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

1187:. As it stands, the article has several NPOV issues that means it would fail an AfC review, primarily due to the imbalance on sources between the various "sides" - the Israeli "side" is not a fringe view, and so should be adequately recorded. An example of how this plays out is where the article discusses biased language; it goes into depth on the use of biased language by those favoring Israel, but does not mention biased language by those favoring Palestine, even though it includes a (pro-Palestinian) source from which an excellent example can be obtained, where it complains about the use of "suicide-bomber" as opposed to "martyr". As such, it should be moved to draft-space until those issues are corrected - I believe the article has merit, and so should not be deleted unless while in draft-space it qualifies under their deletion criteria. -- 1369:. An article like this must mention the use of torture, for example, since it is deeply documented (over 3,000,000 hits in google). The two Israeli High Court discussions were mentioned; one could add many Israeli spokesmen denying it exists (documented) or saying it is necessary; one could link to a sub-page documenting torture used by the various Palestinian authorities (though this is about Israel's occupation, not the PNA or Hamas's abuses, which however are intensely documented in numerous articles). Ultimately the topical realities are not going to disappear or be 'neutral' in the odd sense proposed here, i.e. balancing an 'Israeli' perspective against a 'Palestinian' perspective. The article is not about political justifications, or partisan spokesmen's views: it is about 1575:

realizing that Israel did not create a system when closing off the old one. Each claim of "undue weight" or "imbalance" has had one thing in common. No sources have been provided to substantiate any part of the claim. This article is NPOV, it reflects the balance of reliable sources. The topic is not one that has a lot of praise for Israel. That does not mean that it is not "neutral". People have been making wholly specious arguments about POV and they keep forgetting the important part. You need reliable sources demonstrating that a view is significant to be included. And none of yall have brought any such sources. Instead we hear complaints that a peer-reviewed journal published by a university press is a "cheerleader for Palestinian resistance".

878:

policies and the various users who have very strong feelings on the underlying subject matter. It is not unlike hundreds of other articles in that respect, and there's just no way there weren't going to be people frustrated with its starting point, no matter how much it leaned towards typical Israeli or Palestinian views (or towards the views of certain of our editors, whether or not they subscribe to such perspectives themselves). I get that this article's very existence signifies a lot of work for the community and probably a fair deal of conflict, but those factors are not in and of themselves sufficient to vitiate the obvious notability analysis or the importance of the topic such that we would not allow the article.

357:. Some users dont want the Israeli occupation covered. That is a position that is fine for an individual to hold. It is however not one that is relevant to the goal of building an encyclopedia. As far as the patently silly claim that the sources are "cherry-picked" or "POV", please, look at the source list. Among the 295 sources, 28 are published by some university press. 72 of them are from peer-reviewed journals. The rest mostly from top-class publishers like Routledge, Brill, and Taylor & Francis. This article is sourced to the very best available reliable sources. Some people just dont like what the sources say. 649:, which are all at logger-heads? I strongly support human rights in numerous articles, beginning with Tibet, the Philippines, and aboriginal people. If you want a neutral description it should be 'Nishidani, who strongly supports human rights for Palestinians in the occupied territories'. I)f you dislike the ref to 'human rights' then simply erase your insinuation that I back any Palestinian 'cause' of whatever nature. Otherwise it remains a personal attack by a generic insinuation I second any cause any Palestinian engages in. 380:- It is important to note that reliable sources can also disrupt the balance of an article - there is no dispute over the reliability of the vast majority of sources, but there is a dispute over the balances of sources. It is probably important to also note that the only defense of this balance provided by the authors is that the "ethnic breakdown" favors "Jewish" scholars over Palestinian ones, and that this means the article cannot be biased. Personally, I consider this defense problematic for numerous reasons. -- 859:

the most globally significant topics of recent history and contemporary significance in existence and when looking into this inquiry I was a little blown away to learn that the article has only existed since 2018. As to the POVFORK question, I don't think it holds up as an analysis when applied to any of the target articles mentioned by the OP; the topic of the article title is a discrete one and one which there is ample sourcing to discuss own its own unique terms with the title definetly being the obvious

349:). The personal attacks in the nomination notwithstanding, this is an obviously notable topic, with sources very specifically treating this as its own topic. The idea that because it deals with a topic that the nominator finds uncomfortable means it is propaganda is kind of funny but not at all important. One of the more obvious keeps in the history of AFD. An obviously notable topic, one which currently has 295 reliable sources cited dealing explicitly with this topic. The most basic 2353:'s now-famous 145k précis was reverted (378k) with the article on Feb. 5 when it was nominated for deletion (291k). That's almost 100k of content that was removed or moved to other articles, and I know those edits were in direct response to editors' concerns (mine included) raised on the talk page. I cannot in good conscience say "no evidence of active improvement". Quite the opposite, and I hope it continues, because if it does, we will have a FAC here. 1598:— Looking through the list of articles that are supposed to cover this information, I'm really surprised that this article hasn't existed previously: Knowledge certainly needs an article that directly covers this subject. The lede is relatively well written and quite impartial in its treatment of differing pro/anti Israeli/Palestinian views — in fact I think the lede would be improved by the elimination of some of this back and forth. - 2339:'s point, I don't see any text that is so egregious that it should be immediately removed from mainspace (and if I did, I could delete that text without having to move the whole article to draftspace). So looking at the requirements for draftifying, while I agree the article has (obvious) merit and doesn't (completely) meet all policies for length and POV, the third requirement, "no evidence of active improvement", is 1256:

it's permissible (or even necessarily advisable) to have a time limit for an article in draftspace such that it is moved back into mainspace automatically at the end of that period in time. I suppose both sides could agree to submit the issue to a neutral editor or group of editors at AfC and let them make a determination about whether it is ready for mainspace again, free from any active boostering from either side.

