Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 19 November 2020

West Bank bantustans

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

West Bank bantustans (edit | 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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly a WP:POVFORK of Israel and the apartheid analogy that deals with the subject in non neutral matter without giving proper contest. --Shrike (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  Even if a proper article could exist on this topic this should be deleted per WP:TNT --Shrike (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete, this is a POVFORK of existing articles (West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord, Trump peace plan,State of Palestine, other geographic articles) framed in the extremist language of Israel and the apartheid analogy. The article's title using "bantustans" is appropriating an ethnically derogatory term, Palestinians are not Bantu peoples. The article is a not a dictionary fail being a collection of such usages applied to various different plans and agreements. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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. Jeff Halper in Haaretz wrote in 2018, "The 'Two-state Solution' only ever meant a big Israel ruling over a Palestinian bantustan."

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Keep - per rationale presented above - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

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". 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)

References

1. ACRI 2014, p. 6: footnote to "enclave-based justice." sfn error: no target: CITEREFACRI2014 (help)
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.

• Delete. The article contains no novel information that couldn’t be covered in the West Bank article. It purely seeks to express an anti-Israel bias. It’s completely non-NPOV and should be deleted. Île flottante (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noted canvassing by editor Jr8825 at Talk:Israel#Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  Its not forbidden as its done in neutral matter and in open forum Shrike (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration would have been neutral, where it was posted is clearly not neutral.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  I've responded to this accusation at my talk page. If any editors are concerned about this, please discuss with me there so we can keep this AfD focused on the article. @Selfstudier: forgetting that forum is an indication of my lack of regular participation in this area, not a lack of good faith. Thanks for reminding me of it, I'll leave a notification there straight away. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 11:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

I would invite you to do so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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. Lev¡vich 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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)
• Redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy - 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. Lev¡vich 17:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete obvious fork. Sir Joseph 16:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the very name of this article is an extreme example of POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  Shrike, which sources exactly? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @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)

    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)

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)

• Delete as this is a WP:POVFORK of Palestinian National Authority (PNA), that since 2006 only controls areas A and B of the West Bank, so Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank is more or less the same. Referring to the Palestinian National Authority as a "bantustan", let alone "bantustans" plural, is pejorative. The article is a recently created WP:TNT mess of criticisms of the PNA, both in its present form and in possible further peace deals. In addition to the PNA article, Misplaced Pages has a multitude of additional articles covering the same topic from different angles that are not a TNT mess.--Hippeus (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  That would be WP:OR, and incorrect. If you want to understand what the PNA is, see the terms of its establishment here: " shall transfer authority as specified in this Agreement from the Israeli military government and its Civil Administration to the Palestinian Authority, hereby established". It basically the equivalent of the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, or at best, the Government of Israel. Why shouldn't the Palestinian people have a separate article for their local government and their territory, like every other people represented in our project? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on POV Other than two sources, the dissertation by an ISM member and a source about Said written by his nephew, the POV issues is not in what is written in the article but what must be left out by the article creators framing of the issue. The bantustans framing is used by member of only one side of the argument. By pulling this one side out of the full argument you create an article that is just the POV of one side. Just looking at the Oslo section "The failure of the subsequent 2000 Camp David Summit has been blamed on the inability to unwind the bantustans" does anyone really believe that is the full and neutral understanding of the Camp David summit. The issue will be that the neutral POV of Camp David wont mention bantustans at all and will just duplicate much better neutral article content.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Keep and Rename to Palestine Archipelago. Other than the name itself, I can't see any severe NPOV issues in the article itself. The subject is notable in its own right going by the sourcing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Everything is already said above.Tritomex (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, but consider renaming. Most of the fork claims appearing to be objecting to the name, not the content. If the name is a problem, start a move discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates