996:
even their culture, but acknowledge they came from it. We can support articles like that here, esp since jewishness is a highly notable identity that often transcends other categories, due to the history of the jews. we could have notable hindu winners (which is a highly culturally identified religion), but that would be mostly people from India, so somewhat redundant. I think a problem here stems with the original research in the lead, where numerous facts are pulled together to give an impression of POV. I dont think we can say much in the lead beyond "this is a list of people who have been awarded the NP who are Jewish", unless other reliable sources have written about the intersection of
Jewishness and Nobel prizes. maybe if the lead is simplified, it will read better. MBz, if there are nobel laureates who converted to judaism, they would be included here. we would use the list as inclusively as possible.
2103:(which ever preferred). All the reasons for having this article are reasons for having that article instead. On the other hand, we have to face that this article's only addition is two numbers: 162 and 20%. It happens that it is a list of elements of a set (Nobel laureates) gathered according to a feature that doesn't have anything to do with it (being Jewish). Notice that that is not the case of any of the other list involving Nobel laureates. The alternative I mentioned at least is more politically correct. I think all the people wanting this article would find this alternative equally satisfactory or maybe better. That, if the real intention is to provide real encyclopedic information. I think that should have been the article created in the first place, if any in this direction.
398:, and I have no problem whatsoever with it as this is a notable topic that has been extensively studied by external researchers. What I dislike about the Nobel list is that it lumps together very different people using a very subjective criterion (Jewishness, which cannot be as objectively defined as, say, nationality or university affiliation) without providing any kind of reference to back up the claim. The Nobel Foundation maintains several Nobel-related lists on its website. None of them are based on religion or ethnicity, which means that the awarding organisation itself does not consider the correlation to be relevant. As for the fact that there are other similar lists, please read
236:, it was decided to delete all such articles (Jewish laureates, Christian laureates, atheist laureates...). Even if we were to consider Jewishness as an ethnicity and not just a religion (which is the argument that is often invoked in such situations), the article in its current form does not provide any reference whatsoever to back up the claim that any of the individuals listed are Jewish. Why are they listed here? What is the criterion used? I'm always wary of attributing a religious affiliation to someone without reliable sources clearly stating that the individual in question identified as such. In its current form, the article is a flagrant violation of
767:. Yes, the list should cite sources saying each of the people listed is Jewish. But it has already been demonstrated here that reliable sources are available for many of them, so that argument for deletion falls away. I also agree that the list's preamble should contain a referenced explanation of why this combination of attributes (Jewishness and winning the Nobel Prize) is significant, e.g. based on the sources mentioned by Nableezy above. No difficulty there, it seems. People are also arguing for deletion by virtue of precedent (the 2007 AFD), and a kind of inverse
410:. Ideally, I would like to see them go too. They were also submitted for deletion in the past (which shows that I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with such "ethnic" lists), but there was not enough consensus to delete them. However, that's the way Knowledge (XXG) works; one bad list should not be an excuse for other bad lists. Finally, if you find it interesting that 22% of Nobel laureates are Jewish, then you can certainly go on and create a properly referenced subsection about that (one where the notability of the correlation is established by
1071:. If you do a little bit of research, you'll see there's actually no solid source saying either is Jewish. You'll only find some ethno-centric or anti-semitic sites listing them on and off --- without any source information on their pages. Also, the front of the page state "162 people who won Nobel Prizes were of Jewish ethnicity" -- which is yet again a misleading statement, as you fail to mention that almost 1/3 of those individual listed are Jewish by means of one Jewish parent or, in a few cases, less. How does that make this article
839:. 1) POV, who decicdes that someone is Jewish? Do we have a kind of statement? Why should that be relevant? 2) POV, this list tries to privilige Jewish in comparison to others. Why is that? Are Jewish God's blessed people or what? 3) Do we need now a list of Spanish Nobel Prize holders, German, English,....??? 4) Could everything be included in Nobel Prize winners, and what a person beliefs in is not subject to a neutral encyclopedia.