1211:"other side" will give assurances that they will not try to take advantage of the situation to expunge it from Knowledge altogether; if both sides can agree to work in good faith to bring the article to a better state...well, I can't say I'm hopefully that this approach will be endorsed by both the proponents and the opponents to its existence, but I think its worth considering. 1891:

it to draft space until this is resolved will hopefully encourage the contributor to correct this, rather than insisting on this violation of policy. The other reason is because this is a controversial topic; to allow it to stand for months or longer as an imbalanced work in the main space will provide encouragement to others wishing to push their views. See diff here:

1373:. No one objecting has denied that what is thematically outlined here is unreal, a gross misrepresentation. No objector is denying all this happens there. They are objecting either to the unfairness of this material being marshaled on one page or to it being documented, certainly in the detail demanded by the most voluminously documented conflict area in modern history. 323:. The excessive length problem has been ongoing, a fact that bears out the reasons for our longstanding practice of covering aspects of this topic in separate pages. Diligent, experienced editors have established on talk that the POV problems with this page cannot be resolved, but from the moment it was written it has been clear that there was no need for this 2387:. This is blindingly obvious. It is not a fork of any other article. It is a topic of great importance with a huge number of reliable sources. AfD is not the place to go for cleanup so all delete votes on the basis of not liking the content should be ignored. Tendentious argument should also be ignored (and the guilty know who they are). 2437:. The argument to delete is essentially about what content should be allowed on Knowledge, with editors arguing, by appearances, that certain issues, no matter how thoroughly documented in the academic literature, should not appear here. There is no visible policy ground behind the call for deletion. 1956:

Second, the existence of the section aptly demonstrates that the Palestinian issues are well documented, even if the authors of those sections are not Palestinian themselves - indeed, I do not understand the relevance of their ethnicity. Perhaps you could explain it, as this is the second time it has

1434:

Answer the query. Why is this absurd uproar not visible with comparable articles on other countries? The problem of balance in the section you mention is that Israel has a dozen official, semi-official and public bodies with extensive resources and a high public profile, scrutinizing, contesting and

1054:

and still irrelevant to determining if this article's topic is notable (which, clearly it is, if anything under the sun in the contemporary world is) and if it otherwise conforms to the policies relevant to a deletion discussion. If you wished to propose the Jordan Valley article, I'd say have at it,

719:

It is really very easy: the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has broken multiple international laws, and brought incredible hardship on the Palestinian population. This has been meticulously documented (by academics, UN, and human rights sources) over these last 50 years; making old anti−Apartheid

2061:

Nishidani mentioned ethnicity on the talk page as a defense of balance, stating "I did a breakdown by ethnicity of the original article, and from memory there were twice the number of Israel/Jewish scholars cited than of Arab scholars, while the third 'western' scholarly contribution lay in between.

1890:

I don't believe there is a major difference, but I support draft space because as it stands the primary author has expressed a clear intent in this discussion to not create a balanced article, due to their belief that the balance of reliable sources is "wrong" due to pro-Israel bias in such. Sending

1855:

I would add one further comment: at least two solid sentences should be drafted, probably appearing in the third paragraph, describing 1) The Israeli government's most basic position on the need to control the territory for their security concerns, and 2) U.S. overt or tacit support, since this is a

1255:

The problem would be in convincing the article's proponents to accept the temporary demotion out of mainspace; they will be concerned (perhaps reasonably) that the opponents of the article will attempt to block it's being moved back into article space once it is out. And unfortunately, I don't think

1210:

That might be a reasonable compromise. I can see no supportable cause to delete this article under policy, but I can't claim that the way it reads in many places in its long read does not attest to neutrality issues. Perhaps the article's proponents can be convinced to move it to draft space if the

858:

This is without question a notable topic that has been the subject of untold hundreds of thousands (at a minimum) of sources, be they works of scholarship, news stories, textbooks, general interest reference works, primary accounts, primary government statements, and more aside. Indeed, it is one of

1574:

These repeated claims about "balance" and "NPOV issues" have not once been backed up by sources. On the talk page NoCOBOL has claimed that not including an Israeli system for registering land title makes including that they closed off the former Jordanian system "undue weight", while apparently not

979:

argument going for them that this article does. Questions about any further articles are red herrings, unlikely as they are to occur--and anyway these arguments are properly the subject for separate AfDs if said articles ever did come to exist. Let's keep discussion focused on the here and now and

872:

As to any issues with neutrality, there are to obvious points to consider: 1) The most well known principle of our deletion policies is that we do not delete simply because an article has internal content issues, where such issues are amenable to correction. 2) Let's be perfectly honest here: there

1736:

Israel was as good as its word. Knowing that Egypt has a powerful air force, Israel responded to the blockade of the Straits by taking out the Egyptian air force with a preemptive strike. After which the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq invaded with the announced intention of obliterating

2067:

As for the sources, I'm not saying it is not good, I'm saying that for balance we should also include reliable and independent sources that document the bias in language that Israel faces - though on a personal level, I suspect that some of those sources are not so independent, as I doubt that an

1800:

I'm no fan of overstuffed ledes. I am, however, acutely aware of the importance of NPOV phrasing in ledes. This is why I first proposed an extraordinary committee of some kind to hammer out an NPOV page. Before I brought this to AfD, convinced that the only solution is to delete this POV article

1783:

all this historical background — abridged, on both sides — is important for some part of the article body, but not for the lead. Otherwise there would be an interminable list of justifying antecedents that would make the lead impossible to resolve. The inclusion of "during the Six day war" in the

974:

is appropriate under our policies. And you may wish to dismiss sources from this equation, but that is clearly not realistic given the policies and editorial determinations that underpin any such analysis in an AfD. "Israeli occupation of the eastern West Bank (Jordan Valley)" is not an article

2558:

Let's please keep discussion focused upon content and policies, and away from wild speculation about what you think other editors may do in the future, that is impermissible on this project, outside of a handful of processes which take place in administrative spaces, and in any event, completely

1985:

The first of this is clearly met, and the second has been demonstrated through an analysis of the issues with the text, including this section - unless you are asserting that a section on biased language in an article on the occupation of the West Bank should only include biased language against

1041:

Ok, let's say you're right (I personally doubt very much that it's the case that there are more reliable sources in the world which discuss the Jordan Valley than those which discuss the West Bank in general, but the question is non-dispositive here so I don't see the point in debating it)--that

683:

it is probably in reference to a box on their user page, which states "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups

423:

No, it is important to note that the users who are claiming that there are NPOV issues, namely you and Icewhiz, have yet to bring any reliable sources that demonstrate any type of NPOV issue. They simply claim that based on feeling that the balance of sources is off. Im pretty sure your personal

1280:

Hmmm, that's a good point. I like your solution as well; to flesh it out, maybe when the authors believe the article is ready for submission they submit a RfC specifically for the AfC community, and if the consensus of that community is that the article is ready, specifically in regards to NPOV

877:

article which began life in a state which all of the most likely to be invested editors agree was neutral, and there won't be one in our lifetime. Like all articles in this area, this one will require careful work, compromise and mediation to get it to a state of acceptable equilibrium with our

1989:

The third part is where the opinions and intentions of the individual(s) working on it come in; the fact is that the creator has presented a reason against including the Israeli position that not only is not based on policy but is actively against them; this demonstrates that at the moment the

