Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)

1970:, etc. POV Magnet or POV Warring is not a reason to delete. All articles have the potential to become POV magnets, it only depends on the ferocity of the editors to push their own pov. "POV Title" does not apply because the phrase itself is POV, not the article. Policy says, "All Knowledge (XXG) articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." However, one must realize that certain titles will result in POV articles. POV Title is simply a simplified way of saying, "the article is POV because the title is POV." In this case, the title is POV but the article can be NPOV. The phrase was coined by a Jewish person, Uri Davis, and used by Desmond Tutu. I don't see how they are "leftist" media, nor nonnotable. 1844:, not because I agree with the "apartheid" label, but because it's a term that's with us for better or worse, Knowledge (XXG) did not invent it. I do not agree that the article is original research, rather it presents the term in its current incarnation, both pro and con. Sometimes things that we dislike need to see the light of day, and we needn't fear that it will demonize Israel because Israel and what it symbolizes can withstand futile and false assaults against its good name. Let's face this head on, rather than run away from it. P.S. This phrase can join other slurs like 490:). Were we to be using the terminology as descriptive in an article, I'd object; here, though, our article is apropos of a trope that is increasingly common (to be sure, if the article is not/cannot be properly sourced w/r/to the frequency with which the term is used/the prominence of certain users, deletion would be in order). The article oughtn't to include original research, of course; instead of attempting to prove the correctness of the phrase, it ought to detail the arguments of others who make claims for and against the phrase. We don't take 2905:: For my part, I think apartheid has little in common with Israel and is grotesque oversimplification being used for dramatic effect, but enough notable people find some value in the term that is definitely deserving of an article. Besides which, it's well sourced and balanced. If you feel it is a purely propaganda term, this article would be the perfect place to debunk it using lots of sources. It will be a hotspot for vandalism and edit wars, but as long as everyone sticks to the facts (and doesn't delete any) we should be fine. 2853:: Earlier in discussion, it was described as a 'rabid, polemical, revisionist fringe term'. If this is true (and it may well be) It is perhaps inevitable that any article on the Arab-Israeli politics will attract controversy. But what is important is that we do not react to the clamouring of one group or another - down this route lies the dangers of revisionism and the erosion of Knowledge (XXG) as a valuable source. Knowledge (XXG) has rules. Let's simply stick to them. 2820:: Serendipity (clicking the random article link) brought me to this article. Reading through it, I can't see any justification for it's deletion. The neutral point of view is admirabily adhered to, not least because the first line of the article concedes that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is contoversial to some. As for those who claim the article is original research; this is not so. Many scholarly articles by Zionists, Jews, Arabs or neither exist online and in print. 3942:, certainly notable, certainly a sensitive topic. There are verifiable sources to use and scope of the term. While there can be discussion, the article is written carefully to avoid strong POV. In fact, as of the version I read, it is very close to NPOV, unless the readers have very strong POV themselves. As for merging, it is too early to tell. It may very well become a subarticle for a more comprehensive look at modern apartheid. 4485:

do you draw the line? How many Google hits are "meaningful"? Just as a little experiment, I decided to plug various terms followed by "apartheid" into Google and see what happens. All of the phrases I put in were in quotation marks, for example "israeli apartheid," "islamic apartheid," etc. (I think the absence of quotation marks is what results in statements on the main AfD page that a certain search revealed millions of hits.)

4356:]. The article then points out Israeli alternative phrases for "apartheid" as more examples of what the Israeli writer is calling "word-laundering". But the key thing is that both Haaretz articles cite the term as widely accepted, not whether they are for or against. My point is the notability of the phrase, not whether the term is wrong or right. And here is my original comment before it was hijacked, for the record: 2935:. Taking a propaganda expression and put it as a title of an article, will only make it another constant battlefield. The title itself says it all, no matter what is written inside the article. This AfD debate is just a "prelude" of what we gonna see around such title. Viriditas suggested already where relevant contents can be placed instead of openning another energy consuming non-encyclopedic title. 3920:. Are you going to delete that article too? This is a strong Keep and its a good, balanced article that is informative for the debates on both sides of the fence, and more imprortantly it passes the notablity requirement. I studied Pol. Sci. and the term is widely used in academia. The phrase is even widely used in Israeli political discourse. Take a look at the book by the title of 1787:

present all the views in the body of the article. There is nothing to fear. I think it is too early to ask that the article go to "Request for Comment". If you and Homey can calm down and debate it rationally then it can be resolved here. Let us ask other more seasoned editors to give their views here first. Stay calm, everyone. IZAK 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

3930:. Infact it seems it just becaues the slogan so effective in capturing the image of this POV that critics wants to censor it all together. This is unacceptable. We report on all views and issues, provided they are notable. The articles on any subject should be balanced and present all sides of the articles subject given the same criteria. 3021:

polarization, which this page accounts for. Hence, BLANK VOTE! (I hope presumed pro-Israeli users understand that this is a concession from my part, which is probably doomed to failure for the most radicals of them... I hope pro-Palestinian users understand that we have to find the best way to solve this problem, which is mainly radical

2089:

editors here don't understand that. However, if a discussion about the elements of apartheid supposedly apparent in Israel's domestic policy were created, then I would support merging Israeli apartheid (the phrase) into a section in the larger article about the elements. Then, it would be relevent to the greater dicussion.

4752:

is so poor, for unknown reasons, has lead to the creation of this article. In any cases, I tend to agree that this constitutes a fork, but I'm curious about what prompted the creation of this article in the first place? It might be undue speculation (in this case accept in advance my deep apologies),

2332:

Because as far as I can see, no change in policy (probably a more applicable term than "practice") is being proposed. You have not shown me anything that says that this parenthetical in the title is contrary to current policy. (And you don't need to refer to my quip about "maybe it's time for a new

1880:

Homey: Your point is well-taken. Yet, I do not see the need for stridency. Israel is a democracy that allows freedom of speech and is mature and strong enough to allow people to voice their views, even when they are repulsive. So far, the only person they banned in Israel was Rabbi Kahane, because he

1451:

with all due respect we are all adults and therefore we can all use our brains and judge this matter accordingly. Why should it be deleted? does it not go against the essence of free speech, i think it does, this is widely believed by many people and is wrote in leading articles, therefore i dont see

1368:

Guinnog, I understand that you want the article to stay. There are multiple reasons various people quoted for deleting this article (using wikipedia as soapbox, POV, pov fork, use of derogatory terms, etc.) You can see my reasons by my vote. As far as your name/content change thought experiment goes,

1358:

What article do you contend it is a fork of? The fact that it uses a term you think is derogatory is not grounds for deletion. I am sure if we had had wikipedia in the 70s or 80s we would have had people claiming the use of "apartheid" to descrive South Africa was "derogatory". They preferred to call

715:

notes, the phrase "Saudi apartheid" is not widely used (I would note that the comparison of Israel with South Africa partly arises from its historically close relations with SA during the SA apartheid years). Just because you disagree with the politics of a phrase, this doesnt change the significance

3750:

Well, this interesting. You vote to keep, making it marginally more likely that the article will remain, but you base that on the word "phrase" being in the title. Please note that if it does remain, the person who created the article says he will move the title to eliminate the word "phrase." At

3168:

Bwithh's links in the comments below go to notability, well established in my view. Neologisms are frowned upon because they are seldom notable. Reporting on something is certainly different than promoting it or from publishing it as original thought. This thought is quite well-established outside

1769:

is also not viable as the term "Israeli apartheid" predates that project by at least a dozen years and is intended to address much more than that. Instead of trying to ban the term opponents should be working to improve the article and make sure it's balanced and NPOV. Some who hate the term realise

1409:

I restored this discussion from the talk page as it seems germane to the debate. Apologies if this offends anyone. Humus, I think we could compromise with the right rename. Common, I can't see any POV or soapboxing in the article. If you agree it is a valid subject for an article, but have criticism

694:

I think it's fair to say that the concept of Saudi apartheid exists, and that concept can be dealt with in several articles. I distinguish the two by noting that this phrase is notable not solely for the message it conveys, but also for its prominent and frequent usage, as against the Saudi phrase,

4484:

As some others have said during the course of this discussion (either on the article's talk page or here, or both) there is too much reliance on Google searches to "prove" the notability of a term. Google hits may be indicative of something, but I am not sure what, and the other question is, where

4345:

Humus sapiens, please don't hijack my edits and present a false impression of my intentions and the content of the articles . Those were direct quotations from the articles - hence the quotation marks, not "made up headlines" (isn't obvious that lengthy sentences are not headlines?). You're the one

3879:

is basically what I was looking for but could not find, I suppose that is because it is archived and not linked directly from the main "conventions" page. It says an article title "may" be tagged "slogan" (or by extension, "phrase") on grounds of offensiveness. What I cannot figure out is whether

3020:

which I can talk of for having contributed quite a lot and having discussed with various users of the page — globally they are only three or four people who are willing to do other things in this page than depicting it as an evil movement). Using Knowledge (XXG) as such a platform will only lead to

1890:

I'm not saying that it is correct to use the term "Israeli apartheid" to describe the treatment of Israeli Arabs, personally I think the usage is problamatic. My point is that it is widely used in this way meaning that a merger wouldn't work. It's not for us to dictate how the phrase should be used

4757:

for constant controversy about very simple things; many users seem intent on only writing "Hamas are a bunch of baby killers evil fanatics" instead of neutrally explaining the creation of this terrorist group (which lift very important questions: can a terrorist group lead a state? so that's now a

4547:

you draw the line? "American apartheid" sure does get a lot of hits, so why isn't there a Knowledge (XXG) article about it? (At least, I did not find one.) I am not suggesting that there should be such an article, but does that mean that there is some "magic number" between 247,000 and 84,700?

2234:

Izak, see my "Question" above. After Homey changed it, I changed it back, but he reverted it. Now, there is a discussion (mostly between me and him) on the article's talk page over what the name should be, at the same time as there is this discussion here over whether the article should exist or

2150:

is a highly philo-Semitic organization. Oh, yes - and Jews are incapable of being anti-Semitic or even of favoring and publicizing terms cherished by anti-Semites. Sarcasm aside - I am not determining whether or not Davis is actually an anti-Semite. But you are quick to interpret Humus' mention of

761:

Israel officially opposed the apartheid system in South Africa, but was also against international sanctions against South Africa. There is a long history of military cooperation and trade between the two countries which continued through the 1980s when international sanctions against South Africa

609:

There may be a better place for this, but I don't know where. Homey has now re-titled this article so "phrase" is no longer in the title. I moved it back, he moved it back again. During the period this article is being considered for deletion, wouldn't it be reasonable for the title to at least

432:

Ben's point is definitely well-made, but I do want to commend Viriditas in any case for having spent time to research the article and the concomitant AfD; too often we (I include myself) participate in discussions here without having done the research we ought to have done, and it's always good to

128:

not an offensive phrase, but OR and POV magnet. The article is essentially about comparing the Israeli-Arab relations with South African aparthed. The comparisons are OR. In addition, this is unencyclopedic: let's put out verified sourced statements about what exactly the Israelis are doing to the

2412:

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Knowledge (XXG) should have a page devoted to this new

2297:

and there is nothing in there that prohibits a parenthetical to indicate that the subject of a title is a phrase as opposed to an actual thing, process, phenomenon or whatever. As I said on the article's talk page, the fact that parentheticals are discussed only in connection with disambiguation

1786:

To Zeq: This phrase exists and is very "popular" today (in my view it's unfortunate, but what can you do, we cannot control the universe). The phrase is coming up more and more in the media, academia, and in political debates, so it is a valid Knowledge (XXG) article, no question about it. It can

377:

Wouldn't your research findings be better served in the article on Israeli apartheid than here in the AfD. Isn't that what Knowledge (XXG) is for? The concept exists, wouldn't it be better to treat it in Knowledge (XXG) than to pretend that it is so offensive that it can not be even mentioned?