1516:: If we are to have lists (which gets debated regularly) then this list should stay. It has clearly defined AND LIMITED members that don't keep fluctuating (it can be added to but it would be a rare circumstance to remove someone), so it is a list that can be complete. Sourcing must be impeccable, but surely all nobel laureates should be notable enough for their own article anyway, so the sourcing should be also in that.
1110:
771:: that all sorts of bad stuff will be created if we don't delete this one. The latter is not convincing, because we can simply bring the bad stuff to AFD, and let it stand or fall on its own merits. And people did argue late in the 2007 AFD (which was a group nomination of several lists of Nobel Prize winners by religion/non-religion) that the list of Jewish winners was a special case. I agree. --
327:. What seem to be the problem in having the article? For all Jews being Jew is a state of mind. I've checked all individuals and all of them are added to corresponding categories as for example Jewish American scientists, German-American Jews , Jewish poets , Russian Jews, etc in the main articles they appear. I hope you are not suggesting that all those categories should be removed. --
2009:, I'm not sure if it is really workable. Classifying people by ethnicity is not straightforward and depends on the context. Here you'd be trying to do it for people from all over the globe and across more than a century. The list of Jewish laureates has the advantage of focusing on a very restricted part of this problem, and even here there are tricky issues around the definition. --
718:
622:
969:- There is absolutely no evidence of POV here. Being of Jewish ancestry or conversion to Judism is not a vague criteria. Individuals either are or they are not and sources will confirm that. Equally so, Nobel Prize winners are known and verifiable. This list's inclusion criteria are clear and concise. One might quibble with an individual entry, but this list in toto meets
1282:
1808:. I think that will solve the problem of having those IMO racists lists as Black Nobel laureates, Jewish Nobel laureates and the like. What makes this particular article relevant makes also the one for all the other ethnicities notable too. I think that that achieves neutrality. What makes Jewish ethnicity more notable than... I don't know
1039:." Does it make her to be Jewish? I do not know. The idea behind the making of the list was not to make it is big as possible, but rather make it to represent the reality as much as possible. If the article would be kept, we could discuss later on, if laureates like Elfriede Jelinek should be included. One more example is
2211:- 90% of the keep arguments just say "Jewish is an ethnicity too!" which the nominator has already acknowledged. The reason for deletion is the same reason for deletion that was given in the other 10 AfDs. This list keeps on getting recreated. There's really no discussion here. You can't recreate previously deleted lists.
1121:
Which once again shows that all this list is doing is regurgitating ambiguities and acting as great fuel for anti-semitic websites likes stormfront.org and low-brow Jewish "ethnic pride" webpages like the Jewish
Virtual Library. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need to substantiate the fact that Jewish people
1973:
suits precisely that purpose and I would say it siuts better that purpose. It serves well to show Jewish history and heritage (articles on the topic can link to the specific section) and at the same time doesn't leave out other ethnicities. It shows information in a more encyclopedic way since it is
940:
The list has nothing to do with the religion. The list includes few Jews, who converted to
Christianity, and it does not include Christians, who converted to Judaism. Yikrazuul, I've also got a strong impression of at least bad-taste POV from your comment. Both times you've used "delete" you made it
553:
Do you really believe that published sources are more reliable than web sites? Few months ago one of my images was published in a book. I explained to the author in length that the image was of inferior mirage. When I got a published copy of the book, it stated that the image is Fata
Morgana, and it
1950:
There's absolutely nothing racist about the list. The list is a part of Jewish history and Jewish heritage. It also provides encyclopedic information for people, who are interested in this particular topic. I've never said, and never will say that Jewish ethnicity is more notable than any other is,
1196:- criteria for inclusion in the list is clear; that it's right now inadequately sourced (if that's even the case) is not grounds for deletion. That said, I want to note that a reasonable man could support deletion without being an antisemite, and it's wrong to impugn anyone by suggesting otherwise.