1757:

Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq never "invaded" Israel in the Six-Day War. Egypt never entered any part of Israeli territory in the entirety of the war. Same for Syria. Same for Iraq. Jordan, from what I recall, fired across armistice lines, but never actually went past any. You are mistaken on

838:

as this is a ridiculous and plain pointy nomination. For once a scholar with WP experience is writing an excellent and, considering the "allowable" size, quite comprehensive article from scratch on a topic he's an expert on and as usual blind ideology minded hate for everything that makes this

1709:

made thereafter some minor retaliatory counterstrikes, then withdrew, and Israel occupied the West Bank. My impression is that many protesting editors are upset because they are surprised at reading things they knew nothing about, and prefer the information to be deleted, rather than to learn

1926:

and I don't see any I or P views—the sources seem to be from independent parties. That is all immaterial because content is judged on its text, not on what opponents think might be in the mind of the text's author. What text is so egregious that the article should be removed from main space?

969:

Respectfully Icewhiz, that is both a strawman argument and a non-sequitor. Nobody is, on this page at least, proposing any such additional aricles. Nor is any speculative determination about such theoretical articles (which are by no means likely) necessary or relevant to determining if

401:

The primary author of this article has now produced another defense, and so I will mention it here for completeness; their defense, summed up as fairly as I can, is that due to Israeli Bias the balance of reliable sources is wrong and thus this article should not reflect that balance. --

1353:

and dozens of other articles should be deleted, or put away to be redrafted? For they do what this article does. This is different (save for the Tibetan case) because the human rights abuses do not occuer within a country, but beyond its legally recognized borders, hence 'occupation',

1695:

On 15 May 1948, the ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered

1235:

The only way I can see it being deleted is if it is abandoned and reaches the sixth month mark. Perhaps we could add {{promising draft}} to reduce the chance of even that happening - the article in question is an indisputably promising draft, so that should not be objectionable. --

1055:

but it's clear you don't. But it is not appropriate or constructive for you to attribute such a stance to the proponents of this article when they have advocated no such thing. Again, let's please keep things focused on the presently existing content and how policies apply to it.

1990:

article isn't being improved to meet these standards, and thus it would be a reasonable decision to move it to draft space to compel the editor, if they wish to return the article to mainspace, to remove their personal opinion about the balance of sources and merely reflect it. --

1403:, and that is achievable even on topics where the balance will never be 50:50. An example of this I have raised above; the section on bias in the language of the occupation is relevant in both directions, and including just Palestine's perspective on this is an example of where 2095:

and once again you have reached conclusions that are not supported by the text. Of course "suicide bomber" vs. "martyr" is a bias issue but mentioning that does not condone suicide or bombing or unthinking dedication to religious dogma. The text (added by Nishidani) includes

2521:

with Israel. This article is aiming to ignore Palestine's existence, which is frankly weird. My guess is that the authors of this article will spring out more and more useless articles, which will eventually end up in the delete bin. Better to create something useful, like

1475:

The article reflects the scholarly mainstream. Everything in it is standard fare on any contemporary university-level course on the topic in Israel's top institutions of learning, from whose tenured academics much of the documentation comes, as opposed to what you find in

2062:

That was calculated. If there is an ethnicity bias, it is not towards Palestinians, and most of the authors cited from that journal are not Arabs." There is also the implication from your line, where you talking about Palestinians, and not pro-Palestinian viewpoints.

1685:

This is one of the I/P area's main problems, lack of knowledge among editors of even the basic facts of the area's history. E. M. Gregory's reference to an invasion by the armies of several neighbouring states' cannot but refer to events 19 years earlier in the

1147:

Have you even looked at that article? It has a section that deals with, poorly, the occupation. But pretending that article covers the occupation, much less that it is about the occupation, is just silly. All the more so given that anybody can oh I dont know,

907:- Note this is a NOT/POVFORK nomination, it's not a question of sources. Where do we stop at splitting up the Military-administration / Occupation of the Palestinian territories (a topic already well covered by several Knowledge articles)? Do we create an 2334:

is undoubtedly notable and deserving of its own article, so the only choice for me was draft or keep. While I've voiced concerns about length and POV on the article talk page, these content concerns aren't usually a reason to delete or draftify. Echoing

1023:(which is unique both in Israeli security concerns and in terms of demographics - you actually chose the worst possible example from the list above) is in fact the subject of thousands of reliable sources - more so than the West Bank separately from the 724:

than it ever was in South Africa. Some people want to push these nasty facts under the carpet, ineffect to censor Knowledge. They should not be allowed to do so. (If you don't want to portrayed as nasty: then stop acting nasty. The truth will out.)

354: 1948:

First, even if Palestinian issues with biased language were not covered in reliable sources that would not be a reason to exclude the Israeli issues with biased language if they were covered in reliable sources; that would be an example of

2369:

The topic is certainly notable and worth having an article for. I was the first to tag for unbalance in my patrol, but that is not the same thing as requiring deletion. Instead the article needs work, probably pruning to improve balance.

2590:, is this a joke??? It astounds (but doesn't surprise) me to see such a well-referenced and undoubtedly notable article nominated for deletion. Neutrality concerns are not cause for deletion and should be worked out on the talk page. 839:

subject better known to the laymen is trying to trash it , hoping the WP mob will do their "best" for their dirty job to work as intended. Disgraceful chutzpah but to no surprise at all. WP is nothing more than social media after all.

211: 2071:

As for the issues, we have covered those; though if I may ask you a question, would you support including reliable sources documenting the issues with language bias that Israel faces, and not just the issues that Palestine faces? --

1435:

distributing the results of their analysis of what they see as pro-Palestinian bias, whereas there are close to zero Palestinian official or unofficial bodies doing the opposite, and little of that material gets into the mainstream.

2155:: the nominator admitted that he proposed this after running out of patience to resolve the content dispute. This project needs more editors who are willing to invest the time needed to achieve consensus in difficult areas. 2165:, which covers four territories under occupation, the nomination did not reference that there are existing sub-articles for the legal/political status of three of those four individual territories (those statuses being: 1872:

Question: What is the benefit of moving it from mainspace to either draft or userspace (and is there a meaningful difference between the two)? Why is it better to be edited outside of mainspace rather than in mainspace?

1558:. I regard the gratuitous insinuation made in my regard in the AfD proposal to be offensive, and have asked it be withdrawn, and it is being hatted as 'off-topic', when indeed the abusive insinuation still stands there? 620:

Not satisfactory. What does ' an editor User:Nishidani (corrected text:) who strongly supports the Palestinian cause,' mean? What cause, wshose cause, because there are several,none of which I support, i.e. that of

320:. It has been the subject of constant, interminable, repetitive, unresolvable POV discussions on talk page ever since. A minor point is that the page when created was 162kb, which creator knew to be excessive 1964:

Third, it is not immaterial because this entire discussion is about whether the article meets NPOV guidelines; under the draftify policy guidelines, a page can be moved to draft space if three criteria are

485:

state. Creating a new article on a particular subset intersection (occupation & West Bank) of the conflict is not an excuse to place an article that diverges from NPOV in a severe fashion - a POVFORK.

1624:, no hint of the fact that the occupation began as a result of invasion by the armies of several neighboring states with the was goal of exterminating Israel. This lack of balance pervades the article. 1922:". Nishidani says that it is not possible to balance Israeli/Palestinian views in that section because there are no available Palestinian views on that topic. I had a quick look at what I think is the 1091:

comprising some 93.937% of the oPt. The topic overlap between both articles is significant (more so than the Jordan Valley for instance). POVFORKs are generally deleted or merged back into the parent.

481:

of several articles that pre-exist this article and cover the Israeli military administration in the West Bank (or in all of the occupied Palestinian territories) and which are in a reasonable

975:

subject that is the express focus of hundreds of thousands of reliable sources, while "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" is; therefor your theoretical articles do not have the same immense

345:- and obviously so. You can't have a POVFORK from multiple pages, and beyond that, this article is currently at 120 kB of readable prose. It cant be merged in to its parent article (which is 205: 137: 132: 1361:, as though it meant that for the 20 odd voices of known human rights/international law violations, the 'Israeli' justifications must be given equal weight, meaning that rather than 2559:

unhelpful to resolving the issues to be resolved here. Anyway, I see plenty of issues with the tone of the article, but an attempt to deny Palestinian existence is not one of them.

141: 124: 1530:

have met with no such deletionist urgency? That done, let outside editors whose views are unpredictable voice their views here. Otherwise they will be put off by an unfocused

164: 1318:

More or less; close enough that a closer could consider the three -ify !votes together, anyway. But I do think for the present article draftspace would be the better place.

1893:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIsraeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank&type=revision&diff=882027130&oldid=882025737

815: 259: 775: 171: 1724:

Insulting, dismissive comments about fellow editors do not help. You could AGF, failing that, I restate: The Six Day War began when Nasser pushed the UN out of

1458: 795: 1618:

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank began on 7 June 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to the present day.

566:

Why is the word 'resistance' placed in inverted commas, and what do you mean by that insinuation? Can you point to me anywhere where I wrote I support what

111: 1705:

19 years later, after which the occupation started, began with an Israeli strike over 19 airfield from El Arish to Cairo (400 kms away) and further west.

96: 684:

which certain administrators find to be unacceptable.". All the same, it has no bearing on these discussions and should probably be hidden in a box. --

755:

says. And when was the fact that someone has worked a great deal on an article, (or, in my case: a set of articles) something to be held against one?

311: 2036:

You misunderstood a comment and are now trying to justify your conclusion by grasping at straws. The article section uses reliable sources that are

128: 424:

feeling is not what determines NPOV on this website. As far as only defence, that is verging on a purposely untrue statement. Please dont do that.

1519:, etc.etc. while refusing to address a simple query,'what makes this article uniquely problematical when parallel articles on the same issue, 226: 920: 193: 948: 1133:

Pt and oPt (variant names) is defined by the Israeli occupation from 1967 onwards and covers that period - it is about the Israeli occupation.

283: 2016:? Point 3 is an utter distortion of my views on the talk page. It was protested that there was no attention to Israel's security needs, and 912: 908: 1365:, half of the article must cover justifications by various representatives of the occupying power. They haven't addressed the point raised 2100:—seems pretty balanced. Is there any text in the section that is wrong? Any text that should be added could be discussed on article talk. 916: 2517:. It is a common knowledge that the West Bank is a complex case, with Palestine being there on 40% of the West Bank territory under the 2239: 2092: 1923: 642: 587: 575: 120: 72: 2599: 2578: 2549: 2485: 2467: 2446: 2425: 2408: 2391: 2379: 2361: 2322: 2281: 2260: 2243: 2217: 2191: 2109: 2086: 2052: 2029: 2004: 1936: 1909: 1881: 1865: 1833: 1810: 1793: 1768: 1746: 1719: 1671: 1652: 1633: 1607: 1585: 1567: 1543: 1479:

Could editors not transform this into a repeat of the huge motherlode of argufying on the talk page? Making just one more policy link

1470: 1444: 1425: 1382: 1337: 1313: 1295: 1275: 1250: 1230: 1201: 1162: 1142: 1127: 1100: 1074: 1036: 1003: 960: 897: 848: 827: 807: 787: 764: 734: 698: 673: 658: 613: 599: 495: 455: 434: 416: 394: 367: 336: 66: 187: 2310: 646: 2531: 2205: 1920:

the section on bias in the language of the occupation is relevant in both directions, and including just Palestine's perspective

1106: 1084: 1024: 183: 2527: 2523: 2476:

What text in the article is a problem? Are 294 references not enough? Which of the references doesn't match minimum standards?

2174: 1918:

You have misunderstood Nishidani's comment. In your diff, despite the strange indent, I think Nishidani is responding to your "

924: 91: 84: 17: 2149:

of the article is POV (rather his claim relates to its content), which is the minimum required for the nomination to be valid.

1680:

occupation began as a result of invasion by the armies of several neighboring states with the was goal of exterminating Israel

638: 2068:

independent source would seriously consider the use of "suicide bomber" as opposed to "martyr" an issue in regards to bias.

233: 626: 571: 1820:

of dozens of articles on Palestinian terrorist incidents you write, did you fail to mention the context of the incident,

743:....there must be hundreds of village articles where I have contributed the greater part of the material in them ...my 477:- the article is written in essay form as an anti-occupation treatise. Furthermore, as the nominator points out, it is a 2514: 2510: 2502: 2170: 2162: 533: 279: 275: 247: 2289:

Many reliable sources in the article (and weekly news feeds) treat "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" as a topic so

105: 101: 2166: 2145:

fork nomination, yet it uses an unrelated content dispute as the rationale. The nominator has not claimed that the

1758:

matters of basic fact, and are apparently upset that your misimpressions are not relayed as though they were fact.

1492: 944: 936: 443: 2458:

approach, as mentioned above. The current status of this article doesn't match the minimum of Knowledge standards.

1687: 940: 2616: 2375: 932: 199: 42: 928: 590:

do etc? If you cannot do so, I take it that this is a deliberate attempt to smear me, and possibly reportable.

2506: 2256: 1149: 1110: 267: 2233:

the alleged editor who brought this ridiculous, politically motivated hack job of a deletion nomination. —

2187: 1950: 1524: 1408: 1396: 1347: 1042:

still does not change the principles I alluded to one whit. Nothing is to be gained about discussing the

844: 271: 2612: 2543: 2404: 2234: 1806: 1742: 1629: 1527: 1520: 1350: 1343: 609: 332: 38: 313:. The perspective of the page creators is relevant because the article was immediately tagged for POV 2371: 1737:

the Jewish State. POINT IS: the article is written to make Israel look like an unprovoked aggressor.

1488: 976: 860: 521: 317: 287: 2416:: This in not a POV fork. It a major topic for a stand-alone article, with manty available sources. 2309:

the opinions of experts. Any unsourced personal feelings should be removed without trying to use an

2575: 2442: 2294: 2025: 1829: 1715: 1563: 1539: 1440: 1378: 1334: 1272: 1227: 1071: 1000: 894: 654: 595: 516: 219: 2595: 2481: 2463: 2421: 2356: 2318: 2298: 2252: 2201: 2105: 2048: 1958: 1932: 1876: 1761: 1645: 1578: 1496: 1155: 1120: 823: 803: 783: 666: 474: 427: 360: 263: 255: 515:

essay.You can see at the talk page the discussion about serious problems that this article have

2434: 2303:

essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)

2269: 2213: 2197: 2183: 2083: 2001: 1906: 1861: 1821: 1789: 1706: 1667: 1603: 1516: 1484: 1466: 1422: 1404: 1400: 1292: 1247: 1198: 1138: 1096: 1080: 1051: 1032: 956: 840: 695: 491: 478: 451: 413: 391: 324: 243: 80: 31:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2611:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

37:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2535: 2400: 2277: 1802: 1778: 1738: 1729: 1625: 1483:

is not an answer. It justs adds to the speciously impressive flurry of vague flag-waving of

1457:'s annexation plan (including a surrender-or-transfer ultimatum) all over the article (e.g. 1454: 1309: 1016: 760: 730: 605: 556:'two editors who strongly support Palestinian "resistance," User:Nableezy and User:Nishidani 529: 350: 328: 1725: 984:

AfD, rather than going off into the weeds of speculation about articles that don't exist.

874: 2208:

covers the West Bank+EJ+Gaza Strip - the West Bank comprising some 93%+ of the territory.

2091:

I infer there is no egregious text in the article as none has been quoted. I just reread

1822:

31 Palestinians shot, starting with firing on a funeral cortege, in the period just prior

2561: 2438: 2142: 2021: 1825: 1711: 1559: 1535: 1531: 1500: 1436: 1374: 1358: 1320: 1258: 1213: 1057: 1010: 986: 880: 650: 591: 482: 299: 57: 2200:

nomination (DEL5), by its very nature, relates to the content of the article. So does

546:

Discussion of possible personal attacks in the deletion proposal. Hatting as off-topic

2591: 2477: 2459: 2455: 2417: 2399:: not a POV fork; suitable for a stand-alone topic. Plenty of sources are available. 2388: 2336: 2314: 2182:

The article’s development needs to continue, but this is not the way to go about it.

2101: 2044: 1928: 1801:

since the topic is covered in more depth and in a less POV fashion on existing pages.

1512: 1508: 1504: 1480: 1450: 1392: 1020: 819: 799: 779: 752: 744: 740: 680: 512: 508: 307: 295: 2518: 2350: 2209: 2073: 1991: 1896: 1857: 1816:

If you are ‘ascutely aware of the importance of NPOV phrasing in ledes',(?!!) why

1785: 1663: 1599: 1462: 1412: 1388: 1282: 1237: 1188: 1134: 1092: 1028: 952: 864: 685: 487: 447: 403: 381: 158: 2290: 2273: 1784:

first sentence certainly allows readers to read about that event if they like. -

1702: 1659: 1621: 1305: 1043: 756: 726: 525: 1817: 1658:

The issue can easily be resolved by adding "...began on 7 June 1967 during the

353:

search, if that were even necessary given the number of sources already cited,

2040:

from the protagonists—that is good! Who, apart from you, mentioned ethnicity?

2313:. Those advocating TNT/userfy/draftify have not given a policy-based reason. 1304:

The delete vote were for Userfy that is the same draftify as I understand --

1046:

analysis of an article which does not exist and which nobody is proposing in

2498: 2097: 1088: 346: 251: 931:) administrative/unit lines. After that split, do we do (cities/villages) 1642:

Mostly because that isnt what happened? But sure, Ill add six-day war.

2454:

Again and again, the same problem of adhering to WP:NPOV combined with

923:? Note this isn't an arbitrary division - this matches Israeli civil ( 747:

of these articles is worth exactly 0, as we all know. That is in fact

634: 583: 2272:

for setting out so clearly why this nomination is without merit. --

1732:

which, as Israel had formally warned Egypt, would be regarded as a

863:

used in sources by and large, if we look at the entire universe of

1117:. Please dont misrepresent the situation, it is quite unbecoming. 630: 622: 579: 567: 2251:- The article that directly embraces this topic is indeed a must. 2607:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1087:

which is about the Israeli occupation in the oPt overall - the

355:

would disabuse somebody of the notion this is not its own topic

1357:

Several editors strongly upset by the article keep harping on

304:

corrected text:) who strongly supports the Palestinian cause

1957:

been brought up as part of an argument that the article is

921:

Israeli occupation of the eastern West Bank (Jordan Valley)

1707:

Jordan's West Bank forces, under unified Egyptian command

294:

an editor who strongly supports Palestinian "resistance,"

1407:

is not meet, and seeking to meet it is not an example of

949:

Israeli occupation of the al-Masri family home in Rafidia

286:

and others. It was created 4 months ago in violation of

2345: 2017: 2013: 2010: 1892: 1555: 1366: 511:.The sources were cherry-picked to presented one sided 473:. This article is a rather obvious NOT fail. Notably - 321: 314: 154: 150: 146: 1453:

and reflect non-mainstream sources. You wouldn't want

913:

Israeli occupation of the central West Bank (Binyamin)

909:

Israeli occupation of the northern West Bank (Samaria)

720:

activist in South−Africa saying that the West Bank is

218: 1824:

to Meisner's killing while on patrol? Pull the other.