3915:

It is a legitimate POV and a notiable phrase that represents the POV. It is only offensive to critics. There are critical of every possible POV and every POV is offensive to someone. If we are going to start to delete articles on this basis then this is tantamount to censorhip and suppression of

3015:

and explaining where does this movement comes from, what has it done (bombings, but not only that), etc. The creation of such articles (as "Israeli apartheid" IMO appears inevitable as long as a whole bunch of users here — whom I completely respect the personal opinions — accepted to cease doing

2215:

Umm Homey: Regardless if you are right or wrong -- you should NOT have made a change to the title of this article in the MIDDLE of this heated vote and debate as presumably people who have been voting, particulalrly in the early stages, did so with the original title "Israeli apartheid (phrase)"

1921:

elete. We need no seperate page on this term. It was invented by (and is promulgated by) the leftist media. It does not have independent notability, although the article does a good job at showing how presumably "objective" media prefer sticking to propagandistic terminology when it comes to the

2088:

Because the article is showing the phrase as the object of discussion, not the elements of apartheid supposedly apparent in Israel's domestic policy. There needs to be a distinction between the phrase itself and the policies. They are two separate things to be discussed, and I think some of the

1961:

per Viriditas. "WHAT?!", you say? The fact that there are articles in the Jewish community that attack and denounce this phrase is evidence enough of its notability. If this phrase were dealt with in a NPOV manner, as all articles should, then it will not become a soapbox. WP:NOT a soapbox was

4562:

Maybe because Israeli apartheid is around 3x more than American apartheid. Also, note that people use Google Test in addition to the Scholarly Article-test and notable person test. Desmond Tutu, presumably a first hand experiencer of apartheid has used the phrase. I think he would konw about

4130:

unique hits for American apartheid and only 736 for South African apartheid. Global apartheid has 718. In Google Scholar it's American 2650 , South African 1330, and Global 625. (Some other Google numbers: British 28, European 59, Indian 71, Israeli 477, Arab 116, Ethnic 165, Gender 726,

3143:

I've done a few hours of research on Israeli apartheid, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel as that of a "racist apartheid

1316:, so the mere title of an article cannot be sufficient basis for calling it POV. What matters is whether the content is balanced. In the case of "Israeli apartheid", the article is quite neutral and well-researched. Please don't jump from "It offends me" to "It's POV". 4353:"To handle the settlement controversy politically, legally and ethically, Israel has developed a unique word-laundering system. To avoid the value judgment connoted by "occupied territories" or "liberated territories," Israel invented the term "administered territories." 3821:. Those words are epithets, but they're not epithets which purport to claim anything about the target group. The POV in those article titles is just a generic "this group is bad", but the POV in this one makes a much more specific claim. You can't really compare it with 816:

the article was being worked on to bring it into compliance with NPOV. The term is clearly a real one, there's little reason not to neccesarily have an article about it as long as you present the controversy over it. Let the peer review, and other editors work on it.

3178:

To be perfectly clear, without the word "(phrase)" in the title, it would be unacceptable. An article about the use of the phrase by others is fine and constructive. An article where Knowledge (XXG) itself uses the phrase in an ordinary context would violate NPOV.

737:

Don't throw rocks while in a glass house. As for "historically close relations with SA" - what's that supposed to mean? That Israelis spread their wicked apartheid to SA? To write a serious encyclopedia, we should distinguish between "wide usage" by propagandists and

2224:

as both serious POV-pushing and an unfair power-play (having the buttons to switch around redirects and titles of articles) by an admin. You need to take a deep breath methinks and take a few steps back and let the debate unfold in full BEFORE making final changes.

2187:- we see no need to qualify those as "(term)s" or "(word)s." It seems that quite a few of these delete votes are based on the idea that any suggestion that Israeli apartheid is happening is offensive to them; I don't find that to be a valid reason for deletion. -- 3667:

This interesting distinction between a bantustan and the apartheid regime is all to your honour, Pecher. I totally agree with you: Israel has nothing to do with apartheid, it just has a few bantustans. So what? Who cares? Apart from the United Nations, that is...

4295:"Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 3618:"Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine - Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 3055:- I'm not sure having well understood, but in any cases I don't think this is the place to judge an user's contributions to Knowledge (XXG) (especially when I'm one of the only neutral vote here, thus indicating that I do not want to play this dividing game!...) 4346:

who is soapboxing by hijacking edits. I'm merely showing the notability of the term in the media. Yes, the first quotation is from an article criticizes/condemns the term while acknowledging that it is being widely used. The second article actually criticizes

1565:/sigh Please check my talk page; Jay informed me that I had my vote in the wrong place. An ever so slight amount of research goes a long way in preventing oneself from 1) causing bad feeling 2) making unfounded accusations and 3) looking slightly foolish. -- 830:

it's pretty clear by now that there will not be consensus for deletion. If some people here think this term is actually being used, let it be kept, but we must remove the OR and as much POV as possible, and be absolutely clear that this article is belongs in

1756:

we also have "Israeli apartheid week" on many campuses and the phrase has been used widely in the media. Our job therefore is not to censor a phrase we do not like but to ensure that the article on that phrase is balanced and NPOV. Merging this article with

4671:

Google hits is obviously not a proof for anything, since it only directs to sources, some of which are reliables, others no. These are the real things to base themselves on. For the expression "Israeli apartheid", a simple search leads to find it being

2401:

The term is nineteen years old - not a neologism - and is widely used not "unstable". If Tutu or Davis were the sole users I would agree but the Palestinian rights movement has picked it up and run with it as has much of the media outside of the US.

2298:

pages, does not mean that is the only time they can be used. Therefore I suggest that if this article is not deleted, you initiate a discussion of renaming the article, including your opinions about what the naming policy is or what it should be,

1645:. The article title is certainly a POV, using emotionally loaded terms. Knowledge (XXG) should not be used to promote the views of one group over the other by giving them legitimacy. Instead, an objective approach should be found - see analyis by 724:(and most of the hits are to do with Israel, not South Africa) (corrected previous 26400 hit result due to typo. By the way, accusing me and Ben Houston of deliberately and maliciously demonizing Israel may count as a personal attack. Please see 4611:

wants to use it for, his use of it as an epithet becomes that much more powerful. I think a similar attitude went into the creation of the article we are talking about on this page. Fortunately, some people can see through things like that.

3006:

article, where it is clear that NPOV is not respected simply because of the overwhelming number of presumed pro-Israeli users who are only intent on describing the movement as a satanist baby-killer movement, without any real concern for true

3001:

in other articles. I would ask those who ask for the "deletion" of this article to ask themselves why it was created in the first place, and if this was a response to genuine problems about editing? I refer anybody alien to the context to the

2257:. When the vote is concluded, assuming the article is not deleted or redirected, I will rename it and I ask advocates of "(phrase)" not to change it back until and unless they've followed the proper procedure for proposing a new convention. 762:

were implemented. South African uranium was vital to Israel's nuclear weapon program. In exchange, Israel helped pre-apartheid South Africa develop their own nuclear bombs. Some nuclear proliferation commentators have suggested there was a

2292:

Homey, I appreciate the action that you took here on the name (although I have since had to move it back since someone else changed it), but I do not agree with your intended action if the deletion request fails. I have read and re-read

403:

compares apples and oranges. One is an actual term relating to West African trickster folklore, whereas the other is rabid, revisionist, polemical fringe terminology used as a political epithet. There's just as much research to create

3158:

in that it makes WP into a publisher of what Knowledge (XXG) policy considers original thought. Wide usage among heavily political outlets doesn't stop this from being a neologism, nor does the fact that it was fabricated in the 80's.

4693:"To describe a situation where two populations, in this case one Jewish and the other Arab, share the same territory but are governed by two separate legal systems, the international community customarily uses the term "apartheid."" 4384:"To describe a situation where two populations, in this case one Jewish and the other Arab, share the same territory but are governed by two separate legal systems, the international community customarily uses the term "apartheid."" 1748:

it is not our job to determine whether a topic belongs based on whether we personally like a term or phrase but rather to determine whether that term or phrase has entered either the academic or popular lexicon. Like it or not

3528:), so the original complaints of "offensive" and "POV" don't hold water. I agree that the article should be cleaned up and checked for point-of-view statements, but it's certainly valid as an inclusion in the encyclopedia. - 3037:- without addressing the body of your comment, the last presumption of obviousness that you make deserves a reevaluation on your part. I question whether it is the most constructive view of WP editing one could take. Cheers, 4551:

Maybe Knowledge (XXG) should not aspire to be a reflection of the informational chaos of the Web, but rather an oasis from it. (Hey, that was pretty good, can I copyright that? Not if I post it here, I guess. Oh well.)

4488:

Please be assured that by "testing" any particular term I did not mean a slur against that group, religion, or whatever. I just typed what popped into my head. So don't anybody be offended. It's just a little experiment.

3751:

the same time, I, who think the article should be deleted, put "phrase" back in the title on the theory that if the article does remain, having "phrase" in the title made it less POV. It's all sort of ironic and confused.

628:

seems to be on the basis of factual/political opposition to the analysis done using the term; no delete voters actually even tries to deny the notability of the term itself (or really, the NPOV of the article as a whole).

487: 3107:

the phrase has been established as notable. There is absolutely no reason this cannot be a neutral article. "Offensive" is not a valid reason for delete, the question is whether it is notable (yes) and verifiable (yes).

4706: 4405: 2968: 3402:

article is inherently POV, but the phrases are also notable enough for articles. What we need is an article with a POV title that presents such phrases as a claim. No opinion on a redirect. By the way, can someone tell

2388:(whose notability is doubtful and whose brief Knowledge (XXG) article was created two days ago by a participant in this AfD) writing a book doesn't make this term a non-neologism. Neither does the term's usage by Rev. 1962:

intended to guard against people enforcing their own viewpoint on an article. In addition, Other phrases have been included in Knowledge (XXG), as other editors have mentioned, and they have not become soapboxes for

1105: 225:(and most of the hits are to do with Israel, not South Africa). Is that reputable enough for you? The phrase or connection is clearly being widely discussed (correcting previous mistake of 26,400 hits due to typo) 1981:

What do you think is the significance of Davis being a Jew? Does this make him not left-wing, despite his politics? Or does being a Jew show that he is automatically unbiased? Sheesh. And I don't know how being a

1127:). We can discuss phrases like these in other articles (specific examples already pointed out above by other editors), giving them their own articles gives them unnecessary credibility and attracts POV warring. -- 185: 2114: 1814: 610:

remain the same? It is even more objectionable without "phrase" in the title. Homey also says it is "non-standard" to have "phrase" in the title. Is there an actual rule or accepted style prohibiting it?

4002:. If the term exists and is not a neologism (or very obscure), then Knowledge (XXG) should have an article on it. The article must be copyedited for POV concerns, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. 3884:

the case, I don't see why an article title cannot include "phrase." Ironically, as noted elsewhere on this page, the inclusion of "phrase" in the title evidently convinced at least one person that it is

678:"The concept exists" as Ben Houston wrote, or "phrase seems to be in wide circulation" as you wrote, are not valid arguments. Here, a double standard is being applied inorder to demonize Israel. Where is 3227:

Just to be clear, I do not vote to delete because I consider the term too offensive for Knowledge (XXG) or something like that - but the content simply should be placed under more encyclopedic titles. --

4602:

Thanks for the link. I find the author's introductory paragraphs interesting and correct, and his conclusion laughable. What he is saying is, the use of this phrase is intellectually lazy except when

181: 3419:

this tripe per Viriditas and MPerel. This is just the latest in a long sad tale of POV-pushers attempting to use WP as a soapbox, and pointing to blogs to back up their claims of noteworthiness.

3289:

of the content may be salvaged, the article is generally a soapbox. The salvageble parts should be put in other articles by the way of normal editing, but I do not want to vote merge to imply that

4753:

but it may just be that some users have been discussed by a certain type of control on some Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles & decided to create this fork to be able to edit (see

103: 2570:. Keeping the article does not mean implying the Israeli apartheid actually exists, only that the concept itself exists (as Google will prove). It does not matter whether it's propaganda or not. 1881:

was too "racist", but it seems that many Israelis can live with being tagged "apartheid this-and-that" by leftists and Arabs, so be it. Let's see what Arabs can live with in their "democracies".

433:

see one be pensive and moderate (and, of course, consistent with Ben's note, if the article is kept, Viriditas will surely be able to contribute content and add sources, which is always good).

2005:

topics were; proof that the Knowledge (XXG) process can actually work. Let's not shy away from having an article on an important concept because some people don't like the terminology. We have

3124:) are offensive phrases too (the last immensely so). As to Vriditas' "soapbox" argument cited by many, it seems to me that deleting this smacks of that more (in spirit) than keeping it does. 2538:

also, due to the imsense complexeity and conterviatalaity of this debate I request that this dicussion be kept open longer than the usual AFD time period, so that it can be fully resolved.

1726: 2275:

Sorry guys but i moved it back to its original name. Discussion about moving titles should be prior to the action itself. Discuss it first and decide what to do with the naming. Cheers --

1359:

it "separate development" after all. A thought experiment for you; would you object less if the article were renamed to something you found less derogatory, but with the same content? --

3712:- "offensive" isn't a good enough of a reason. We don't censor things on Knowledge (XXG). The question is: is the term notable? Yes it is, regardless whether it's accurate or not. — 2686:

Clearly a notable expression, as the referenced article by Archbishop Tutu demonstrates. Moreover, this article has too much cited content to be simply merged to the logical place,

1325:

In both of these articles, the terms are immediately defined as "derogatory" and "offensive" in the very first sentence. The article in question presents it as a legitimate term. --

1286:

That's the problem with this article: it's not about a phenomenon, but rather about a political epithet used for vilification purposes. Leaving this article would be a violation of

585:- the prevalence of a phrase doesn't make it a notable encylopedia entry; the comparison between Israeli policies and apartheid is a notable topic, but this is covered elsewhere. -- 4633:

I wonder if we should have an article on: "Palestinian Death Cult Lynchings" . After all much like Homey took a web apge from "globalexchange.com" one can use this as a source :

3825:

either, because that term isn't normally used to refer to the entirety of Islam the same way that "Israeli Apartheid" is used to refer to Israel. Something also very relevant is

3276:

It's completely unclear what, if anything, "certain delete" means, particularly in light of Heptor's followup comments which suggests "Merge" or "redirect" instead of "delete".

329:, and the term is nothing more than a focused, targeted propaganda campaign for a political platform that according to Abraham Cooper, is attempting to rewrite and redefine the 3485:

and indeed many of the arguments and counter arguments do not hold water. The article has become a usenet news group in which both side debate the issue. The propsal above to "

153:

Disclosure for those who are checking: though I was solicited by another user to comment on the article, it was not by the nominator, and it was before this AfD was started. -

782:

Unless you imply that apartheid is somehow contagious, all that is irrelevant to the subject. For the better explanation of roots of this quazi-anti-colonial propaganda, see

97: 91: 85: 3916:

certain POV's. There are many other articles with titles that represent a notable term or phrase, some of which are very offensive. Someone pointed out one such article is

4643: 2774:. We should also include a link to the article by Dr Moshe Machover, an Israeli exile in London, who argues against the use of the term because the situation in Israel is 1188:- The stuff is a term which is not notable enough. I am neither for deleting it nor keeping it. HOwever, I must remind all of you that we had faced a similar situation in 338: 3150:

As such, I cited Viriditas' argument in that it expresses that this term is merely part of a targeted propoganda campaign. As such, the article is about a neologism (see

885:

as per Viriditas. Such an article is inherently POV, regardless of the neutrality of the content. The fact that propagandists widely use this term is worth mentioning in

4691: 4382: 4351: 4314: 3829:(an archived article, but something which nobody seems to have mentioned yet!) Keeping the article with the (phrase) or (slogan) on the end may be the best choice here. 2952: 4744: 4684: 4374: 4308: 3022: 2956: 2337:

representation that the parenthetical was against the rules, which I believed at the time, but which upon actually reading the rules, does not appear to be correct.)

1410:

of the content of the article, that clearly isn't grounds to delete the article. Wiki articles aren't cars; they're a lot cheaper to make and a lot easier to change! --

357:

22, Annual 2004: 99. Cooper, Abraham, and Harold Brackman. "Through a glass, darkly: Durban and September 11th. United Nations World Conference against Racism, 2001."

79: 1000: 953:

That the phrase was originally Afrikaans is irrelevant. Apartheid has entered the English language (as well as others) and has been accepted as such for a long time.

4038: 661:

Seems to relatively balanced and phrase is confirmed to be in wide circulation in academic and news media (See my Google comment above). And absolutely agree with

3355:, the term that means "separation" or "apartheid" and is used in Israel by both adherents and opponents to the "politics of separation". In the same way we have " 1369:

if the article did not have the same name and had its content changed to avoid POV and soapbox issues, it would be a different article, wouldn't it? Likewise, if

2098:

Adding some: As of yet, I see no article, and have not read Uri Davis's book or other sources to know enough to make an article about it. Perhaps somebody has?

2118: 3733:

provide a better reason. But the thing is, I think it would be a POV fork if it didn't have the ("phrase") in the title. The way it is now I think is fine. —

1277:. Good and necessary article. I saw the phrase on the BBC website earlier today and it is unthinkable tht Wiki would lack an article about the phenomenon. -- 996: 494:, but we can compile opinions recorded in secondary sources, even where the primary sources are individuals who undertake original research or push a POV ( 597:

per Fullsome and Viriditas (as well as my own comments on the article's talk page prior to the nomination, in fact I suggested it, I just didn't do it.)

1336:

Thank you for bringing this up. However, doesn't that sound more like an argument for changing the first sentence than for deleting the entire article?

783: 1544: 1455: 2034:

and some other titles and no one protested. The words you mentioned above are stable common 1-word slurs found in dictionaries. The 2-word combination

1229:. The issue is: with such a title is there a way with text to NPOV such title and could wikipedia be trusted to get such article to an NPOV state ??? 322: 4758:"terrorist state"? But if we accept "terrorist state", are they the only one?... My withholding of the question is not hypocrite but genuine doubt). 3876: 3826: 2611: 2235:

not. It didn't seem right to me, either. However, for the moment, I am leaving it as is, otherwise, it is heading toward a mutual 3RR violation.

4543:

Now, what does all of this prove? I am not suggesting it proves anything, other than that you can find just about anything on the Web. So, where

2805: 306: 2893:- fine as a clarification of the meaning of a phrase, as long as we keep it short and to the point, not allowing it to descend into a debate. -- 234:

This only proves that (unlike its neighbors) Israel's press enjoys full freedom. Note that most of those hits condemn this propaganda epithet. ←

4548:

Or, does it mean that 247,000 hits, by themselves, do not justify a separate article? (Somewhere a lightbulb turns on of its own volition.)

716:

of its wide usage. Knowledge (XXG) is not censored in that way. Anyway, it is also used in contexts where the phrase is refuted and debated -

624:. Characterization contained in title may be disputed, but the phrase itself is undoubtedly in notable usage. Having seen some delete votes, 4686:"The use of the term apartheid and the comparison between Israel and South Africa under minority white rule are taking over public discourse. 4376:"The use of the term apartheid and the comparison between Israel and South Africa under minority white rule are taking over public discourse. 2674:

Notable term. Knowledge (XXG) should present the reasons why some people think it is a useful analogy and others believe it is propaganda.

2320: 2254: 2179:- clearly notable, verifiable, and sourced. Remove "phrase" from the name of the article to bring it into concert with articles such as 2869: 2835: 4644:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=Palestinian+%22Death+Cult%22+OR+Lynchings+OR+Lynching&btnG=Search

2121:

with only 455 hits, mostly at Knowledge (XXG). I think that this was a correct change. Pitty that not everyone follows such standards.

193: 189: 636: 17: 2605: 1754: 3407:

to please stop spamming talk pages about this discussion? While I am interested in this AfD, I don't appreciate the advertisement.

3025:

since obviously most pro-Palestinians & people in the Arab world do not have such access to computers as the population here.

4492:

Here are the results, which are grouped together in what seems like some logical order and in numerical order within the groups:

1634: 1488: 846: 164: 140: 4634: 4716: 4415: 2975: 2050:? (FTR, I have utmost respect to these and other peoples). I am sure you'll find a bunch of google hits for these. BTW, why is 1775: 342: 2137:. Justify those phrases' notability, and then we can talk. I also agree with removing "(phrase)" to bring it into convention. 4640:

after all the argument of google hits is a two edge sword - this search give 720,000 (6 times more than "Israeli aparthide":

3169:

Knowledge (XXG). As such, it is worthy of a neutral article. My take is that you are misinterpreting and misapplying policy.

2554:; two perfectly good articles which covers the same concept from differing angles. This will make the end-result more NPOV. 3489: 3387: 414: 408: 277:, etc., etc. Is that enough or does anyone needs any more "reliable sources"? I recall that John Dugard explicitly spoke of 4793: 4762: 4652: 4627: 4616: 4596: 4580: 4567: 4556: 4474: 4464: 4450: 4390: 4337: 4324: 4245: 4231: 4219: 4207: 4189: 4180: 4163: 4151: 4135: 4127: 4118: 4102: 4085: 4073: 4061: 4045: 4029: 3994: 3980: 3964: 3955: 3946: 3934: 3907: 3893: 3866: 3857: 3844: 3805: 3784: 3773: 3755: 3741: 3720: 3704: 3692: 3672: 3662: 3653: 3644: 3635: 3623: 3573: 3552: 3540: 3504: 3472: 3449: 3433: 3411: 3379: 3367: 3343: 3331: 3313: 3280: 3267: 3247: 3218: 3183: 3173: 3163: 3128: 3099: 3082: 3059: 3047: 3029: 2939: 2927: 2913: 2897: 2883: 2842: 2812: 2796: 2784: 2756: 2738: 2728: 2710: 2678: 2663: 2586: 2574: 2562: 2542: 2530: 2508: 2497: 2480: 2471: 2406: 2396: 2367: 2341: 2327: 2310: 2280: 2270: 2261: 2243: 2229: 2210: 2191: 2163: 2141: 2125: 2102: 2093: 2083: 2062: 2021: 1994: 1974: 1953: 1932: 1913: 1895: 1885: 1875: 1856: 1820: 1798: 1740: 1711: 1699: 1687: 1671: 1653: 1637: 1611: 1598: 1589: 1569: 1522: 1510: 1496: 1443: 1431: 1414: 1390: 1377: 1363: 1353: 1340: 1329: 1320: 1303: 1294: 1281: 1263: 1234: 1209: 1173: 1163: 1145: 1131: 1111: 1096: 1084: 1061: 1039: 1027: 1015: 1003: 978: 960: 944: 924: 908: 873: 854: 821: 808: 790: 777: 746: 732: 703: 686: 673: 653: 641: 614: 601: 589: 577: 551: 539: 516: 478: 459: 437: 424: 382: 369: 313: 287: 238: 229: 213: 200: 172: 148: 120: 73: 52: 3951:

Aw, I kind of liked the photo of the ship, it gave this page some eye-appeal even though you put it there by mistake. :)

1556: 630: 2838:). Even if this would be valid, the next would be a double vote by the same IP. Ninth edit, as mentioned below by DLand. 832: 649:

This is very NPOV, so much so that I don't see how it can be cleaned up and I am someone who agrees with the sentiment --

4749: 4173: 2629: 2551: 2442: 2253:

and that advocates of adding "(phrase)" have not gone through the proper procedure of proposing a change to practice at

1841: 1758: 1492: 1467: 1383: 1244: 1197: 1048: 850: 168: 144: 66: 4814: 36: 4329:

I took the liberty to fix the titles of the articles. Note that both condemn this propaganda epithet, and please stop

4274:, a UN report by John Dugard of the Human Right Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - 3600:, a UN report by John Dugard of the Human Right Commission in Geneva, stated that "the three major settlement blocs - 2017:

after all. A very important principle of freedom in Knowledge (XXG) is (arguably) being tested in this AfD process. --

1990:- activism for homosexual inclusion in clergy, activism against Guantanamo Bay detainments, etc. Looks leftist to me. 1815:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)#A little research and comment on Google searches

4185:

Not really, as the term "Apartheid" has often been used to refer to the situation of Palestinian Israelis as well. --

2038:

is a neologism slapped together and used as a political epithet in Cold War and antisemitic propaganda. What's next?

559:

re Joe/Jahiegel. It should provide a summary of the use of the phrase from RS from those that use it seriously (i.e.

512:, about another notable tendentious locution, provides a fair examplar around which this article can be developed. 4097: 3701: 3649:

Actually, Bantustans were a major feature of the apartheid system in South Africa so the relevance is quite clear.

2249:

Fine, I've moved it back until the conclusion of the vote but note that the current name is not in accordance with

503: 58: 4729: 4428: 2987: 2294: 2250: 1868: 4470:

I've moved the above comments from the voting page to the talk page, which is where extended discussions belong.

4015: 2647: 1766: 1761:

as some have suggested is not viable since the phrase has also been used to describe Israeli policies within the

917: 346: 4576:

No argument that Tutu knows about apartheid, but (with all due respect) what does he really know about Israel?

2997:. I decided not to vote "keep" for the time being because I do not believe in polarizing Wikipedians like that, 2687: 567:, and pointers to the main articles that deal with the related topics. I recently helped develop the article on 4813:

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

4126:

per Viriditas. Note that unanalyzed Google hits are a very poor measure of encyclopaedic notability. There are

3481:

While some of the info could be usefull much of it based on sources which are not relaible enough according to

1737: 1723: 35:

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

2764:

The phrase is widely used in Israeli political discourse. Dr Uri Davis has published two editions of his book

4443: 2865: 2829: 1299:

Rubbish! It's a term in common use, and a fair and balanced article. No OR or soapboxing that I could see. --

1155:

Hmm, I could have sworn it did at one point but the history isn't bearing me out. Still, I think that's what

3801: 3537: 2453: 2043: 2031: 1722:

antisemitic baiting, leftwing style antisemitism should be treated equal with rightwing style antisemitism.

1072:). Also, it can be well balanced (with an expanded crticism section). Perhaps we could move this article to 310: 3327:- the phrase is clearly notable enough for an article. I don't even know why we're having this discussion. 2857: 1949: 3465: 2504:

It continually surprises me how some people esteem the opinions of BBC editors as "reputable" or neutral.

1193: 1137: 1124: 4607:

thinks it is applicable. And then, by denigrating the use of the phrase for any purpose other than what

3658:

Actually, this discussion is about "Israeli apartheid" phrase, not about "Palestinian bantutans" phrase.

3423: 1765:

as well as in the Occupied Territories (even though some reserve the phrase for the latter. Merging with

4094: 4081:

Phrase is widely used - whether you agree or disagree with the term, this does not disqualify it here.--

4008: 2861: 2825: 2779: 2599: 2039: 1349:, however you slice it. The fact that it uses a derogatory name does not lend it any more legitimacy. -- 916:

Inherently POV, and WP is not a soapbox. All the points have already been made (or could be made) under

267: 129:

Palestinians and let the reader decide whether or not to draw comparisons to South African apartheid. -

4111: 411: 4294: 3617: 2951:: I cast a neutral vote). While the expression itself is definitely common enough (see comment below; 2675: 2594: 2583: 2446: 3459: 2724: 2072: 1967: 1631: 1484: 1256: 1160: 1128: 1073: 842: 679: 508: 160: 136: 70: 4216: 2188: 2047: 1373:

were designed like Lexus, I'd say it's a good car, but that wouldn't say much about Pinto at all. --

4539:"sexual apartheid" 17,100 (apparently most refer to bias based on sexual orientation) 3977: 3840:

Comment: I can live with the addition of (phrase) even though I think it's completely unnecessary.

2894: 2753: 2159:." It's funny how people see accusations of anti-Semitism as extending beyond their actual target. 2026:

By now, I was particularly careful in my choosing article titles to be NPOV. AFAIR, I have changed

1867:

as well as its policies towards Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, merging the article with

941: 818: 662: 574: 421: 379: 366: 350: 4279: 3605: 3570: 2316: 1753:

is a widely used term with a specific meaning. A google search of the phrase returns 258,000 hits

696: 4624: 4577: 4535:

And here is one I was surprised by because I thought I was making it up, but obviously I wasn't:

4471: 4334: 4132: 3924:, which argues for the correctness of the term. There is in Israel a Committee Against Apartheid 3689: 3659: 3641: 3530: 3431: 3376: 3360: 2707: 2477: 2434:. The term "Israeli apartheid" is used by reliable sources such as quality periodicals including 2420: 2285: 2076: 2059: 2051: 2027: 1945: 1927: 1696: 1459: 1387: 1291: 1214: 1150: 1077: 1053: 1036: 1012: 987: 921: 886: 805: 787: 743: 683: 454: 405: 392: 334: 235: 210: 117: 49: 3989: 3549: 3072: 2055: 1424: 1226: 711:

The point is that the phrase is in wide usage, not that it is being used to demonize Israel. As

205:

See what Viriditas wrote. If you check the links, you'll notice that almost all of them are not

4593: 4228: 3863: 3841: 3650: 3277: 2527: 2468: 2403: 2324: 2258: 2207: 1892: 1872: 1795: 1104:

for crying out loud ... merge any useful content elsewhere, but this sounds like it borders on

251: 4589: 3832: 3493: 3391: 3012: 1650: 1552: 1374: 1350: 1326: 1313: 1070: 773:

Not directly relevant here, true, but anyway that was the close relations I was talking about

486:

as a phrase that, even as it expresses a POV, is notable (toward which proposition see, e.g.,

400: 330: 326: 29:

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

4635:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20829_Palestinian_Death_Cult_Lynchings&only

3628:

This rambling show why keeping this article will continue to make Knowledge (XXG) what it is

2623: 2198:"Remove "phrase" from the name of the article to bring it into concert with articles such as 1680: 1248: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4734: 4434: 4148: 3525: 3304: 3238: 3209: 3045: 2991: 2809: 2431: 1891:

though I think an article should be NPOV and not act as if the term is correct or accurate.

1863:

Comment: As I said above, as the phrase has been used to describe Israel's policies towards

1669: 1463: 1440: 1093: 472: 273: 261: 4330: 3629: 3155: 3151: 2460: 2457: 2427: 2416: 2381: 2377: 1582: 1423:. Blatant POV title and subject. This information is already discussed in other articles. — 1287: 1252: 901: 890: 725: 4790: 4759: 4447: 3931: 3797: 3408: 3180: 3170: 3125: 3056: 3026: 2881: 2768:, which explains and justifies the term. There is in Israel a Committee Against Apartheid 2719: 2559: 2080: 1910: 1628: 1479: 1274: 1247:: It is my sad conculsion that wikipedia is unable to implemnet it's own policy as far as 1081: 976: 837: 155: 131: 4737: 4437: 3850: 3482: 2994: 2464: 739: 491: 206: 3880:

this statement is "in force" at this time; but since there is no rule that says this is

3849:

The issue is not "what Homey can live with" but what Knowledge (XXG) policies are. read

1192:

and both times the decision was to keep it and remove the (term) or (phrase) annotation

250:(see John Dugard 2006 report, former member of the South African Reconciliation Mission 4266: 4225: 4200: 3904: 3593: 3497: 3395: 3133:

It seems that it is Viriditas' rationale, rather than policy citation, that is popular:

3121: 2910: 2750: 1774:

for instance, no slouch when it comes to defending Israel, has posted the following on

1684: 1646: 937: 666: 417: 362: 245: 4702: 4401: 2964: 2220:

whilst you were having a discussion with him, are unbecoming of an admin and could be

196:. The whole point of the use of the word "apartheid" is comparison with South Africa. 4160: 4070: 4023: 3822: 3781: 3735: 3714: 3669: 3620: 3428: 3420: 3364: 3094: 2635: 2539: 2494: 2449: 2364: 2277: 2199: 2180: 1963: 1923: 1864: 1206: 1189: 1170: 1142: 1120: 763: 712: 700: 650: 573:-- it is an offensive term but it was also notable. It was dealt with fairly well. -- 548: 513: 495: 450: 434: 284: 1986:

Jewish professor and writing books makes someone notable. You'd also better look at

769: 4783: 4662: 4564: 4283: 4271: 4242: 4177: 4144: 4058: 3609: 3597: 3264: 2924: 2793: 2781: 2389: 2138: 2099: 2090: 2018: 1987: 1971: 1941: 1595: 1578: 1566: 1548: 1533: 1530:, the term is genuine and reliably sourced, and the article is painfully neutral. 1519: 1475: 1411: 1360: 1337: 1317: 1300: 1278: 1024: 586: 255: 4742:

Again, I must say that the term is definitely common enough. Please also refer to

3375:. POV fork, original research, and utterly inappropriate for Knowledge (XXG). -- 2133:

is an anti-semite? Note that I am simply promoting an article of a coined notable

1794:

I urge those who are trying to delete this article to take IZAK's words to heart.

