisti in 2004 to describe the territorial, political and economic fragmentation of the territories by Israel. In truth, I would rather have "territorial, political and economic fragmentation" as part of a more descriptive title except that it is a bit of a mouthful and bantustan does the job in short form. Anyway, that is for a rename discussion not this one. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I see you mean the peer-reviewed and widely cited PhD thesis of an Associate Professor of Sociology at UIC (who, according to google, participated in an ISM demonstration 20 years ago), and the also widely-cited Critical Inquiry (“one of the best known and most influential journals in the world”) article by Professor Saree Makdisi of UCLA. If community consensus is that participating in demonstrations 20 years ago, and/or being the nephew of Palestinian philosophers, should disqualify a source from WP:RS status, then I have no problem removing these sources, which are not central to the article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
As to your point on Camp David, we can solve it by adding words to the effect of "...amongst other reasons". And with respect to your sentiment that this article captures only one side of the story on the West Bank areas allotted to Palestinian, I continue to await someone to provide a source which provides this other side. Personally I don't believe there is one - most pro-Israeli sources try not to talk about it. Does that mean we shouldn't? Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I don't think "amongst other reasons" would nearly solve the issue. Of course pro-isreali and neutral sources talk about the areas in question, they just do not use the framing this article is trying to force. That is exactly what I meant when I said this article only contains one sides arguments. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 19:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This article should show both sides of the arguments relating to the area allocated by Israel to Palestinians in the West Bank. I think it does that, and no-one has been able to bring sources suggesting otherwise. Your point relates to other article topics; e.g. this article should only cover the parts of e.g. the Camp David Summit as they relate to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
There are plenty of sources, I already put three more at the talk page. Non-NPOV, where present, can be rectified, the article creator submitted it for DYK, which includes NPOV review among other things, it is not as if issues were being avoided. By itself, it isn't a sufficient reason to delete. Nor is this article about Oslo or any other proposal in particular, it is trying to describe a process over many peace proposals and planned proposals over many years that led to where it is now. One could just as well start with the 47 partition plan or even the Peel version before it but 1967 is probably as good as anywhen. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, especially as a POV fork, and as WP:SYNTH. This is one of those topics I've seen a lot of lately: technically well sourced, but not about the topic really. A source might refer to apple, and another pie, but neither is about apple pie. Or, another example: a essay about Granny Smith apple pie. Bearian ( talk) 21:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Apple pie and cream:
Steal of the Century, Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture, volume=25, issue= 1&2, 2020, https://www.pij.org/journal/99, Alon Liel (2000 to 2001 as director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and from 1992 to 1994 as the Israeli ambassador to South Africa) p 73 "Trump's "Deal of the Century" is a new Bantustan plan modeled after the plan advanced by South Africa's apartheid regime 40 years ago"
The FT article I put on the talk page is about the whole shebang, Jordan, Oslo, Trump plan, settlers, Israeli map makers, the works, so no synth, sorry.(Its the Big Read so its a bit long, if you can't read it, I will provide you with more quotes to go with the bantustan quote I already put on talk).
Which article are you nominating for the fork? There are at least 6 so far. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as pointed out above this is a POVFORK of Palestinian National Authority which is the Palestinian government controlling the Palestinian portion (A & B zones) of the territory of the West Bank. 16:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free1Soul ( talk • contribs)
It is also pointed out above that PNA is a political unit and this article is about Israeli plans and proposals since 1967 up to and including the Trump plan so where is the fork? Selfstudier ( talk) 18:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment removed per WP:A/I/PIA. This editor had 501 edits at the time of this comment, the vast majority of those were semi-automated. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
If user had 500+ edits then he can edit here. If you think he gamed the system then you should go to AE to clarify. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I have removed the strike as it was against the policy if you think that user did something wrong you know where is WP:AE -- Shrike ( talk) 22:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Doug Weller: sorry to bother you with this, but since you kindly added the ECP to this page, would you mind arbitrating this mini-dispute over whether this vote should be allowed? After all, disputes over the integrity of voting systems seem to be fashionable nowadays... Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
If it was 501, then it must have been less than that for the Temple Mount riots RM, a couple interesting choices for an editor just hitting 500. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Alternatives @ Jr8825, Shrike, Chefallen, Île flottante, ProcrastinatingReader, AlmostFrancis, Bolter21, Yair rand, Vici Vidi, Challenger.rebecca, Sir Joseph, Johnpacklambert, Stefka Bulgaria, Hippeus, Bearian, and Tritomex: (delete voters) Not wanting to tempt fate, but there is a chance that consensus will be reached to delete the article, in line with your votes. The only thing that you all seemed to agree on is that you consider the descriptor "bantustan" to be POV. Obviously you are ignoring the fact that the sources in the article that use the term bantustan are of the highest quality, and amazingly no-one has been able to provide an WP:RS which states that there is another point of view or that the term is inappropriate, but I am content to agree to disagree. I am pinging you precisely because we disagree. Please could you clarify your thoughts on alternatives to this article that would be acceptable to you, specifically whether you object to the creation of these two articles:
  1. Areas A and B (West Bank) as the sister article to Area C (West Bank)
  2. Israeli and American proposals for independent noncontiguous Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank (or some better title), based on the WP:RS which describe the evolution of these proposals over time
Your input would be appreciated. Many thanks. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Onceinawhile: No (POV/POVFORK-related) objections from me about the creation of either of those two articles. (For the title of the latter, I would recommend dropping the "Israeli and American" part unless there have been such proposals from any other source to distinguish from. Also "independent" in that positioning may be slightly confusing, as some might understand it to refer to the enclaves being politically independent from each other. Complicated titling issue, something could probably be figured out. In any case, no conceptual problems with articles on those topics.) -- Yair rand ( talk) 22:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I've been meaning to get back to your message on my talk page Onceinawhile, but wanted to give it a proper response. This comment also addresses the point some have raised about whether the objections are to the title or the content – it's the content that's problematic. I think there's scope for an article called Areas A and B (West Bank) or Fragmentation of the West Bank, but it would need a complete rewrite from the current article, which is why, right now, I firmly support deletion (as nom). The problem is that the article focuses solely on criticisms of the Israeli policy to chop up these areas (past, present and CRYSTAL), not the areas themselves. A neutral treatment of the subject would look very much like the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation section, moderately expanded so as to add commentary on the historical development of the enclaves and how their 'bantustanisation' undermines the peace process and prospects for an independent Palestine. Note that the fragmentation section of Israeli occupation of the West Bank has subsections on Legal system, Freedom of movement, Village closures, Marriage difficulties, Targeted assassinations, Surveillance, Censorship, Coercive collaboration, Taxation... this is the broad level of coverage that such an article would need, splitting off the existing information from the occupation article. Right now it definitely isn't the major expansion that Nishidani describes, it's a moderate expansion of only one element (criticism) of the topic, with the rest of the topic completely absent. At best, it should draftified and broadened into a article with a clearer, neutral subject. This isn't about whitewashing Israel's behaviour, in a full treatment of Areas A & B the facts will speak for themselves. A negative attack piece against Israeli policy with selective damning quotes is just not encyclopedic. Jr8825 • Talk 23:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Jr8825, I agree with much of what you wrote, except for two things: the last sentence, and your understanding of our deletion policy. On your last sentence, your characterization of the article is incorrect - there is nothing there which is in any way disputed or controversial. If you disagree, please be specific with an example. On your understanding of deletion policy, see WP:ATD. Content is not difficult to fix - you just have to ask. Obviously I intend to build this article out much further, it was just 48 hours old when it was brought here... Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This all ignores the fact that this article was created less than a week ago, and, before editors can bring it up to snuff, you proposed its erasure. Secondly, the article so far deals with the geophysical and geostratic fracturing of the West Bank as a formerly coherent geographic entity, and the political history behind it, - not the infinitely 'intricate machinery' of social pulverization which the main article I wrote covered. Any google scholar search should have told you this is a topic with a massive and as yet un exploited resource base, that warrants, indeeds, demands coverage. Its proper place would have been in the Israeli Occupation article, but numerous editors got hysterical about that article's length, and now that we expand the coverage separately, they cry 'delete'. Nishidani ( talk) 23:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Again, my problem is not only with POV (which can be fixed) but with SYNTH (which cannot). I have a long record with respect to editing neutral-POV articles about the area (e.g., Palestinian law). Bearian ( talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Afd discussions like this one can throw up points that merit revisiting the article in question to improve it. So, just set down precisely what parts are WP:SYNTH violations in your view. The main editor is a very experienced wikipedian, with innumerable DYKS to his credit for careful policy-observant articles, and invariably fixes (the Balfour Declaration article's history) any outside objections. Bullet those parts you find objectionable on the talk page, and I'm sure the problems, if they do exist, will be fixed rapidly. Nishidani ( talk) 09:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The proposer of this deletion grounds his argument on the idea that this is a ' POVFORK of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation. That is wholly absurd in getting things arse-about. When I wrote the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article, it covered most bases. Hectic attempts emerged to get the article deleted, or carved up, broken down, whatever was needed to sweep the massive scholarship on this reality out of view, a great fuss was made of its length. Always ready to compromise, I set to, and reduced it by a third. This was achieved by creating main articles for most subsections, and shifting a large amount of the matter documented to those sister articles. The section on fragmentation was one that lacked a main article expounding the history of bantustanization. This article duly serves that purpose for the IOWB. It has nothing to do absolutely with creating a fork. It is a major expansion (though it could easily be doubled given the large number of sources not yet included) of the section of Israeli policies, since 1967 to destroy the viability of a contiguous Palestinian state. This is the old story: the less wiki coverage of things scholarship in Israel and abroad documents, the more comfortable we shall all be. Nishidani ( talk) 22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I find the objections utterly confusing, as might other readers. So this is a summary of deletion ist positions so far.
  • The nominator, followed by User:AlmostFrancis, User:ProcrastinatingReader and User:Bolter21, thinks this a fork of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation, which as I show above betrays ignorance of what happened in that particular article: it was drastically thinned down to accommodate objections over length (by a permabanned editor et al), and this was done, precisely, by forking out much material into sister main articles, which is what Onceinawhile has effectively achieved here.
  • User:Shrike thinks it’s a WP:POVFORK of Israel and the apartheid analogy. Then he tells us that the flaw lies in the article’s uyse of ‘anti-Israeli sources’. That gives the game away. Sources, in this premise, however high their quality, are acceptable only if they make the case for Israel’s occupation, or are neutral with regard to it. This is jejune.
  • User:11Fox11, and User:Levivich think it is a remarkable multiple articles, with the former citing three (a) West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord, (b) Trump peace plan and (c) State of Palestine. No one has explained to me how you can have a WP:POVFORK of numerous articles.
  • User:Chefallen says also that it is a POV fork of of existing articles, again, raising the question. Do editors commenting here understand the distinction between a POV fork and a main article expansion of a section in an article (which is normative)?
  • User:Île flottante states it contains ‘no novel information that couldn’t be covered in the West Bank article’, ignoring the historical fact that several deletionists here argued fervently for excising large parts of that article on the grounds it was too long. Thus this is a Catch-22 argument. Wipe it out as a separate article here, and put it into a bulky article which a majority don't want exspanded, a recipe for strife.
  • User:Yair rand just argues the term itself, referred to in 47,000 sources, is propagandistic, which is odd, since the word was specifically used by Ariel Sharon (M. Feld, Nations Divided: American Jews and the Struggle over Apartheid Springer 2014 9781137029720 pp.99,138:’In 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon revealed that he relied on South Africa's Bantustan model in constructing a possible “map of a Palestinian state.”
  • User:Bearian says it is a fork (of what?) and guilty of WP:SYNTH, but has not answered inquiries about where synthesis has occurred (combining two separate sources to arrive at a textual formulation not in either). Synthesis is not a legitimate objection unless it is documented, and, if ùdocumented, can be fixed by amenable editors who would prefer to conserve the material.
  • User:Tritomex counsels deleting everything on the grounds of ‘everything said above’, ignoring that much that was said was for retention. What was ‘said’ in his view, applies only to the jumble of confused policy-violation claims made by deletionists. Not a focused delete vote
  • User:Free1Soul would delete it as a POV fork, this time of Palestinian National Authority.
The POV fork arguments fail because no one can agree what it is fork of:(a) Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation; Israel and the apartheid analogy; (c) West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord, (d) Trump peace plan and (e) State of Palestine; (f) or even Palestinian National Authority.
The other arguments fail to ground objections in any identifiable (so far) policy violation of the kind that would commend deletion. The article documents that the Bantustan model informed the thinking of the one Prime Minister who is regarded as the prime engineer and architect of the model that has been in place and has undergone consolidation for almost two decades. The term itself is entrenched in high quality sources, far more so than 'canton' (with its idyllic Swiss flavor) or archipelago, a term far less attested than the one which Israeli official figures have endorsed. So far we have evidence of irritation, but no arguments that stand up to scrutiny. Provide them. It may help improve the article, which is still embryonic, and will double, foreseeably in length, over the next week, preferably by adopting any suggestions for improvement emerging in this discussion. Nishidani ( talk) 15:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks for this helpful summary. What puzzles me the most about the delete votes is that between them they have not provided a single source substantiating their claims. I have spent time looking across dozens of sources to find the "other POV" which has been alluded to (both for the name and for the underlying subject of the fragmented islands), but I can't find a single source which opposes the contents of the article. I can only assume that these editors' silence when challenged to provide a single source is because they have also been unable to find any. Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) The above are your characterisations of why editors have !voted for deletion. Fair enough, we simply disagree here. I'm not going to respond to each of the individual points because I think my views (and the views other others in favour of deletion) have already been expressed above, and I'd just be restating what's already been said. Regarding how you can have a WP:POVFORK of numerous articles? I'd point to a comment I made earlier, which is that it overlaps several articles because it is a single interpretation/POV/analysis of Israeli actions and various peace plans. Jr8825 • Talk 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi Jr8825 you have repeated your suggestion of "single interpretation" multiple times, but have been silent when asked for an example of an alternative interpretation. It would really help if you could bring an example. Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I've been trying to avoid restating my argument to allow other voices, but I think I can spell out this point more clearly. Firstly, I should clarify that I strongly suspect you would not be able to find a reliable source narrative in which Israel's behaviour in the West Bank is painted as entirely justified (and I doubt the other delete !voters are motivated by a desire to whitewash Israel, as has been implied). You said above that there is nothing there which is in any way disputed or controversial, but I think the end result is that it presents a fixed narrative of Israeli policy being calculated from the get-go with the primary aim of cannibalising the West Bank and purposely segregating/dehumanising Palestinians, this implied in the language of the apartheid analogy and in the article's quotes describing how Palestinians were entrapped by the peace deal proposals – this is not an illegitimate narrative, but certainly a highly disputed and controversial one, which I feel that the article uncritically infers to be fact. It's a complex conflict. I'm sure the reason why the West Bank has ended up in this situation is more mutltifaceted and nuanced than currently portrayed and I doubt the breadth of academic literature on this topic is decently represented. I don't think this article can exist without a more sophisticated picture of the piecemeal way in which the current situation has developed. It can include the current