2020:the text mentioned these 32 times. No one replied. 1728:

as the preliminary move necessary to blockading the

1113:. And that article is not, as you repeatedly claim, 917:

Israeli occupation of the southern West Bank (Judea)

1710:something, a bad move in cognitive science. Sigh. 873:has never been in the history of this project an 45:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2619:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1449:We reflect the mainstream, it is not our job to 814:Note: This discussion has been included in the 794:Note: This discussion has been included in the 774:Note: This discussion has been included in the 260:Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 2305:" but the many reliable sources in the article 2177:). The topic of this article completes the set. 1975:The article does not meet the required standard 1115:about the Israeli occupation in the oPt overall 1079:The relevant argument is this article being a 816:list of Palestine-related deletion discussions 1281:issues, it can be returned to main-space? -- 929:Binyamin regional brigade on Hebrew Knowledge 776:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 232: 8: 2349:comparing the article on Jan. 25 just after 1856:major aspect of the international dynamic. - 1027:(which the West Bank is the major part of). 112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 1978:There is no evidence of active improvement. 796:list of Israel-related deletion discussions 813: 793: 773: 541: 519: 2528:List of prisons in the State of Palestine 1371:the facts and mechanisms of an occupation 1019:- as the occupation of the lower-Western 442:Which is more or less the definition of 2330:: It's definitely not a delete, as the 544: 2302: 1919: 1554:Could some neutral administer examine 980:the content that is in the purview of 1395:. As for the rest, nobody is seeking 1150:click the link and see for themselves 284:West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord 7: 643:Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine 588:Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine 121:Israeli occupation of the West Bank 73:Israeli occupation of the West Bank 1972:The topic has some potential merit 24: 2532:Racism in the State of Palestine 2206:Occupied Palestinian Territories 1107:Occupied Palestinian territories 1085:Occupied Palestinian territories 1025:Occupied Palestinian territories 97:Introduction to deletion process 2524:Crime in the State of Palestine 2175:Annexation of the Golan Heights 925:Mateh Binyamin Regional Council 518:--18:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 246:of existing articles including 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 639:Palestinian National Authority 1: 2600:03:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC) 2579:21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 2550:20:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 2486:22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 2468:19:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 2161:: In pointing to the article 1620:No link to or mention of the 945:Israeli occupation of Rafidia 937:Israli occupation of Qabatiya 627:Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades 572:Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades 67:17:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC) 2515:Israeli Civil Administration 2511:Israeli Military Governorate 2503:Israeli-occupied territories 2447:18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 2426:15:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 2409:09:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 2392:07:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 2380:03:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 2362:19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2323:08:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2282:08:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2261:04:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2244:03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2218:07:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2192:23:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 2171:Annexation of East Jerusalem 2163:Israeli occupied territories 2110:22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2087:10:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2053:09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2030:09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 2005:09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 1937:08:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 1910:06:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 1882:22:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1866:20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1834:22:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1811:21:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1794:21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1769:21:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1747:21:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1720:20:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1672:20:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1653:18:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1634:18:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1608:17:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1586:16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1568:14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1544:12:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1471:10:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1445:10:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1426:09:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1383:09:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1338:09:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1314:09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1296:09:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1276:09:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1251:09:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1231:08:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1202:06:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1163:18:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1143:18:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1128:17:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1101:09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1075:09:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1037:09:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 1004:08:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 972:the article in question here 961:06:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 941:Israeli occupation of Balata 898:02:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 849:22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 828:18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 808:18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 788:18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 765:21:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 735:21:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 699:09:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 674:21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 659:13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 614:21:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 600:20:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 496:17:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 456:10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 435:16:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 417:10:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 395:07:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 368:17:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 337:15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 280:Israeli Civil Administration 276:Israeli Military Governorate 248:Israeli-occupied territories 2497:- clear case of WP:FORK of 939:? And then (neighborhoods) 933:Israeli occupation of Jenin 663:lol, same question for me. 576:Palestinian suicide bombers 87:(AfD)? Read these primers! 