370:
I understand, you do not like it - so many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize. Of course all the articles have the external reliable sources stating that the individuals in question are Jewish, and it could be confirmed with not just one, but by many reliable sources outside
Knowledge (XXG). Jews is
2170:
This intersection is notable given that there are many sources talking specifically about this intersection (and the oddly large size of the set). We have a lot of good sourcing so that's not an issue. There's a tiny issue of a similar article being deleted earlier but that was 3 years ago and had
2150:
Reasonable intersection, as for other ethnic/religious/cultural etc. groups. That a few individual items in a list can be questioned does not mean the list is invalid. (the same argument goes for the restoration of lists mentioned as examples previously deleted). I am really unable to figure out
1637:
Now there's a surprise. Looks like I'm on 'the list' - It's worth noting that editors of good faith don't have to resort to attacking the history of other editors in order to give weight to their rationale here. I'm entitled to vote/comment here just as you are. If your arguments are strong enough
469:
While the article is quite interesting, and inspiring, it amounts to original research since it doesn't cite any sources that say, as a group, Jewish Nobel Prize winners are a notable thing. If someone writes a book putting this forth as evidence of Jewish intellectual or moral superiority (or of
2094:
Sorry but there is an inherent mistake in your question. I do not have to give one of those. The very first line states "but are not limited to". There are a couple of reasons why this list is not desirable and some have been mentioned by others but I would like to focus, for the moment, with the
1849:
A writer once said. "Things are not how they are called but the way we call them along the way" (terrible translation probably). They don't call it racist because they call racist when something bad is said about a race of people. It happens that I call racist also to any division of persons into
1591:
In this article, the majority perspective is that there are some number of Nobel
Laureates that are of Jewish descent. The list presents that majority perspective well, although individual list entries may be subject to verifiability. What then is the minority view that is not presented fairly?
1446:
converted Jews still consider themselves Jews to one extent or the other. But if there were evidence that a converted Jew did not wish to be identified as a Jew, then it would make sense to leave him off the list. Indeed there are some well-known Jews that wish they were not; and there are even
995:
we do have articles on nobel prize winners by nationality, gender. i agree it can be a slippery slope: I dont like the article on "black" laureates, as that is a highly subjective description. however, people self identifying as jewish is very clear cut, even people who renounce their religion or
919:
Maybe I should have focused it only to the religion: Yes, we donna have a "List of
Christian Nobel prize winners", "List of Hindu ..." etc. because it never should be important here to be "of a particular ethnicity or religion". I am sad to see that you are stressing the religion and ethnicity so
903:, as I see no reason to believe that this is a consensus-dodging POV fork and not a legitimate spin-off of the main article that discusses one of its subtopics in greater detail. By the way, what does "God's blessed people" have to do with anything? I'm afraid the only POV I see here is yours. —
1415:
Good finds, Stellar! I wonder what the reason for deletion would be offered now :) About converts, I personally would not have included them to the article because to me the list is more about ethnicity that about religion. If we are to include converts to
Judaism, does it mean we should exclude
1679:
The exact quote from my talk page: "nazis did not ask for a reliable source to prove somebody is Jew, when they murdered 6 millions innocent women, children and elderly" So, whom exactly did I call "nazis"? I mean, if I did, it is a bookable offense, go report me to AN/I or take your acusation
1592:
Your assertion that the article is POV must mean that a minority view is not presented fairly. If that is the case, what is that minority view and how might it be presented so that the article was indeed NPOV? Please address these questions so as to better assess your claim of POV. Thanks.--
2294:
The definition of recreate is "make or cause to be or to become what has once already become." Therefore, whether you knew the list existed already or not, you recreated it after there had been discussions to delete this page and pages like it. "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" is not a topic. One
2229:
No, 90% of the keep arguments note that the list originally had less than perfect sources but that this has been much remedied since then. I myself showed above that the topic itself is notable in reliable sources going back to 1940. 95% of the delete votes DO seem to be based on nothing but
2151:
why the arguments against having such lists are even considered, once sourcing has been dealt with the general discussion referred to goes back to 2007, and I hope consensus has been changed, and that we are no longer afraid of this sort of subject, and more receptive to lists in general.