4659:"Your search - "Palestinian Death Cult Lynchings" - did not match any documents." 4698: 4397: 4387: 4321: 4275: 3601: 3457:

as there is useful information in the article, but the title is inherently POV.

3328: 3294: 3228: 3199: 3039: 2960: 2571: 2476:

Of course it is a propagandist neologism. Op-eds by pundits are not reputable. ←

2122: 1708: 1663: 957: 774: 729: 670: 525: 468: 226: 197: 4724: 4423: 2983: 771: 387:

I don't find the term offensive. That was the opinion of the nom. Outside of

4461: 4288: 4204: 4082: 3793: 3770: 3613: 3589: 3008: 2948: 2923:: That someone don't like the phrase is not a reason to delete an article. // 2878: 2555: 1762: 1608: 1586: 1507: 1370: 1108: 973: 897: 4460:

I have reformatted the above so that it won't have its own top-level section

2438: 954: 767: 4613: 4553: 4186: 4054: 4042: 3961: 3952: 3943: 3890: 3752: 3442: 2936: 2385: 2373: 2338: 2307: 2267: 2240: 2236: 2226: 2130: 2054:

a redir? How convenient, "A very important principle of freedom" stops with

1882: 1853: 1852:-- no-one worth their salt takes them seriously, and the sky won't cave in. 1817: 1771: 933: 804:

and merge salvageable parts into articles with NPOV titles, per Viriditas. ←

611: 598: 560: 388: 279: 3862:

WP:RS has nothing to do with adding "(phrase)" to the title. Pay attention!

488:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (second nomination)

4789:

Which for some reasons have all of a sudden all be listed for deletion...

3792:

and merge with one of the articles about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

764:

joint Israeli-South African nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean in 1979

4649: 4528:"islamic apartheid" 735 (note, "muslim apartheid" got 458) 4003: 3917: 3854: 3632: 3501: 3404: 3340: 3160: 3079: 2839: 2735: 2660: 2505: 2393: 2217: 2160: 1991: 1346: 1260: 1231: 905: 870: 569: 499: 396: 180:

This is not Original Research. Googling for "israel apartheid" brings up

113: 4499:"american apartheid" 84,700 (note, "u.s. apartheid" got 2,250) 3925: 2769: 2702:

to encourage their use or to proclaim them as acceptable, but rather to

4680: 4367: 4350:

euphemisms. Here is the paragraph before the excerpt I originally used:

4301: 3356: 3352: 3117: 719: 395:

the term is unencyclopedic. Your example below, in which you contrast

220: 4720: 4419: 3814: 3517: 3109: 2979: 2691: 2203: 2184: 2006: 1452:

why wikipedia can not do this as well, they cover nearly everything.

1386:. Not entirely NPOV title, but I think it is much more appropriate. ← 1309: 932:. Not encyclopedic or too helpful, and besides, Israelis don't speak 416:, etc. We don't, because this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. — 3640:

This observation is entirely irrelevant to the phrase in question.

2718:

this term is a pure propaganda word and therefore pov per title. --

1069:. The article is certainly notable enough (6,170,000 hits at google 333:

as that of a "racist apartheid state". Merge anything useful into

4754: 3521: 3017: 3003: 1849: 1290:

because Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox for political campaigns.

1532:

Also note that there are attempts being made at vote-stacking by

184:. Googling for Israel and the phrase "apartheid state" brings up 4807:

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

4286:- will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or 3818: 3612:- will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or 3113: 2695: 2363:

As noted above, the phrase is POV but the article need not be.

2014: 2010: 1845: 104:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Apartheid (disambiguation)

2147: 2071:

I have suggested this many times. Why not move the article to

1983: 1227:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox

506:

is original research but nevertheless notable). Our article

2806:

Status of Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories

4623:"Dirty Jew"+ produces 57,700. Desperately need an article. ← 2430:

one can prove something is not a neologism if it is used by

498:'s conculsion that something other than an airliner hit the 2690:. We have articles about epithets and vulgarities (such as 1051:

and have a section on Israeli apartheid and Apartheid wall.

353:. (See also: Veracini, Lorenzo. "On Israeli 'Apartheids'." 3927:, and the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine 2771:, and the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine 3492:

or some similarly-named article, and merge articles like

3390:

or some similarly-named article, and merge articles like

2582:

I have heard it many times in the English speaking world.

2001:

Well said. I have always liked how good Wiki articles on

3928: 2772: 2376:, despite its Google count. Thus, this article violates 1813:

I put my comment on the talk page because it is so long:

48:, the discussion's not going anywhere...No consensus. - 4590:

Global Apartheid, Sexual Apartheid and other Apartheids

3835: 3579: 3558: 2653: 2617: 2382:

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

1604: 1575: 1537: 4442:

The term is common enough... But maybe something like

1540:. I question the legitimacy of this deletion attempt. 524:

per OR concerns and per CrazyRussian and Viriditas. --

98:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Global apartheid

92:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid

86:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid

2641: 2075:? That shouldn't give problems since we already have 262:"Brothers In Arm: Israel's Secret Pact with Pretoria" 4745:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall

3023:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Countering systemic bias

1585:

he might find it easier to edit on Knowledge (XXG).

1119:. I'm of the opinion this should go the same way as 80:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall

4648:For now, I will not be dragged down to this level. 2974:concerning the term "apartheid"; and also the 2001 1259:. So the only conculsion is to delte this article. 265:for one article on the subject (there are others); 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2315:So why do you think that the procedure advised in 1715:ja, ek praat en skryf wel 'n bietjie Afrikaans ;-) 339:Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 4661:. No Google hits at all. Clearly not notable. // 2372:Nevertheless, the term is an unstable propoganda 1439:An appropriate terminology for a real phenomenon 1168:True Sam. What do the voters suggest than? ;) -- 1080:. Deleting this article is just plain censorship. 4817:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4480:A little research and comment on Google searches 3016:POV-pushing on some articles, in particular the 2302:moving the article. Maybe that needs to be the 2239:04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (Edited own comment -- 4770:I also noted that we already have articles for 682:? Are you ready to say that it doesn't exist? ← 2999:although that edit-warring has already started 1770:that that is not enough to justify deletion, 8: 3877:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (slogans) 3827:Knowledge (XXG):Naming_conventions_(slogans) 3516:We have articles on much stronger epitaphs ( 3256:vote advocates removal of content, wheras a 2467:, "Israeli apartheid" is *NOT* a neologism. 1159:happen, even if there isn't precedent :-) -- 865:: This AfD is still an infant. Consensus is 112:I think the proper reason for AFD should be 2306:vote created by this ill-advised article. 2058:(why not create this for freedom's sake). ← 896:the forum for fabricating legitimacy for a 283:, and he is far from being the only one... 4159:What is this, Israel is not South Africa! 2489:usage of the term, but we're not -- we're 1922:eternally sensitive Middle-East conflict. 1308:With all due respect, we have articles on 1047:as the phrase is notable then redirect to 955:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid 784:Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict 4172:votes. This is just another name for the 1940:and merge the informative sentences with 1506:. As per Viriditas's excellent analysis. 4705:Uri Avnery, January 24, 2004 (in total, 4404:Uri Avnery, January 24, 2004 (in total, 3700:as it is a neologism and per all above. 2485:Your point would be relevant if we were 1255:(not being a propeganda or soapbox) see 467:or at best merge per above arguments. — 305:Notable phenom. Article seems balanced. 3500:, et al., into it. " seems a solution. 2451:and peer reviewed journals such as the 2321:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions 2255:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions 2216:around. Your actions, as with blocking 2113:I Googled these: Humus sapiens changed 1695:per Humus, CommonGround, and Viriditas 325:. I've done a few hours of research on 65:offensive phrase. Delete or merge with 4315:Legality is in the eye of the beholder 3960:I do most of my best work by mistake. 3490:claims of racial segregation in Israel 3388:claims of racial segregation in Israel 2413:term, but this is not always the case. 2319:of proposing a change of practice at 2153:in Cold War and antisemitic propoganda 997:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 3813:. You can't really compare this with 2146:Of course he's not anti-Semitic. The 1594:When I make an error, I correct it. 900:term by treating it as if it isn't a 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 4531:"christian apartheid" 24 4525:"jewish apartheid" 2,010 4520:"bosnian apartheid" 1 4517:"russian apartheid" 5 4514:"chinese apartheid" 23 4511:"serbian apartheid" 37 4508:"indian apartheid" 117 4505:"palestinian apartheid" 270 4502:"arab apartheid" 334 4496:"israeli apartheid" 247,000 4215:This is POV intended for propaganda 2804:as a POV fork but create an article 2448:, major news sources such as the BBC 2323:should not be followed in this case? 1603:In the sense that you then went and 1202:is there any consistency over here? 1106:something made up in school one day 833:Category:Pejorative political terms 3578:Note: User's first edit was today. 3557:Note: User's first edit was today. 3293:of the contents are salvageble. -- 1257:User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest 192:. Google News currently brings up 24: 4224:NOTE: User's first edit was today 3262:wow parallelism issues on my part 3154:), and consequently, it violates 2877:This user's ninth contribution -- 4168:I'm surprised there aren't more 3398:, et al., into it. The title of 1605:attempted to vote stack yourself 323:Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox 61:. Please "vote" in this section. 4717:World Conference Against Racism 4712:concerning the term "apartheid" 4416:World Conference Against Racism 4411:concerning the term "apartheid" 3260:vote advocates moving content. 2976:World Conference Against Racism 1776:Talk:Israeli apartheid (phrase) 1474:this user's first contribution 1136:No Sam. It doesn't redirect to 343:World Conference against Racism 271:is not a reputable source? See 259:is not a reputable source? See 190:9,110 hits for israel apartheid 4199:and merge anything useful per 4131:Religious, 524, Sexual 536) -- 2157:only in antisemitic propoganda 565:why it is offensive to critics 1: 2792:per Hyperbole and RolandR. -- 2333:standard," that was based on 2295:Knowledge (XXG):Naming policy 2251:Knowledge (XXG):Naming policy 274:"Israel: An Apartheid State?" 44:The result of the debate was 4750:Israeli-Palestinian conflict 4174:Israeli-occupied territories 4037:. Notable phrase, just like 2592:Above comments by vandal IP 2552:Israeli-occupied territories 2443:International Herald Tribune 1988:Desmond Tutu#Political-views 1869:Israeli Occupied Territories 1842:Israeli occupied territories 1759:Israeli-occupied territories 1384:Israeli occupied territories 1245:Israeli-occupied territories 1049:Israeli-occupied territories 67:Israeli occupied territories 4708:180 articles in Gush Shalom 4446:would be more appropriate? 4407:180 articles in Gush Shalom 2970:180 articles in Gush Shalom 1273:and possibly rename as per 188:. Google Scholar brings up 4834: 4309:Apartheid misses the point 3922:Israel: An Apartheid State 3889:POV! Oh so complicated. 2766:Israel: An Apartheid State 2688:List of political epithets 1243:and merge some content to 248:are not a reputable source 101: 95: 89: 83: 77: 59:Israeli apartheid (phrase) 4725:here NGO Monitor explains 4424:here NGO Monitor explains 3903:. Serious POV pushing. 3729:On second thought, Humus 3548:. propaganda expression. 2984:here NGO Monitor explains 2117:with 42.300 hits into an 1767:Israeli West Bank barrier 1661:per Viriditas and Humus. 1627:per Viriditas and Humus. 1518:per Viriditas's analysis 918:Israeli West Bank barrier 361:47.7 (Nov 2001): 2(7)). — 347:Israeli West Bank barrier 4810:Please do not modify it. 4794:19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 4763:16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4703:"An Eskimo in Bantustan" 4701:Israeli pro-peace NGO : 4653:10:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4628:03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4617:03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4597:01:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4581:01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4568:01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4557:00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4475:12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 4465:11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 4451:10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 4402:"An Eskimo in Bantustan" 4391:06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 4338:06:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 4325:06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 4246:16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4232:19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4220:16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4208:16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4190:15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4181:11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4164:11:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4152:10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4136:08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4119:06:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4103:00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 4086:23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 4074:23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 4062:22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 4046:21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 4030:20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3995:18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3981:17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3965:02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 3956:17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3947:17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3935:13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3908:08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3894:17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3867:13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3858:05:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3845:05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3806:04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3785:03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3774:02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3756:03:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3742:22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3721:20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3705:19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3693:19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3673:20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3663:20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3654:19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3645:19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3636:20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3624:19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3574:18:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3553:17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3541:16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3505:13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3473:13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3450:11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3434:05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3412:04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3380:04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3368:04:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3344:00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3332:22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3314:12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3285:Pardon confusion. While 3281:03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3268:21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3248:20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3219:20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3184:04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3174:21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3164:18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3129:17:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3100:17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3083:18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3071:- POV and inflammatory. 3060:21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3048:18:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3030:16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2940:15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2928:15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2914:15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2898:14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2884:13:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2843:18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2824:Unsigned comments by IP 2813:13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2808:to discuss such issues. 2797:13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2785:13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2757:12:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2739:18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2729:10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2711:08:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2679:08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2664:18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2587:07:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2575:06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2563:06:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2543:04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2531:03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2509:18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2498:20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2481:05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2472:05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2423:04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC 2407:03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2397:03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2368:01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2342:19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 2328:19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 2311:19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 2281:17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2271:05:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2262:04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2244:04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2230:04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2211:03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2192:01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2164:03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2142:02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2126:01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2103:02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2094:02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2084:02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2063:01:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 