narratives, certainly, but, for example, we need coverage of what the proponents of the 1995 Oslo Accords and 2000 Camp David Summit said and why they failed (one journalist's interpretation is valid but not full, fair coverage) and of disagreements and compromises within Israeli politics over West Bank policy, as well as a description of how fragmentation has impacted on the West Bank itself. Right now it's just one narrative on its own: a critical reader may well end up treating the narrative with greater suspicion than if it was presented alongside the facts of fragmentation's development and other critical examinations of this development, while an uniformed reader may take from it that Israel is universally seen as an apartheid state by scholars (again, you have to recognise that this is a disputed and controversial assertion, even if you agree with the analogy yourself). Jr8825 • Talk 17:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I think the end result is that it presents a fixed narrative of Israeli policy being calculated from the get-go with the primary aim of cannibalising the West Bank and purposely segregating/dehumanising Palestinians, this implied in the language of the apartheid analogy

User:Jr8825. You appear not to have read the article since you nominated it. Try and focus on the extensive evidence since added, that many policy makers in Israel since the 1960s are documented as having explicitly the apartheid model in mind. If you don't address that factual issue, your complaint boils down to a kind of distaste that these facts in the historical record are covered by Wikipedia. Nishidani ( talk) 19:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
... which I feel that the article uncritically infers to be fact. It used to state it outright in Wikivoice, contradicting the cited source, until I fixed it. I agree with Jr's analysis, and regarding POVFORK of numerous articles, my view is this: an NPOV article about West Bank bantustans – the actual places themselves – would be titled " Israeli occupation of the West Bank". An NPOV article about the term "West Bank bantustan" would be titled " Israel and the apartheid analogy". An NPOV WP:SPINOFF of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation would be called " Fragmentation of the West Bank". Hence my !vote that the entry, " West Bank bantustans" should be a redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Le v¡v ich 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Levivich, the West Bank has two parts to it: (1) Area C including the Israeli settlements and (2) the Palestinian islands/enclaves/bantustans. IOWB covers both these topics, so does FOWB. If we have two articles about the Israeli controlled parts of the West Bank, we should have one about the Palestinian controlled parts. Otherwise that is pure anti-Palestinian double standards. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Viewing whether to have a stand-alone page as a pro- or anti-Palestinian thing based on how many stand-alone pages we have about Israeli-controlled areas and how many we have about Palestinian-controlled areas strikes me as viewing the encyclopedia through the lens of the conflict rather than viewing the conflict through the lens of an encyclopedia. Le v¡v ich 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Levivich, interesting. Would you mind addressing the underlying question as to whether you are applying consistent standards? Do I correctly presume from your comments that you wish to also delete the Area C and Israeli settlements articles? Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
What in my comments makes you think I wish to delete anything? I evaluate whether we should have a stand-alone page based on sourcing. I couldn't care less if the page is about an "Israeli" place or a "Palestinian" place or a "Roman" place or a "Martian" place. What's relevant is the sourcing, etc., not which group of people controls what piece of land. Le v¡v ich 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Levivich, so far you have neither commented on the sources in the article, nor provided any of your own. Please could you share your analysis of the sourcing? Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Sure. My analysis of the sourcing is that this topic should be covered on other pages as explained in several comments I and others have made here. Le v¡v ich 22:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Levivich, that is your conclusion, not your analysis. Please explain how you reach this conclusion, with reference to specific sources. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
LOL, no. I don't think it will change the outcome of this AFD. Le v¡v ich 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Incredible. You base a judgment on an allusion to an analysis of sources. You are asked to let the rest of us in on what that analysis is, and twice you have refused to answer. One is entitled to infer that you did no such analysis. A bluff, in short. But this illustrates once more (speaking of 14 years watching how it works in the I/P area) the differences here. A few editors read widely, master a topic, write in depth articles according to the best quality RS, as opposed to far too many editors who jump in to 'opine' on the basis of reading the page. It took me +13 hours of reading the sources to form my judgment. It takes most commentators a few minutes of glancing over a page to offer theirs. Very democratic. Nishidani ( talk) 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nah, I just don't want to feed into the sea lioning. Le v¡v ich 23:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
If you want to create "Area A (West Bank)" go ahead. This article is not that, neither in name nor substance. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Jr8825, nothing in the article talks about things being justified or unjustified. Nothing says it was calculated. The motives are not discussed or speculated on, just the end results. For the avoidance of doubt, it was NOT calculated. It ended up this was through consensus and intransigence, much like Wikipedia. Regarding "coverage of what the proponents of the 1995 Oslo Accords and 2000 Camp David Summit said and why they failed", I am fine to add more but only the pieces that relate to the fragmented nature of the proposals. The only "alternative viewpoint" I could find anywhere, which I added in to the first draft of the article, is "debate has continued as to whether the existing or proposed arrangements are contiguous or noncontiguous". This is a bit of a technical point (it comes down to the roads/tunnels/bridges connecting the Palestinian islands), but it is the only one I have found so far. You write that "I'm sure the reason why the West Bank has ended up in this situation is more mutlifacted and nuanced than currently portrayed" and I agree - this article topic is so central to the conflict and we need to build out this nuance. You end your post with "Right now it's just one narrative on its own" - I don't agree with you, and you keep avoiding my pleas to bring an alternative source to support your assertion. Please please please could you try to find one? Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Onceinawhile: I haven't extensively studied the Israel-Palestine conflict, but found this with a JSTOR search: there is now broad public support for a policy of Israeli withdrawal from the territories, and the domestic debate is mostly about the extent, manner, and timing of this withdrawal. An overwhelming majority of Israelis support a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, and accept that a Palestinian state covering the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank is inevitable. A solid majority wants Israel to annex certain areas in the West Bank (the large blocs of Jewish settlements) and give the rest to the Palestinians. In line with these attitudes, Israeli public opinion has also become significantly more supportive of the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Waxman, D. (2008). From Controversy to Consensus: Cultural Conflict and the Israeli Debate over Territorial Withdrawal. Israel Studies, 13(2), 73-96. Jr8825 • Talk 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Anyone that does know about all this would also know that this is in stark contradiction to the facts. The number of settlements, outposts, settlers, state land and miltary sequestrations plus demolitions has done nothing other than go up every year since that was written and those are facts not opinions. Then at the very least the Israeli government is ignoring their own voters which doesn't seem very likely, does it? A 2020 opinion survey rather than your dated material is Half of Israelis support West Bank annexation, poll finds or this if you want something more detailed. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Then at the very least the Israeli government is ignoring their own voters which doesn't seem very likely, does it? I don't know about your government, but as an American, yes, that does seem quite likely. In fact, the idea that a government would do something that half its citizens oppose seems extremely likely to me. My government does it all the time. Some examples of things that most Americans hate that the American government does: taxes, war, regulation, domestic policies of various sorts, foreign policies of various sorts, did I mention taxes? Israel is no different. That the Israeli public, and various Israeli governments, are divided, and have always been divided to varying degrees, and have tried a variety of different approaches to resolving the conflict, some successful, others unsuccessful, some humane, others not, some fair, others unfair, is the nuance that Jr refers to up above. Part of the NPOV problem is the presentation of "Israel" as a single-minded monolithic entity with a specific agenda that it's been trying to carry out for a century, and in the case of this topic, that "bantustanization" is part of that agenda; the notion that "Israel" looked over at South African apartheid and thought, "Hey! Great idea!" Some in Israel accuse others in Israel of that, but it can't be imputed to Israel as a whole, nor said in wikivoice. Le v¡v ich 19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is not about the state of Israel. It is about what Israel does militarily in violation of its obligations as a belligerent occupant, the technical term. Most Israelis don't go to the West Bank, and know next to nothing about it. Israel's foreign policy agenda on the West bank (and Gaza) has been consistent since 1967, on that all sources agree. The text never demonizes Israel, nor do the sources. They do not, as you imply, talk about Israelis or Israel, but about the decisions over decades of its policy makers and politicians. I've seen this defensive insinuation for several decades, that to criticize a nation's foreign behavior is to be taken as a personal insult to that nation's people. It's rhetorical and illogical. Nishidani ( talk) 21:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree with you both – there is certainly a large group of Israelis who strongly disapprove of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians in all its forms. It's like the opposite of being a "shy" Trump supporter in a big coastal city in the US – Israeli liberals have been so marginalized that they often stay silent when push comes to shove. Sadly this has been the story for most of the last 100 years in the region. The settlers went there, the liberals said they disapproved but did nothing. I have no problem adding Jr8825's source to the article; but it is important to note that nowhere does the article currently state or suggest that the situation is or has ever been supported by a majority. So we are still missing a single source, just one, which provides an alternative point of view on the contents of the article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Israel/Jewish liberal opinion constitutes almost half of our sourcing. One of the running problems with deleters or reverters in the I/P area is that they are either wholly unfamiliar with Israeli/Jewish liberal opinion or (b) are shocked to see liberal scholarship from that background provides the world with its best analyses of the I/P world. What you get is hysteria that such articles and books are 'pro-Palestinian'. No. They represent what the unblinkered communities in Israel know, but which is rarely reported in mainstream newspapers, which, it seems too many editors get their impressions from, when they are not studiously confusing Israel with its transient government policies. Nishidani ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I think you are proving my point for me, this discussion (and the article) is not about what the Israeli population thinks on this or that day, it is what successive governments have actually done that is relevant, no opinion survey required because the facts are well known and readily available. Selfstudier ( talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
It's probably needless to say but I disagree with this summary of my arguments. My input is three sentences long so I am sure the closer can form their own opinion. I also want to note that per WP:DEL-REASON number 5, deleting a content fork is perfectly within policy. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on nomination It has been suggested that the nomminator rushed to nominate this article in ignorance. This is an unfair charge in light of the article creator immedietly trying to get this article on the front page and spreading it far and wide. The nominator added it as target of an existing redirect twice, diff1 and diff2, added it as a main topic in an article section twice, diff3 and diff4, and added a link to the bantatustan article. In light of its POV nature and the owerneship issues of the article creator, AFD was not only acceptable but inevitable. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 16:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for this. This is exactly how things are supposed to work. DYK has a time limit so quick nomination is required; it was contested so we agreed to pause, as is right. Adding links to the article is required so that the article is not an orphan. The two reverts came after waiting a number of days for appropriate sources to be provided; the other editors sadly did not engage further on the talk page.
    There was certainly no suggestion of ignorance. The suggestion is that starting this discussion within 48 hours of creation is inconsistent with WP:ATD. Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:ATD, Redirection was tried and you objected. Also in light of this quote for WP:ATD "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD.", I believe that this AFD is perfectlly cromulent. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 17:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC
    +10 pts awarded to AlmostFrancis for the excellent Simpson's reference. Le v¡v ich 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Except that it hasn't failed verifiabilty or npov policies. Y'all just don't like the implications, these are exactly the same sort of semi-hysterical objections raised at the Israeli occupation of the West bank afd last year (the article supposedly being forked). In fact I think one editor's objections are identical. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I !voted keep in that AFD and redirect in this one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "Semi-hysterical" is a stone you don't want to be throwing. Le v¡v ich 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The proposer set off by stating that it was a fork of 10 (!) articles "and others". That's the sort of thing I mean. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Changed vote, see below Draftify or delete: The article needs serious work. It is currently written as POV fork. It needs trimming, more focus, pov editing, and imo renaming to something those unfamiliar with the subject can find (eg from above "Fragmentation of Palestinian land in the West Bank").   //  Timothy ::  talk  21:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Specify what serious work it needs. So far, all we have is what serious scholarship states regarding the record of bantustanization intentions among very prominent policy makers and politicians. No one here has questioned the quality of the sourcing, nor its accuracy. So what's the problem? Nishidani ( talk) 22:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    WP:V is not the only core content policy we have. There is also WP:NPOV. And WP:NPOV is not a corollary of WP:V. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Who said it was? WP:NPOV nowhere implies that articles documenting a five decades long administrative and military practice by a state must not read in such a way that the international image of that state might suffer 'damage'. This is a confusion of Wikipedia practice, which is extremely attentive to articles on living persons, but does not extend that to institutional bodies like states or companies (of course in the US, uniquely, corporations are persons, but their malpractices are not hidden here to avoid anything negative) I'm doing the Hamas article rewrite - it is about a government of sorts - and NPOV there doesn't translate out as ignoring what the scholarship states about its recourse to suicide bombs, terrorism, anti-Semitic rhetoric,etc. There is a neat historical divide between contributors to the I/P area. Those who cull data from newspapers and highlight its spectacular aspect - the tabloid version of history we are all familiar with; and those who prefer books and articles written analytically, after the events, for an encyclopedic overview. The 'image' you get of an institution (PLO/Hamas/IDF/Israel etc) will differ radically according to which of these two options one uses as a work practice. My bias is for scholarship, which the mainstream press rarely mentions in this regard, except in Israel, thank goodness. Nishidani ( talk) 09:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy or Delete. I earlier voted for a draft or delete, but after looking at this for a while, Israel and the apartheid analogy is the main article for the subject and there is no need for a fork, POV or otherwise. The current artilce is written as a POV fork and I don't see any content to salvage, if it was drafted it would just return again as a reworded POV fork.  //  Timothy ::  talk  05:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This article expands on the parent article Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and follows WP:DETAIL, being the main expansion of the fragmentation section. The content merely details the history of a concept behind a larger picture of fragmentation that is covered in both that article and Israel and the apartheid analogy. In asserting you see there is no content to salvage, you are saying 'delete', since your position now implies that a redirect will replace this article, and the article(s) to which readers are directed should not include the matter here. So your proposal is delete, i.e. there is no room in the encyclopedia for including 24 scholarly notices on an Israeli political idea. Nishidani ( talk) 09:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi @ TimothyBlue: thanks for all your comments here. Regarding the above, consider the word pogrom. It is a Russian word coined to described what became known as the Pogroms in the Russian Empire. Although every modern pogrom makes in its name an indirect analogy to those events in 19th century Russia, they are very different subjects. The same is true here. Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per extensive arguments by Nishidani and others. No need to repeat them here! -- NSH001 ( talk) 11:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename a much-needed article and can be expanded further. I don't think all of this information can be merged into other articles. It explains how Palestinian land in the West Bank has been eroding on a large scale since the Oslo Accords.-- Sakiv ( talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect somewhere. The article tells the story of Areas A + B from the apartheid perspective, which is only one POV. It is therefore an obvious case of POVFORK. ( t · c) buidhe 20:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Eureka: the answer to why none of those claiming POV have been able to bring a source to support their claims All those editors above who have claimed that there is something POV about this well-sourced article have been unable to provide a source, despite multiple requests. An excellent New Yorker piece explains why: The Maps of Israeli Settlements That Shocked Barack Obama, New Yorker Magazine, July 9, 2018, Adam Entous: "Kerry met regularly with Obama in the Oval Office. During one of those meetings, Kerry placed the maps on a large coffee table, one after another, so Obama and his advisers could study them. Ben Rhodes, one of Obama’s longest-serving advisers, said the President was shocked to see how “systematic” the Israelis had been at cutting off Palestinian population centers from one another. Lowenstein didn’t show the maps to the Israelis, but he did walk them through the key findings, which were incorporated into Kerry speeches and other documents. Lowenstein said the Israelis never challenged those findings."