1588:
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source
592:). There are many more. I dont really have an opinion on whether or not this specific list should exist, but an article could certainly exist on Jewish Nobel laureates. But Mbz1, please calm down a bit, I am sure the people voting to delete are not doing so because they dislike the fact that
687:. If someone wants to argue that Blacks are superior at ice hockey or Russians are superior poets, that's their business. It is our business to give them the information that is relevant, not to make value judgments over the worth of such an article.
393:
Dear Mbz1, it is quite offensive for you to suggest that the reason I want this article deleted is because I "do not like so many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize". This is certainly not why I dislike the article. There is already an article about
2124:
Well, if you're changing the subject back to your proposal, I've responded to that now under your !vote above. Here I will just say that no, I do not find your proposal equally satisfactory. But you're welcome to go ahead with your list as well. --
2189:
233:
98:
1043:. He won Nobel Prize in 1972. He converted to Judaism by undergoing an Orthodox conversion in 1979, so 7 years later after he received the prize. I of course did not include him, because I felt, if I do I could find myself at a slippery slope. --
371:
not only religion, it is an ethnicity and it was a nationality in a former Soviet Union, that's why your claim about other religions has nothing to do with the article. I did not include to the article, the ones, who converted to
Judaism. --
345:
You must have external reliable sources stating that the individuals in question identified themselves as Jewish. The fact that an individual is placed in a Jewish-related category on
Knowledge (XXG) is not considered proper referencing, as
197:
2192:). It is clear from that discussion that the claimed consensus was absent. Moreover, ethnicity/religion is clearly relevant to some winners of the prize for literature, e.g. Wiesel, Bellow and Singer, and peace (Rabin and Perez).
488:
Every Nobel prize winner is notable, and it is just an interesting fact that Jews constitute 22% from those notable people. Nobody is talking about superiority, but as I mentioned above as long as Knowledge (XXG) hosts all those
793:
initiating an AfD. I suggest this AfD be closed, and time given to discuss any problems with the article on its talk page. If, after discussion, the articles still seems problematic to BomBom that would be the time for an AfD.
789:: This is an article that was just created, and perhaps Mbz1 has not had much experience with the sourcing requirements of new articles. It would have been better to discuss any preceived issues on the article's talk page
2030:—the primary argument for this article's deletion has been supposedly inherently referencing problems. This has already been proven false by the editor of the article. Therefore, there is no real delete rationale left. —
1465:, if you are born as Jew you can't be anything else other than Jew. I mean, you can convert to any other religion, but it would be meaningless to the Halakha beside being treated as Meshoomad (this is sort of apostasy).
2095:
proposition I made, which I think suits well to those who want or need this article and also polishes some of the reasons why it is not a good idea. I am talking, of course about the only idea I have given, creating
82:
1487:
report that a Nobel laureate is Jewish, they are Jewish for Knowledge (XXG) purposes. If there are no sources that identify the laureate as a Jew, they don't belong on the list. Nothing matters but the sources.
1974:
more useful to establish comparisons, statistics, etc. The example I gave shows why having this independent article will certainly be a source of exclusivity. It is very unlikely that an article like "List of
229:
90:
1835:
I would not have used the word "racist" so easy. Do you believe that everybody, who voted to keep the "racist" list is a racist or in the best case scenario are too stupid to see that the list is "racist"?--
1010:
Thanks for your suggestion, Mercurywoodrose. I've used the most reliable and the most conservative source I have found to make the list. That's why I did not include in the list few laureates. For example
1108:
Unfortunately, it has been shown time and time again that the Encyclopedia Judaica is a rather unreliable, and occasionally questionably motivated, source. Pyotr Kapitsa explicits states he is not Jewish:
1112:. Straight from the horse's mouth. Similarly, if you consider Jewish encyclopedias to be good sources, you should then have removed Tamm for not being listed in the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia:
1063:
Mbz, your sourcing is actually terribly off. I had to deal with this list many times, and the state its in now is no better. You added two individuals without any original source information:
558:, which has a individual article for every person mentioned in the list. Jews are not interested to claim that somebody is a Jew, if they are not 100% sure they is. Please trust me on that.--
1092:
Tamm is listed in "The Encyclopedia of Russian Jewry, Biographies A-I", edited by Herman Branover, Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ, 1998, pp. 351-352. I added another reference for the entry.--
191:
299:
1089:
Pyotr Kapitsa is listed in Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 10 (Keter, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 747), he was also a member of Jewish Antifascist Committee. I added another reference for the entry.
2303:
without the "list" in front of it. You can't, because the topic is not separate in academia. Sites online use it for either ethnic pride of anti-semitic reasonings, and authors like
152:
125:
120:
2321:
This is all irrelevant as you are discussing an imaginary rule that doesn't actually exist. It is fine to recreate deleted pages as long as this is not done in a disruptive manner.
1638:
you should need to personally dig at other editors. FWIW David Sainsbury and David Sumberg are Jewish and something they are entitled to be proud of. Anyway it's clear why you and
1118:
and more than plenty stating he is "Russian." If you think it's strange to put Jelinek on this list for having a Jewish ancestor, you'd be hard bent not to find it odd to put Tamm.
1613:
I do not think the vote by Vexorg should be discussed seriously because at least on two occasion the user added unsourced Jewish ethnicity claim to the persons, who are not Jews:
129:
2307:
use it to prove a point in his book (which lists all accomplishments by ethnicity and nation as well). But alone, it is not a topic that can have an article written about it.
1786:
112:
350:. I would also like to point out that if this article is kept, it will lead to a slippery slope and we will witness the recreation of other religion-based Nobel lists. --
572:
There are sources that discuss the disproportionate percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates, there are also sources that discuss why this is the case. See Murray, Charles.
632:. I am not sure who one could say "disproportionate" percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates. Why it is "disproportionate", and who was the one to establish proportions?--
522:
273:
157:
437:
407:
1781:), this one is actually notable, maintainable, readable, and complete; most of the other lists will never be so. The list is also now copiously referenced, thanks to
1258:
1430:
That's an interesting question, Mb. I would say it would depend if the converted-to-Christianity Jews explicitly renounce their Judaism. I guess a group like
596:. Also, I think you could take care of some of the concerns by providing a rock-solid source for each of the entries saying that the person is or was Jewish.
1951:
and of course, if somebody would create a similar list for any other ethnicity I am not going to nominate it to be deleted or to vote for it to be deleted.--
1115:- which is perhaps the most extensive. There are no official recorded biographies of Tamm stating he is a "Jew." Yet, there are stating he is "half German"
1850:
races or for what is worth, ethnic groups even more if it is done to show some sort of pride. Anyways, the important thing is about creating the article
440:. Then why we cannot have list of Jews Nobel Prize Winners. It is an interesting information, and wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so why not? See here:
232:, and the result was no consensus. The issue of having Nobel lists based on religious affiliation was raised several times in the past, and after a
116:
212:
2264:. And under valid reasons for recreation see "Improvement of previous writing" and "Poorly created articles" which are both very relevant here.
179:
1470:
1158:
1778:
795:
581:
507:
I agree that it is an interesting fact, more than just interesting. However until someone else points out this fact WP should not do so.
1854:. I would call also racist such an article too, but in this case all the possible races (present among the Nobels) will be represented.
1494:
1292:
753:
2330:
2316:
2289:
2273:
2253:
2239:
2220:
2203:
2180:
2162:
2134:
2115:
2089:
2075:
2055:
2034:
2018:
1990:
1960:
1941:
1896:
1866:
1844:
1828:
1813:
1793:
1753:
1739:
1725:
1703:
1689:
1655:
1628:
1601:
1564:
1542:
1525:
1498:
1474:
1456:
1425:
1407:
1317:
1296:
1269:
1241:
1232:
Commment- True but the comment "Are Jewish God's blessed people or what?" has zero place in an AfD, and frankly has a very bad smell.