2022:00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1995:04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1975:00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1954:00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1933:23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1914:23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1896:23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1886:23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1876:22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1857:22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1821:00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1799:21:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1741:21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1727:21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1712:21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1700:20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1688:19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1672:18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1654:18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1638:17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1612:21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1599:18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1590:17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1570:17:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1523:16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1511:16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1497:16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1444:15:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1432:14:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1415:00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1393:12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1391:21:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1378:21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1364:21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1354:20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1341:19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1330:19:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1321:19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1304:18:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1295:13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1282:12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1264:04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1235:12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1210:11:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1174:12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1164:12:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1146:12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1132:11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1123:(currently redirects to 1112:11:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1097:11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1085:10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1062:08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1040:07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1028:06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1016:05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1004:04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 979:04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 961:04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 945:03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 925:03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 909:03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 874:03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 855:02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 822:02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 809:02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 791:04:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 778:04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 747:02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 733:02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 704:02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 687:02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 674:01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 654:01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 642:01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 615:04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 602:01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 590:00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 578:00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 552:00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 540:00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 517:00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 479:00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 460:00:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 438:02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 425:02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 383:00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 370:00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 314:23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 288:19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 239:06:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 230:06:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 214:02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 201:02:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 173:23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 149:23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 121:03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 74:23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 53:22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 4444:Israel and human rights 3569:propaganda expression. 2454:British Medical Journal 2032:Arabs and anti-Semitism 1382:The nominator proposed 4748:. Maybe the fact that 2317:Knowledge (XXG):Naming 2044:French promiscuousness 4370:on notability of term 4304:on notability of term 3702:Interestingstuffadder 3688:as per all the above. 3592:has been used by the 3339:well known phrase. - 2580:Strong keep per above 2536:Strong Keep per above 2524:Strong keep per above 2459:. Thus, according to 2380:, and, consequently, 1950:User:Psychomelodic/me 1547:comment was added by 1458:comment was added by 547:POV by the title. -- 268:Le Monde diplomatique 182:3,890,000 google hits 110:Comment on nomination 3588:. The expression of 3093:- As per Viriditas. 2720:Baruch ben Alexander 2493:usage of the term. 2073:Israel and apartheid 1138:fascism and religion 1125:fascism and religion 1074:Israel and apartheid 986:due to POV title. -- 972:as per Viriditas. -- 509:Better dead than red 4311:By Meron Benvenisti 3831:This comment is by 3078:User's fifth edit. 2734:User's ninth edit. 1649:for suggestions. -- 891:Knowledge (XXG) is 351:Israeli settlements 307:200,000 google hits 4366:Israeli Newspaper 4300:Israeli Newspaper 3373:Very strong delete 3361:Israeli propaganda 2716:Very Strong Delete 2548:Merge and redirect 2266:Roger, thank you. 2115:Arab anti-Semitism 2077:Zionism and racism 2052:Soviet Canuckistan 2040:Arab intransigence 2028:Arab anti-Semitism 1909:per Viriditas. -- 1724:Kuratowski's Ghost 1583:assuming bad faith 1078:Zionism and racism 887:Zionism and racism 869:likely to emerge. 695:which yields only 456:£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 406:American apartheid 393:Zionism and racism 335:Zionism and racism 4069:- clear POV fork 4028: 4020: 3837: 3833:User:Ken Arromdee 3804: 3494:Israeli apartheid 3392:Israeli apartheid 3351:- or redirect to 3310: 3263: 3244: 3215: 3198:per Viriditas. -- 3085: 3013:political science 2965:Israeli Peace NGO 2874: 2860:comment added by 2845: 2749:per Viriditas. -- 2741: 2666: 2659:with five edits. 2426:And according to 2287: 2036:Israeli apartheid 1930: 1751:Israeli apartheid 1731: 1716: 1679:per Viriditas an 1560: 1495: 1471: 1345:Al, it's still a 1314:homosexual agenda 1216: 1200:. My question is 1152: 1059: 943: 853: 726:the rules on this 492:original research 457: 412:British apartheid 401:Israeli apartheid 331:history of Israel 327:Israeli apartheid 171: 147: 4825: 4812: 4780:sexual apartheid 4776:gender apartheid 4772:global apartheid 4735:Mordechai Vanunu 4435:Mordechai Vanunu 4116: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4011: 4006: 3830: 3796: 3740: 3738: 3719: 3717: 3533: 3526:faggot (epithet) 3471: 3468: 3462: 3447: 3426: 3309: 3306: 3302: 3299: 3261: 3243: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3204: 3097: 3077: 3042: 2992:Mordechai Vanunu 2873: 2854: 2823: 2733: 2727: 2658: 2657: 2612:deleted contribs 2591: 2432:reliable sources 2284: 1928: 1729: 1714: 1666: 1574:Exactly so; see 1542: 1483: 1453: 1429: 1213: 1149: 1060: 1058: 1056: 940: 841: 814:Very strong keep 639: 633: 626:every single one 537: 534: 531: 528: 455: 159: 135: 34: 4833: 4832: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4815:deletion review 4808: 4482: 4317:By Moshe Gorali 4262: 4257: 4112: 4093:per Viriditas. 4039:petty apartheid 4024: 4016: 4009: 4004: 3736: 3734: 3715: 3713: 3531: 3466: 3460: 3458: 3455:Keep and rename 3443: 3424: 3311: 3307: 3300: 3295: 3245: 3241: 3234: 3229: 3216: 3212: 3205: 3200: 3095: 3040: 2855: 2778:than apartheid 2723: 2597: 2593: 2415:For more, read 1871:wouldn't work. 1707:per all above. 1664: 1543:—The preceding 1454:—The preceding 1425: 1054: 1052: 1035:per Viriditas. 697:115 Google hits 680:Saudi apartheid 637: 631: 535: 532: 529: 526: 449:. per above. -- 311::) Dlohcierekim 106: 100: 94: 88: 82: 71:Fullsome prison 63: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4831: 4829: 4820: 4819: 4802: 4799: 4797: 4796: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4732: 4727: 4713: 4696: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4666: 4665: 4631: 4630: 4620: 4619: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4571: 4570: 4541: 4540: 4533: 4532: 4529: 4526: 4522: 4521: 4518: 4515: 4512: 4509: 4506: 4503: 4500: 4497: 4481: 4478: 4468: 4467: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4440: 4433:and "traitor" 4431: 4426: 4412: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4380: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4318: 4312: 4280:Ma’aleh Adumim 4267:United Nations 4261: 4258: 4256: 4253: 4251: 4249: 4248: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4210: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4166: 4154: 4138: 4121: 4110:per above. -- 4105: 4088: 4076: 4064: 4048: 4032: 3997: 3983: 3978:TheMightyQuill 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3937: 3910: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3808: 3787: 3776: 3769:, as per nom. 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3745: 3744: 3724: 3723: 3707: 3695: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3638: 3606:Ma’aleh Adumim 3594:United Nations 3583: 3582: 3581: 3567:. Indeed : --> 3562: 3561: 3560: 3543: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3498:apartheid wall 3476: 3475: 3452: 3436: 3414: 3396:apartheid wall 3382: 3370: 3359:" instead of " 3346: 3334: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3305: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3239: 3222: 3221: 3210: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3176: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3122:Final Solution 3102: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 2942: 2930: 2907: 2906: 2900: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2815: 2799: 2787: 2759: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2713: 2681: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2577: 2565: 2545: 2533: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2195: 2194: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2128: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2096: 2048:German cruelty 1999: 1998: 1997: 1968:anti-Communism 1956: 1948:(people think 1935: 1916: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1860: 1859: 1836:, and if not, 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1780: 1779: 1743: 1732: 1717: 1702: 1690: 1674: 1656: 1647:User:Viriditas 1640: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1562: 1561: 1525: 1513: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1446: 1434: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1306: 1267: 1266: 1218: 1217: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1114: 1099: 1087: 1064: 1042: 1030: 1018: 1006: 990: 981: 966: 965: 964: 963: 948: 947: 927: 911: 879: 878: 877: 876: 825: 824: 811: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 706: 667:User:Viriditas 656: 644: 619: 618: 617: 592: 580: 554: 542: 519: 481: 462: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 427: 391:, and perhaps 316: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 246:United Nations 175: 123: 62: 56: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4830: 4818: 4816: 4811: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4800: 4795: 4792: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4764: 4761: 4756: 4751: 4747: 4746: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4736: 4733: 4731: 4728: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4711: 4709: 4704: 4700: 4697: 4695: 4694: 4689: 4687: 4682: 4678: 4677: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4664: 4660: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4651: 4646: 4645: 4641: 4638: 4636: 4629: 4626: 4625:Humus sapiens 4622: 4621: 4618: 4615: 4610: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4595: 4591: 4588:To 6SJ7: see 4582: 4579: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4569: 4566: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4555: 4549: 4546: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4530: 4527: 4524: 4523: 4519: 4516: 4513: 4510: 4507: 4504: 4501: 4498: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4490: 4486: 4479: 4477: 4476: 4473: 4466: 4463: 4459: 4456: 4452: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4439: 4436: 4432: 4430: 4427: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4410: 4408: 4403: 4399: 4396: 4392: 4389: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4379: 4377: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4369: 4364: 4355: 4354: 4349: 4344: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4336: 4335:Humus sapiens 4332: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4323: 4319: 4316: 4313: 4310: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4303: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4292: 4290: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4268: 4264: 4263: 4259: 4254: 4252: 4247: 4244: 4240: 4237: 4233: 4230: 4226: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4218: 4214: 4211: 4209: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4195: 4191: 4188: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4165: 4162: 4158: 4155: 4153: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4139: 4137: 4134: 4133:Denis Diderot 4129: 4125: 4122: 4120: 4117: 4115: 4109: 4108:Strong Delete 4106: 4104: 4101: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4089: 4087: 4084: 4080: 4077: 4075: 4072: 4068: 4065: 4063: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4049: 4047: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4033: 4031: 4027: 4019: 4012: 4007: 4001: 3998: 3996: 3993: 3992: 3987: 3984: 3982: 3979: 3975: 3972: 3966: 3963: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3954: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3945: 3941: 3938: 3936: 3933: 3929: 3926: 3923: 3919: 3914: 3911: 3909: 3906: 3902: 3901:Strong delete 3899: 3895: 3892: 3888: 3883: 3878: 3874: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3843: 3839: 3838: 3836: 3834: 3828: 3824: 3823:Islamofascism 3820: 3816: 3812: 3809: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3788: 3786: 3783: 3780: 3777: 3775: 3772: 3768: 3765: 3764: 3757: 3754: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3732: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3722: 3718: 3711: 3708: 3706: 3703: 3699: 3698:STRONG DELETE 3696: 3694: 3691: 3690:Timothy Usher 3687: 3686:Strong delete 3684: 3674: 3671: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3661: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3643: 3639: 3637: 3634: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3584: 3580: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3572: 3566: 3563: 3559: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3551: 3547: 3544: 3542: 3539: 3538: 3535: 3534: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3512: 3511: 3506: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3469: 3463: 3456: 3453: 3451: 3448: 3446: 3441:POV soapbox. 