2636: 2167:Blockade of the Gaza Strip 2042:What text is so egregious? 1399:. What is being sought is 1015:I suggest you re-do your 2609:Please do not modify it. 2141:: it is positioned as a 34:Please do not modify it. 2507:Palestinian territories 2501:(specifically area C), 2153:Motivated by impatience 1111:Palestinian territories 268:Palestinian territories 2009:Point 2. Doesn't meet 1698: 1682: 1525:Human rights in Russia 1348:Human rights in Russia 558: 272:Judea and Samaria area 1693: 1688:1948 Arab–Israeli War 1678: 1534:pastiche developing. 1528:Human rights in Tibet 1521:Human rights in China 1351:Human rights in Tibet 1344:Human rights in China 554: 85:Articles for deletion 2433:per the analysis of 2131:: The nomination is: 2093:the language section 1363:facts and mechanisms 318:User:Graeme Bartlett 2268:. I am grateful to 2139:Procedurally flawed 1662:, when Israel..." - 1493:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 1050:AfD. It's still a 444:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 2293:is satisfied with 2014:required standards 264:Area C (West Bank) 256:Israeli settlement 1836: 1771: 1655: 1616:The lede begins: 1588: 1391:need to remember 1165: 1130: 1109:is a redirect to 1052:strawman argument 947:? and after that 830: 810: 790: 712: 711: 676: 537: 524:comment added by 437: 370: 102:Guide to deletion 92:How to contribute 65: 2627: 2452:Delete or Userfy 2348: 2229:the article and 2080: 2077: 1998: 1995: 1903: 1900: 1818:here to cite one 1815: 1782: 1764: 1759: 1730:Straits of Tiran 1648: 1643: 1581: 1576: 1459:Haaretz coverage 1455:Bezalel Smotrich 1419: 1416: 1289: 1286: 1244: 1241: 1195: 1192: 1158: 1153: 1123: 1118: 1014: 927:) and military ( 692: 689: 669: 664: 647:the BDS movement 542: 430: 425: 410: 407: 388: 385: 363: 358: 237: 236: 222: 174: 162: 144: 82: 64: 62: 55: 36: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2617:deletion review 2372:Graeme Bartlett 2359: 2344: 2311:AfD for cleanup 2242: 2078: 2075: 1996: 1993: 1951:WP:FALSEBALANCE 1924:article section 1901: 1898: 1879: 1776: 1762: 1726:Sharm el-Sheikh 1646: 1579: 1417: 1414: 1409:WP:FALSEBALANCE 1397:WP:FALSEBALANCE 1287: 1284: 1242: 1239: 1193: 1190: 1156: 1121: 1008: 905:query / comment 713: 690: 687: 667: 547: 428: 408: 405: 386: 383: 361: 179: 170: 135: 119: 116: 79: 76: 58: 56: 50:The result was 43:deletion review 32: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2633: 2631: 2622: 2621: 2603: 2602: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2553: 2552: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2471: 2470: 2449: 2428: 2411: 2394: 2382: 2364: 2355: 2325: 2284: 2263: 2246: 2238: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2156: 2150: 2133: 2132: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2069: 2064: 2063: 2056: 2055: 2033: 2032: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1954: 1945:A few points. 1940: 1939: 1913: 1912: 1885: 1884: 1875: 1869: 1868: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1750: 1749: 1699: 1691: 1683: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1637: 1636: 1611: 1610: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1477: 1461:), would you? 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1355: 1342:So, in sum, 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1205: 1204: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 964: 963: 901: 900: 869: 868: 852: 851: 832: 831: 811: 791: 770: 769: 768: 767: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 661: 617: 616: 564: 549: 548: 545: 540: 539: 538: 498: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 440: 439: 438: 398: 397: 372: 371: 306:, one of whom 300:User:Nishidani 298:and an editor 240: 239: 176: 115: 114: 109: 99: 94: 77: 75: 70: 48: 47: 27: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2632: 2620: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2551: 2547: 2546: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2493: 2492: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2450: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2429: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2383: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2368: 2365: 2363: 2360: 2358: 2352: 2347: 2343:met. Look at 2342: 2338: 2333: 2329: 2326: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2285: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2264: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253:GizzyCatBella 2250: 2247: 2245: 2241: 2236: 2235:Malik Shabazz 2232: 2228: 2225: 2224: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2127: 2126: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2081: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1988: 1984: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1963: 1960: 1955: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1894: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1871: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1854: 1853: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1780: 1775: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1734:causus belli. 1731: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1697: 1692: 1689: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1593: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1489:WP:PROPAGANDA 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1433: 1427: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1333: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1290: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1271: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1261: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1226: 1225: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1196: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021:Jordan Valley 1018: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1002: 1001: 999: 998: 995: 992: 989: 983: 978: 977:WP:Notability 973: 968: 967: 966: 965: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 903: 902: 899: 896: 895: 893: 892: 889: 886: 883: 876: 871: 870: 867:on the topic. 