The last sentence is the key: "the Israelis never challenged those findings". There are no alternative viewpoints to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I guess Lowenstein doesn't read the BBC. To be clear though, Lowenstein saying than Rhodes said that Obama was shocked doesn't surprise me or seem to have much to say about the POV of the article. The fact that Obamas envoy to the negotiation needed a breifing map to properly understand the occupation does sadden me, however. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 01:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    This is the full transcript of the Netanyahu statement referred to in your BBC piece. It says nothing about the topic of this article. Thank you for proving, again, that there are no alternative viewpoints to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Actually such sources do exist, and because so much time is being wasted dealing with the confusions here (every time a hare is started one has to scour RS, download and read the available pertinent material chasing it up), I for one haven't had time to add them yet but while try, barbeque and afternoon drinking allowing, to see to that today. The argument is directly addressed by Robbie Sabel, for one, in his https://www.jstor.org/stable/41575857 'The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid,' Jewish Political Studies Review, Fall 2011, Vol. 23, No. 3/4, pp.18-31 pp.25ff. Nishidani ( talk) 09:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nishidani, I just read it, but I don’t see anywhere it addressing the question of the cantonization / bantustanization of the area? Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The attempt to refute Chomnsky's views in the section THE PEACE PROCESS AS A FORM OF APARTHEID? :

Another track to try and associate Israel with the South African Apartheid gime is to claim that the Middle East Peace Process is somehow a manifestation Apartheid.48 Chomsky writes of the "administration put into the hands of a rupt and brutal Palestinian authority, playing the role of indigenous collaborators under imperial rule such as the Black leadership of South Africas Bantustans." Professor Francis Boyle described the Oslo process as "akin to the Bantustans the Apartheid Afrikaner regime had established for the Black People in the public of South Africa.50 One writer states that "in the name of security: Israel up Apartheid zones."51 Learned NGOs have held workshops on.' p.25.

Sorry, must rush or the grog in my bag will defrost. Nishidani ( talk) 10:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nishidani, yes but look at how he responds to those suggestions. By saying Oslo was consensual (without mentioning that Oslo stated that the rest of the West Bank "will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement") and by saying that the State of Palestine has wide recognition (without mentioning that the State of Palestine’s declared borders are the whole West Bank). So he fails to address the subject of this article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
That chap was a legal adviser with MFA for 8 years so you need to keep that in mind when reading him. Anyway, the apologists often try to turn the discussion into a SA comparison and that is not what the whole thing is about, nor is it about Apartheid specifically, it is as I said above, the territorial, political and economic fragmentation of the territory over time. (or bantustanization (not the version in SA) for short). Selfstudier ( talk) 13:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
What counts is (a)Sabel is RS (b) he mentions the Bantustan model (c) as rebuffs it. Therefore it is meat for the page. The fact that his arguments don't hold up to much informed scrutiny, and that he omits what the historical record notes, i.e. that major policy makers in Israel drew inspiration from that model, is irrelevant. A large part of the POV literature of RS quality fails normal standards of informed analysis, but that in no way affects the editorial obligation to take note of the position. Of course he is a spokesman for a POV, but most reputable I/P sources by Wikipedia's criteria, represent either US or Israeli state policy, and one has to live with that. Nishidani ( talk) 16:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi Nishidani, I am fine to add in Sabel as the closest thing we can find. But it does not actually address what the article is about. You wrote below that "the theme of this article is the history of the concept of the Bantustan in Israeli discourse and planning for the West Bank". I don't agree with that; in my mind I think this article has as much to do with the "concept of the Bantustan" as the Baku pogrom has to do with the archetypal pogroms in the Russian Empire (i.e. not much connection at all). I think it is simply about the West Bank's noncontiguous Palestinian enclaves, both existing and proposed. In describing them, we rightly cover the history of how we got here, which includes the theme you raised. Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