3440: 3437: 3435: 3432: 3430: 3427: 3422: 3418: 3415: 3413: 3410: 3406: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3386: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3374: 3371: 3369: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3335: 3333: 3330: 3326: 3323: 3322: 3315: 3312: 3303: 3298: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3269: 3266: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3246: 3237: 3232: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3220: 3217: 3208: 3203: 3197: 3195: 3191: 3190: 3185: 3182: 3177: 3175: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3162: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3106: 3103: 3101: 3098: 3092: 3089: 3084: 3081: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3069:Strong delete 3067: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3044: 3043: 3036: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3000: 2996: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2957:Haaretz again 2954: 2950: 2946: 2943: 2941: 2938: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2912: 2904: 2901: 2899: 2896: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2882: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2862:82.37.180.176 2859: 2852: 2849: 2844: 2841: 2837: 2834: 2831: 2827: 2826:82.37.180.176 2822: 2821: 2819: 2816: 2814: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2788: 2786: 2783: 2780: 2777: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2763: 2760: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2740: 2737: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2670: 2665: 2662: 2655: 2652: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2596: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2566: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2546: 2544: 2541: 2537: 2534: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2522: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2478:Humus sapiens 2475: 2474: 2473: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2456: 2455: 2450: 2447: 2445: 2444: 2439: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2422: 2421:Humus sapiens 2418: 2414: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2358: 2343: 2340: 2336: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2296: 2291: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2279: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200:Islamofascism 2197: 2196: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2181:Islamofascism 2178: 2175: 2165: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2129: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2104: 2101: 2097: 2095: 2092: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2060:Humus sapiens 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2003:controversial 2000: 1996: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964:anti-Islamism 1960: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946:Psychomelodic 1943: 1939: 1936: 1934: 1931: 1925: 1920: 1917: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1897: 1894: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1884: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865:Israeli Arabs 1862: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1831: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1797: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1752: 1747: 1744: 1742: 1739: 1736: 1733: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1720:Strong Delete 1718: 1713: 1710: 1706: 1703: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1667: 1660: 1657: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643:Strong Delete 1641: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1625:Strong delete 1623: 1622: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1539: 1535: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1516:Strong delete 1514: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1476: 1473: 1472: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1450: 1449:Strongly Keep 1447: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1435: 1433: 1430: 1428: 1422: 1421:Strong delete 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1392: 1389: 1388:Humus sapiens 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1228: 1225:: see this: 1224: 1215: 1212: 1211: 1208: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1190:Islamofascism 1187: 1184: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1121:Islamofascism 1118: 1115: 1113: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1100: 1098: 1095: 1091: 1088: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1063: 1057: 1055:Rex the first 1050: 1046: 1043: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1031: 1029: 1026: 1023:per above. -- 1022: 1019: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 991: 989: 988:Bill Levinson 985: 982: 980: 977: 975: 971: 968: 967: 962: 959: 956: 952: 951: 950: 949: 946: 942: 939: 935: 931: 928: 926: 923: 919: 915: 912: 910: 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 888: 884: 881: 880: 875: 872: 868: 864: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 839: 834: 829: 823: 820: 815: 812: 810: 807: 806:Humus sapiens 803: 800: 799: 792: 789: 788:Humus sapiens 785: 781: 780: 779: 776: 772: 770: 768: 765: 760: 759: 758: 757: 748: 745: 744:Humus sapiens 741: 736: 735: 734: 731: 727: 723: 722: 721: 714: 710: 707: 705: 702: 698: 693: 690: 689: 688: 685: 684:Humus sapiens 681: 677: 676: 675: 672: 669:'s comments. 668: 664: 660: 657: 655: 652: 648: 645: 643: 640: 634: 627: 623: 620: 616: 613: 608: 605: 604: 603: 600: 596: 593: 591: 588: 584: 581: 579: 576: 572: 571: 566: 562: 558: 555: 553: 550: 546: 543: 541: 538: 523: 520: 518: 515: 511: 510: 505: 501: 497: 496:Charlie Sheen 493: 489: 485: 482: 480: 476: 475: 470: 466: 463: 461: 458: 452: 448: 445: 439: 436: 431: 428: 426: 423: 419: 415: 413: 409: 407: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 381: 376: 373: 372: 371: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355:Arena Journal 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 317: 315: 312: 308: 304: 301: 289: 286: 282: 281: 276: 275: 270: 269: 264: 263: 258: 257: 252: 249: 247: 242: 241: 240: 237: 236:Humus sapiens 233: 232: 231: 228: 224: 223: 222: 217: 216: 215: 212: 211:Humus sapiens 208: 204: 203: 202: 199: 195: 191: 187: 186:131,000 hits. 183: 179: 176: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 157: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 133: 127: 126:Strong Delete 124: 122: 119: 118:Humus sapiens 115: 111: 108: 107: 105: 99: 93: 87: 81: 76: 75: 72: 68: 60: 57: 55: 54: 51: 50:Mailer Diablo 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4809: 4806: 4801: 4798: 4769: 4743: 4707: 4692: 4685: 4658: 4647: 4642: 4639: 4632: 4608: 4604: 4587: 4550: 4544: 4542: 4534: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4469: 4457: 4406: 4383: 4375: 4365: 4352: 4347: 4342: 4299: 4287: 4272:January 2006 4265: 4250: 4238: 4212: 4196: 4169: 4156: 4140: 4123: 4114:Chris Lester 4113: 4107: 4098: 4090: 4078: 4066: 4050: 4034: 3999: 3990: 3985: 3973: 3939: 3921: 3912: 3900: 3886: 3881: 3810: 3789: 3778: 3766: 3730: 3709: 3697: 3685: 3598:January 2006 3596:itself! "In 3585: 3564: 3545: 3536: 3529: 3513: 3486: 3454: 3444: 3438: 3416: 3399: 3384: 3372: 3348: 3336: 3324: 3296: 3290: 3286: 3257: 3253: 3252:Note that a 3230: 3201: 3193: 3192: 3142: 3104: 3090: 3068: 3052: 3038: 3034: 2998: 2969: 2944: 2932: 2920: 2908: 2902: 2890: 2856:— Preceding 2850: 2832: 2817: 2801: 2789: 2775: 2765: 2761: 2746: 2715: 2703: 2699: 2683: 2671: 2650: 2644: 2638: 2632: 2626: 2620: 2614: 2608: 2602: 2579: 2567: 2547: 2535: 2523: 2491:reporting on 2490: 2486: 2452: 2441: 2435: 2411: 2390:Desmond Tutu 2360: 2334: 2303: 2299: 2276: 2221: 2176: 2156: 2152: 2134: 2035: 2002: 1958: 1942:anti-Zionism 1937: 1918: 1906: 1837: 1833: 1810: 1793: 1785: 1750: 1745: 1734: 1719: 1704: 1692: 1676: 1662: 1658: 1651:CommonGround 1642: 1624: 1579:User:Alienus 1534:User:Avraham 1531: 1527: 1515: 1503: 1480:CrazyRussian 1478: 1448: 1436: 1426: 1420: 1408: 1375:CommonGround 1351:CommonGround 1327:CommonGround 1270: 1240: 1222: 1220: 1219: 1205: 1201: 1185: 1169: 1161:Sam Blanning 1156: 1141: 1140:! Cheers -- 1129:Sam Blanning 1116: 1101: 1089: 1076:, just like 1066: 1044: 1032: 1020: 1008: 995:per above.- 992: 983: 969: 929: 920:or similar. 913: 898:propogandist 892: 882: 866: 862: 838:CrazyRussian 836: 827: 826: 813: 801: 718: 717: 708: 691: 658: 646: 625: 621: 606: 594: 582: 568: 564: 556: 544: 521: 507: 504:11 September 483: 473: 464: 446: 429: 374: 358: 354: 318: 302: 278: 272: 266: 260: 256:The Guardian 254: 244: 219: 218: 177: 156:CrazyRussian 154: 132:CrazyRussian 130: 125: 109: 64: 45: 43: 31: 28: 4699:Gush Shalom 4683:newspaper ( 4563:apartheid. 4398:Gush Shalom 4276:Gush Etzion 3913:Strong Keep 3779:Strong Keep 3602:Gush Etzion 3325:Strong Keep 3105:Strong Keep 3009:geopolitics 2961:Gush Shalom 2919:An obvious 2903:Strong Keep 2851:Strong Keep 2818:Strong keep 2810:Fred Bauder 2762:Strong Keep 2676:David Sneek 2595:75.2.106.46 2584:75.2.106.46 2568:Strong Keep 2222:interpreted 1746:Strong keep 1581:would stop 1528:Strong keep 1441:Amibidhrohi 1437:Strong Keep 1271:Strong keep 1094:Bertilvidet 1092:per above. 663:Ben Houston 622:Strong Keep 575:Ben Houston 380:Ben Houston 4791:Tazmaniacs 4760:Tazmaniacs 4730:Al Jazeera 4710:in English 4448:Tazmaniacs 4429:Al Jazeera 4409:in English 4331:soapboxing 4289:Bantustans 3932:Giovanni33 3794:≈ jossi ≈ 3614:Bantustans 3590:Bantustans 3461:Aguerriero 3409:TheProject 3057:Tazmaniacs 3027:Tazmaniacs 2988:Al Jazeera 2972:in English 2949:abstention 2945:White vote 2648:block user 2618:filter log 2436:the Nation 2206:" - Done. 2081:Bless sins 2056:Dirty Jews 1911:Karl Meier 1763:Green line 1629:Briangotts 1536:, such as 1275:Bless sins 1204:Cheers -- 1082:Bless sins 1011:per above 665:regarding 102:See also: 96:See also: 90:See also: 84:See also: 78:See also: 4217:Benvandal 4201:Viriditas 4055:User:Ezeu 3991:K a s h 3905:Lancsalot 3811:Weak Keep 2911:Irongaard 2654:block log 2487:endorsing 2386:Uri Davis 2374:neologism 2189:Hyperbole 2131:Uri Davis 2119:NPOV term 1772:User:IZAK 1685:Nandesuka 1635:(Contrib) 1223:undecided 1013:abakharev 938:Ramallite 934:Afrikaans 902:neologism 607:Question: 561:Uri Davis 418:Viriditas 389:Uri Davis 363:Viriditas 359:Midstream 280:bantustan 207:reputable 4255:Comments 4161:Khorshid 4071:GabrielF 4017:contribs 3918:Tar baby 3782:BhaiSaab 3737:Khoikhoi 3716:Khoikhoi 3670:Satyagit 3621:Satyagit 3405:User:Zeq 3365:Dna4salE 3254:deletion 3096:IronDuke 2895:Coroebus 2870:contribs 2858:unsigned 2836:contribs 2706:them. -- 2704:describe 2606:contribs 2540:Tobyk777 2495:CJCurrie 2365:CJCurrie 2218:User:Zeq 1811:Comment: 1557:contribs 1545:unsigned 1489:contribs 1468:contribs 1456:unsigned 1347:POV fork 847:contribs 819:Strothra 651:Stilanas 570:Tar baby 500:Pentagon 451:PinchasC 397:tar baby 285:Satyagit 194:842 hits 165:contribs 141:contribs 114:POV fork 4784:Liftarn 4681:Haaretz 4663:Liftarn 4565:Copysan 4368:Haaretz 4348:Israeli 4333:here. ← 4302:Haaretz 4260:Comment 4243:Runcorn 4178:savidan 4145:Guinnog 4143:As per 4083:الأهواز 4059:Zereshk 4053:as per 3616:." See 3571:Ariel C 3357:Hasbara 3353:Hafrada 3265:Copysan 3194:Certain 3144:state". 3120:, (and 3118:Raghead 3053:Comment 3035:Comment 2953:Haaretz 2925:Liftarn 2794:Alsayid 2782:RolandR 2139:Copysan 2100:Copysan 2091:Copysan 2019:Guinnog 1972:Copysan 1681:WP:SOAP 1549:Alienus 1412:Guinnog 1361:Guinnog 1301:Guinnog 1279:Guinnog 1249:WP:NPOV 1186:Neutral 1025:Shlomke 863:Comment 828:Comment 720:Haaretz 709:Comment 692:Comment 587:Leifern 430:Comment 375:Comment 221:Haaretz 178:Comment 46:toss it 4721:Durban 4578:Elizmr 4472:Pecher 4420:Durban 4388:Bwithh 4322:Bwithh 4270:: "In 4239:Delete 4213:Delete 4197:Delete 4157:Delete 4149:Ec5618 4124:Delete 4091:Delete 4067:Delete 3815:nigger 3790:Delete 3767:Delete 3660:Pecher 3642:Pecher 3630:WP:Not 3565:Delete 3546:Delete 3532:Corbin 3518:nigger 3487:Create 3439:Delete 3417:Delete 3385:Create 3377:FRCP11 3329:Frikle 3196:delete 3156:WP:NOT 3152:WP:NEO 3110:Nigger 3091:Delete 3041:Tewfik 2980:Durban 2933:Delete 2802:Delete 2751:tickle 2747:Delete 2692:nigger 2572:Loom91 2461:WP:NEO 2440:, the 2428:WP:NEO 2417:WP:NEO 2378:WP:NEO 2300:before 2278:Szvest 2204:nigger 2185:nigger 2155:" as " 2135:phrase 2123:gidonb 2007:nigger 1938:Delete 1907:Delete 1730:ek ook 1709:gidonb 1705:Delete 1697:Elizmr 1693:Delete 1677:Delete 1665:Tewfik 1659:Delete 1632:(Talk) 1609:Jayjg 1587:Jayjg 1508:Jayjg 1504:Delete 1460:Sudi a 1310:nigger 1292:Pecher 1288:WP:NOT 1253:WP:NOT 1241:delete 1207:Szvest 1171:Szvest 1157:should 1143:Szvest 1117:Delete 1102:Delete 1037:Pecher 1033:Delete 1021:Delete 1009:Delete 993:Delete 984:Delete 970:Delete 958:Bwithh 930:Delete 922:Isarig 914:Delete 889:, but 883:Delete 802:Delete 775:Bwithh 730:Bwithh 671:Bwithh 647:Delete 595:Delete 583:Delete 545:Delete 522:Delete 465:Delete 447:Delete 349:, and 319:Delete 227:Bwithh 198:Bwithh 4782:. // 4755:Hamas 4715:2001 4672:used: 4594:Homey 4462:BigDT 4414:2001 4343:Reply 4284:Ariel 4229:Homey 4205:Armon 4170:Merge 4147:. -- 4051:keep' 4010:(Yom) 3864:Homey 3851:WP:RS 3842:Homey 3771:Gadig 3651:Homey 3610:Ariel 3568:: --> 3550:RenyD 3522:chink 3514:Keep. 3483:WP:RS 3445:Grue 3301:eptor 3278:Homey 3235:eptor 3206:eptor 3181:Derex 3171:Derex 3126:Derex 3073:Talpr 3018:Hamas 3004:Hamas 2947:(not 2879:DLand 2776:worse 2624:WHOIS 2556:dewet 2550:into 2469:Homey 2465:WP:RS 2404:Homey 2325:Homey 2259:Homey 2208:Homey 1893:Homey 1873:Homey 1850:hymie 1840:with 1838:merge 1796:Homey 1577:. If 1493:email 1427:Aiden 1371:Pinto 1109:BigDT 1045:Merge 974:DLand 851:email 740:WP:RS 632:LotLE 399:with 253:)? ; 169:email 145:email 16:< 4778:and 4738:here 4614:6SJ7 4554:6SJ7 4458:Note 4438:here 4282:and 4187:Ezeu 4141:Keep 4095:AnnH 4079:Keep 4043:Ezeu 4041:. -- 4035:Keep 4025:Talk 4000:Keep 3986:Keep 3974:Keep 3953:6SJ7 3940:Keep 3891:6SJ7 3875:OK, 3819:kike 3753:6SJ7 3710:Keep 3608:and 3586:Keep 3467:talk 3400:this 3363:". - 3349:Keep 3337:Keep 3308:talk 3287:some 3258:move 3242:talk 3213:talk 3114:Kike 2995:here 2990:and 2967:and 2937:Noon 2921:keep 2891:Keep 2866:talk 2830:talk 2790:Keep 2696:fuck 2694:and 2684:Keep 2672:Keep 2642:http 2636:RBLs 2630:RDNS 2600:talk 2528:heqs 2463:and 2361:Keep 2339:6SJ7 2335:your 2308:6SJ7 2304:next 2268:IZAK 2241:6SJ7 2237:6SJ7 2227:IZAK 2177:Keep 2015:kike 2013:and 2011:cunt 1982:pro- 1959:Keep 1929:T@lk 1883:IZAK 1854:IZAK 1846:kike 1834:Keep 1818:6SJ7 1735:Keep 1553:talk 1538:here 1485:talk 1477:. - 1464:talk 1312:and 1251:and 1196:and 1090:Keep 1067:Keep 1001:Talk 867:very 843:talk 835:. - 659:Keep 638:talk 612:6SJ7 599:6SJ7 557:Keep 484:Keep 474:talk 422:Talk 367:Talk 303:Keep 243:The 161:talk 137:talk 4719:in 4690:or 4679:in 4650:Zeq 4418:in 4320:-- 4128:782 4057:.-- 3976:-- 3962:Ted 3944:Ted 3887:not 3882:not 3855:Zeq 3817:or 3731:did 3633:Zeq 3502:Zeq 3421:Tom 3341:Xed 3291:all 3161:HKT 3080:HKT 2978:in 2840:HKT 2736:HKT 2725:☠☢☣ 2708:FOo 2700:not 2661:HKT 2506:HKT 2419:. ← 2394:HKT 2202:or 2183:or 2161:HKT 2148:PLO 2030:to 1992:HKT 1984:PLO 1924:JFW 1848:or 1738:WLD 1567:Avi 1559:) . 1520:Avi 1470:) . 1261:Zeq 1232:Zeq 1198:2nd 1194:1st 906:HKT 893:not 871:HKT 786:. ← 742:. ← 713:Joe 701:Joe 699:. 563:), 549:Rob 536:el 514:Joe 502:on 469:RJH 435:Joe 321:. 209:. ← 116:. ← 4774:, 4723:: 4637:. 4609:he 4605:he 4592:. 4545:do 4422:: 4400:: 4293:" 4278:, 4241:-- 4227:. 4203:. 4176:. 4021:• 4013:| 4005:ዮም 3988:-- 3853:. 3800:• 3604:, 3524:, 3520:, 3496:, 3394:, 3116:, 3112:, 3011:, 2986:; 2982:: 2963:: 2959:, 2955:, 2909:-- 2872:) 2868:• 2754:me 2722:- 2698:) 2526:. 2392:. 2384:. 2246:) 2046:? 2042:? 2009:, 1966:, 1952:) 1944:. 1926:| 1683:. 1607:? 1596:Al 1555:• 1466:• 1338:Al 1318:Al 999:| 936:. 904:. 817:-- 728:. 533:er 477:) 453:| 420:| 410:, 378:-- 365:| 345:, 341:, 337:, 69:. 4688:" 4378:" 4291:. 4099:♫ 3802:@ 3798:t 3470:) 3464:( 3429:r 3425:e 3297:H 3231:H 3202:H 2864:( 2833:· 2828:( 2656:) 2651:· 2645:· 2639:· 2633:· 2627:· 2621:· 2615:· 2609:· 2603:· 2598:( 2560:✉ 2558:| 2151:" 2079:. 1919:D 1778:: 1551:( 1491:/ 1487:/ 1462:( 1221:* 849:/ 845:/ 766:. 635:× 530:P 527:M 471:( 309:. 167:/ 163:/ 143:/ 139:/

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index