866: 862: 861:WP:COMMONNAME 857: 854: 853: 850: 846: 842: 837: 834: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 812: 809: 805: 801: 797: 792: 789: 785: 781: 777: 772: 771: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 737: 736: 732: 728: 723: 718: 715: 714: 700: 697: 694: 693: 682: 681:USER:Nableezy 678: 677: 675: 671: 670: 662: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 619: 618: 615: 611: 607: 603: 602: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 563: 560: 559: 557: 553: 552: 551: 550: 543: 535: 531: 527: 523: 517: 514: 510: 506: 502: 499: 497: 493: 489: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 465: 464: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 436: 432: 431: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 415: 412: 411: 400: 399: 396: 393: 390: 389: 379: 376: 375: 374: 373: 369: 365: 364: 356: 352: 348: 344: 341: 340: 339: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 319: 315: 312: 309: 305: 301: 297: 296:User:Nableezy 293: 289: 288:WP:PROPAGANDA 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 235: 231: 228: 225: 221: 217: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 185: 182: 181:Find sources: 177: 173: 169: 166: 160: 156: 152: 148: 143: 139: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 117: 113: 110: 107: 103: 100: 98: 95: 93: 90: 89: 88: 86: 81: 74: 71: 69: 68: 63: 61: 53: 46: 44: 40: 35: 29: 28: 26: 19: 2608: 2606: 2587: 2571: 2568: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2544: 2537: 2536: 2519:Oslo Accords 2494: 2451: 2435:Onceinawhile 2430: 2413: 2396: 2384: 2366: 2354: 2340: 2331: 2327: 2306: 2295:WP:SUSTAINED 2286: 2270:Onceinawhile 2265: 2248: 2230: 2226: 2184:Onceinawhile 2158: 2152: 2146: 2138: 2128: 2074: 2041: 2037: 1992: 1897: 1874: 1760: 1733: 1694: 1679: 1644: 1617: 1595: 1577: 1413: 1389:USER:Icewhiz 1370: 1362: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1283: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1257: 1238: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1189: 1184: 1154: 1119: 1114: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1058: 1056: 1047: 996: 993: 990: 987: 985: 981: 971: 904: 890: 887: 884: 881: 879: 855: 836:Obvious keep 835: 748: 745:WP:OWNership 721: 716: 686: 665: 561: 555: 520:— Preceding 504: 500: 470: 466: 426: 404: 382: 377: 359: 342: 303: 291: 241: 229: 223: 215: 208: 202: 196: 190: 180: 167: 78: 59: 51: 49: 33: 30: 25: 2401:K.e.coffman 2301:refers to " 2299:WP:NOTESSAY 2202:WP:NOTESSAY 2038:independent 1959:WP:BALANCED 1803:E.M.Gregory 1779:E.M.Gregory 1739:E.M.Gregory 1703:Six-Day War 1690:which runs: 1660:Six Day War 1626:E.M.Gregory 1622:Six Day War 1497:WP:NOTESSAY 1476:newspapers. 606:E.M.Gregory 475:WP:NOTESSAY 329:E.M.Gregory 310:S the page 206:free images 2297:coverage. 2198:WP:POVFORK 2159:Misleading 1986:Palestine? 1696:Palestine' 1517:WP:BALANCE 1485:WP:POVFORK 1405:WP:BALANCE 1401:WP:BALANCE 1081:WP:POVFORK 722:much worse 645:, or even 604:corrected. 586:, and the 479:WP:POVFORK 325:WP:POVFORK 244:WP:POVFORK 242:Page is a 60:Sandstein 2613:talk page 2538:GreyShark 2499:West Bank 2439:Nishidani 2346:this diff 2147:existence 2098:Pallywood 2022:Nishidani 2018:I replied 1826:Nishidani 1712:Nishidani 1560:Nishidani 1536:Nishidani 1437:Nishidani 1375:Nishidani 1354:moreover. 1089:West Bank 1017:WP:BEFORE 1011:Snow Rise 717:Snow keep 651:Nishidani 592:Nishidani 351:WP:BEFORE 347:West Bank 252:West Bank 39:talk page 2615:or in a 2592:Elspamo4 2478:Johnuniq 2460:Tritomex 2418:Dimadick 2337:Johnuniq 2315:Johnuniq 2231:sanction 2102:Johnuniq 2045:Johnuniq 1929:Johnuniq 1763:nableezy 1647:nableezy 1580:nableezy 1387:You and 1185:Draftify 1157:nableezy 1122:nableezy 875:WP:AIPIA 820:Bakazaka 800:Bakazaka 780:Bakazaka 739:As for 668:nableezy 641:and the 534:contribs 522:unsigned 429:nableezy 362:nableezy 165:View log 106:glossary 41:or in a 2534:, etc. 2495:Comment 2351:Icewhiz 2210:Icewhiz 2143:WP:DEL5 1858:Darouet 1786:Darouet 1664:Darouet 1600:Darouet 1532:WP:TLDR 1501:WP:NPOV 1463:Icewhiz 1359:WP:NPOV 1135:Icewhiz 1093:Icewhiz 1029:Icewhiz 953:Icewhiz 749:exactly 562:Comment 505:Userfy 488:Icewhiz 483:WP:NPOV 471:Userfy 448:Icewhiz 378:Comment 212:WP refs 200:scholar 138:protect 133:history 83:New to 2456:WP:OWN 2274:NSH001 2084:(talk) 2002:(talk) 1907:(talk) 1513:WP:WAX 1509:WP:OWN 1505:WP:TNT 1481:WP:RGW 1451:WP:RGW 1423:(talk) 1393:WP:WAX 1306:Shrike 1293:(talk) 1248:(talk) 1199:(talk) 841:--TMCk 757:Huldra 753:WP:OWN 741:WP:OWN 727:Huldra 696:(talk) 637:, the 635:Tanzim 584:Tanzim 526:Shrike 513:WP:POV 509:WP:TNT 501:Delete 467:Delete 414:(talk) 392:(talk) 308:WP:OWN 184:Google 142:delete 2545:dibra 2332:topic 2240:Stalk 2079:COBOL 2011:whose 1997:COBOL 1902:COBOL 1418:COBOL 1411:. -- 1288:COBOL 1243:COBOL 1194:COBOL 865:WP:RS 856:Keep. 751:what 691:COBOL 631:Fatah 623:Hamas 580:Fatah 568:Hamas 409:COBOL 387:COBOL 227:JSTOR 188:books 172:Stats 159:views 151:watch 147:links 16:< 2596:talk 2588:Keep 2513:and 2482:talk 2464:talk 2443:talk 2431:Keep 2422:talk 2414:Keep 2405:talk 2397:Keep 2389:Zero 2385:Keep 2376:talk 2367:Keep 2328:Keep 2319:talk 2291:WP:N 2287:Keep 2278:talk 2266:Keep 2257:talk 2249:Keep 2227:Keep 2214:talk 2188:talk 2129:Keep 2106:talk 2049:talk 2026:talk 1965:met. 1933:talk 1862:talk 1830:talk 1807:talk 1790:talk 1743:talk 1716:talk 1701:The 1668:talk 1630:talk 1604:talk 1596:Keep 1564:talk 1540:talk 1467:talk 1441:talk 1379:talk 1367:here 1310:talk 1139:talk 1097:talk 1048:this 1044:WP:N 1033:talk 982:this 957:talk 943:and 935:and 845:talk 824:talk 804:talk 784:talk 761:talk 731:talk 679:For 655:talk 610:talk 596:talk 530:talk 507:Per 492:talk 452:talk 343:Keep 333:talk 220:FENS 194:news 155:logs 129:talk 125:edit 52:keep 2357:ich 2341:not 2307:are 1895:-- 1877:ich 1556:his 1523:, 1346:, 1152:. 1105:Um 1083:of 503:or 469:or 316:by 292:two 290:by 234:TWL 163:– ( 2598:) 2548:) 2530:, 2526:, 2509:, 2505:, 2484:) 2466:) 2445:) 2424:) 2407:) 2378:) 2321:) 2280:) 2259:) 2216:) 2204:. 2196:A 2190:) 2173:, 2169:, 2108:) 2076:No 2051:) 2028:) 1994:No 1935:) 1899:No 1864:) 1832:) 1809:) 1792:) 1767:- 1745:) 1718:) 1670:) 1651:- 1632:) 1606:) 1584:- 1566:) 1542:) 1515:. 1511:, 1507:, 1503:, 1499:, 1495:, 1491:, 1487:, 1469:) 1443:) 1415:No 1381:) 1312:) 1285:No 1240:No 1191:No 1161:- 1141:) 1126:- 1099:) 1035:) 959:) 951:? 919:, 915:, 911:, 847:) 826:) 818:. 806:) 798:. 786:) 778:. 763:) 733:) 688:No 672:- 657:) 633:, 629:, 625:, 612:) 598:) 582:, 578:, 574:, 570:, 536:) 532:• 494:) 454:) 446:. 433:- 406:No 384:No 366:- 335:) 282:, 278:, 274:, 270:, 266:, 262:, 258:, 254:, 250:, 214:) 157:| 153:| 149:| 145:| 140:| 136:| 131:| 127:| 54:. 2594:( 2572:w 2569:o 2566:n 2563:S 2542:( 2480:( 2462:( 2441:( 2420:( 2403:( 2374:( 2317:( 2276:( 2255:( 2237:/ 2212:( 2186:( 2104:( 2047:( 2024:( 1961:. 1953:. 1931:( 1860:( 1828:( 1805:( 1788:( 1781:: 1777:@ 1741:( 1714:( 1666:( 1628:( 1602:( 1562:( 1538:( 1465:( 1439:( 1377:( 1331:w 1328:o 1325:n 1322:S 1308:( 1269:w 1266:o 1263:n 1260:S 1224:w 1221:o 1218:n 1215:S 1137:( 1095:( 1068:w 1065:o 1062:n 1059:S 1031:( 1013:: 1009:@ 997:w 994:o 991:n 988:S 955:( 891:w 888:o 885:n 882:S 843:( 822:( 802:( 782:( 759:( 729:( 653:( 608:( 594:( 528:( 490:( 450:( 331:( 327:. 302:( 238:) 230:· 224:· 216:· 209:· 203:· 197:· 191:· 186:( 178:( 175:) 168:· 161:) 123:( 108:) 104:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Israeli occupation of the West Bank - Knowledge

Index