An article sourced with trashy books like "Apartheid Israel by Sean Jacobs, Jon Soske that demonize and delegitimize Israel and whose Nazi Israel and Apartheid Israel analogies are seen by IHRA definition as antisemitic. The same goes for books denying Israels right to exist like "Empires and Walls: Globalization, Migration, and Colonial Domination" By Mohammed Chaichian or Harris, Brice, Jr (from 1984) or "The South Africanization of Israel". Than comes "Hunter, Jane (Spring 1986). "Israel and the Bantustans". Journal of Palestine Studies. 15 " All sources are unbalanced one sided anti-Israeli propaganda. All this books promotes the assumption that Israels existence is illegal and colonial and this assumption, which goes against international law and general worldview disqualifies them as WP:NPOV sources for any article, except as sources for the views of their authors. This article is a multiplication of already existing article abo ut Israel/Apartheid analogy with poorest and most unbalanced sources and an an obvious case that fits the defintion of POVFORK (as it was correctly seen by majority of people commenting here. Also I observed cases of new editors that created their accounts this month and already voiced their support for keeping this article. I think someone should explain them rules regarding editing process in Arab/Israeli conflict subjects. ) . Tritomex ( talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I don't really know whether sources are trashy or not and I haven't seen your book. If as you say, they are one sided, we are still waiting with baited breath for the other side to make it's appearance. Otherwise it's assertion, more assertions and yet more assertions all minus any evidence to go with them. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Than read the books I have mentioned... Take The "aparthied Israel". You dont need too much on page 2, you can already read that Israeli apartheid is far worse than South African one was. This is not a neutral, objective reference that can be used as source for this issue. Beside that, the POVFORK case is the most obvious reason why this article should be delated. Tritomex ( talk) 11:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Tritomex, the four sources you have commented on are all academic works published by respectable publishers. This article currently used 25 sources, all respectable, but from a range of perspectives. The more perspectives the better. But bear in mind, per the above discussion re the Netanyahu and Sabel sources, it seems that pro-Israeli propaganda does not appear to address the topic of this article at all. We can speculate why in our own time. As to the "new" editors voting here (whose edit counts have passed the 500 ECP mark with automated edits), my assessment is that at least four of these accounts have voted delete and none have voted keep - please could you clarify who you are referring to? Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Well, I can of course read them, what I really want to read is the sources supporting your claims, I haven't seen any of those. The "POVFORK case" seems not to exist either since no-one can agree what is being forked, mainly because it hasn't been forked from anywhere. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Fully agree. The suggestion of POV remains unsubstantiated without a single example of an alternative viewpoint on the topic of this article. The Netanyahu statement above is a great example - people who find this topic inconvenient don't address it directly, but resort to whataboutism: "See, this conflict is not about houses, or communities in the West Bank, Judea and Samaria, the Gaza district or anywhere else... Palestinian rejection of Israel and support for terror are what the nations of the world should focus on".
Perhaps we should add that perspective into the article: "Right-wing Israeli politicians, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, consider that the fragmentation or cantonization of Palestinian communities in the West Bank is not relevant and should not be focused on." Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Tritomex. In all major I/P articles a large part of the documentation comes from perfectly acceptable RS that describe Palestinians, the PLO, Hamas, etc., as tainted by terrorism, by hostility to the occupying power Israel, as anti-Semitic. Wikipedia is full of that material, and I don't think any serious editors here try to erase those sources. It would violate policy: they are not neutral but pass the criteria for citability. Most of them have positions deeply offensive to Palestinians, but you won't see that here since we have no active Palestinian editors in the I/P area. By the same token, the theme of this article is the history of the concept of the Bantustan in Israeli discourse and planning for the West Bank. This may engender outrage by editors that it is demeaning to Israel, but since it is an idea clearly and explicitly on Israel's agenda, a concept its own leaders avowed as a possible model, that outrage, however endearingly patriotic, cannot be allowed to interfere with neutral reportage of how the idea developed. And please note that it is readily admitted and documented by many sources written by Israelis or diasporic scholars. The gravamen of the objections here boils down to a vague feeling that the first rate sources mention something better ignored, if not indeed, censored, by Wikipedia, because it conflicts with a national image which should not be tarnished. Nursing patriotic sensitivities is not what Wikipedia is about. Nishidani ( talk) 16:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
It is also the case that right-wing academics rarely write about slums, Azeri academics rarely write about the history of Armenian literature, and Palestinian academics rarely write about the growth of the Kibbutz movement. That doesn't mean any of those topics are inherently POV. Our policy requires us simply to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". And that is exactly what we are doing here.
Nishidani, did you manage to find any sources with an alternative point of view on the topic of the past, present and future of the West Bank's noncontiguous Palestinian enclaves? Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_Bank_bantustans&oldid=1143861661"