1217:
1200:
1186:
1162:
1135:
1101:
1084:
1052:
1005:
986:
950:
929:
912:
874:
830:
803:
780:
757:
733:
708:
656:
641:
606:
567:
548:
534:
516:
502:
479:
453:
427:
380:
359:
336:
314:
288:
260:
108:
72:
66:
17:
173:
679:. Jews are proud of the achievements of their fellows, just as Black folks are proud of the people in their heritage group, and
1466:
1154:
676:
1447:
some prominent "Jews" that want to be identified as a Jew merely for political purposes. So you are right, It is complicated.
870:
675:
which I was at the other day and discovered several wonderful actors and actresses that I didn't know of were Jewish. We have
169:
2096:
1851:
1416:
converts to Christianity? Of course, in no way I own the article, so it is for community to decide who should be included. --
680:
2280:
It never was recreated, as a matter of fact I even never known it was here before. I've done everithing from the scratch. --
1123:
2193:
2100:
2006:
1970:
1805:
1339:
1335:
889:
433:
403:
219:
1918:
1884:
1035:
by working in strategically important industrial production. However, several dozen family members became victims of the
768:
893:
256:
2353:
2063:
1552:
36:
1910:
1876:
1521:
1015:, who won Nobel Prize in literature in 2004 is one of them. Knowledge (XXG) article states about her: "Her father, a
2300:
1914:
1371:
1355:
1326:
To speak to the issue of lists by religion which some have objected to, we also have these For the record we have
1712:. He helped me with the article because I asked him to. There's nothing bad in his help,is it? On the other hand
1367:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1001:
684:
470:
their status as God's Chosen People or whatever) then write an article on that but don't just give us the data.
185:
2352:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1926:
1905:
Indeed, there are people in the world that do qualify in the epithet that Mbz1 were mentioning. First of all,
799:
228:
This article was recently recreated even though it was previously deleted. It was first submitted for deletion
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2261:
1922:
1777:. This is obviously an ethnicity-based list, not a religious one, and unlike most of these Jewish lists (e.g.
1586:
above if indeed as you assert that this article is POV. The operative concept in the WP:NPOV policy is this:
1479:
Not complicated at all, and this is why it's so important that each person's religion be sourced (and why the
2043:
Only the issue of the lack of references has been addressed, which by the way, wasn't the primary argument.
1906:
1880:
1363:
1359:
1331:
885:
441:
858:
399:
244:
1517:
415:
395:
2260:
Sorry, that's not actual Knowledge (XXG) policy. Please actually READ the policy before appealing to it:
1551:
Huh??? Anyway, even if it was (which it isn't), POV is not a valid reason for deletion, please read the
1489:
1395:
1287:
1040:
850:) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC) PS: cite: "Nobel Prize winners are notable for winning the Nobel Prize,
748:
672:
347:
1812:
ethnicity? Even if there is only one individual for that section. Such and article will be similar to
1378:. Obviously some people find this type of list interesting and informative. I haven't looked for any
2308:
2245:
2212:
1978:
Nobel laureates" will be created because probably there is only one Nobel laureate in such category.
1597:
1452:
1403:
1313:
1237:
1213:
1127:
1076:
997:
982:
704:
577:
2200:
925:
866:
847:
205:
816:
629:
555:
1714:
he warned me to "avoid challenging the behavior and motivations of those opposing your position."
1122:
made great contributions to the world by having this list. It should be obvious. As obvious as a
649:
599:
544:
512:
475:
900:
646:
Proportionate relative to the percentage of the population. Dont worry, its a good thing here.
2326:
2269:
2235:
2176:
2071:
1892:
1560:
1265:
1197:
1178:
908:
826:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2296:
1579:
970:
589:
2130:
2106:
2085:
2062:
Can you please indicate which of the following criteria are any other "arguments" based on:
2046:
2014:
1981:
1932:
1857:
1819:
1735:
1699:
1673:
1651:
1538:
1327:
1032:
1012:
776:
423:
355:
310:
284:
252:
1716:
So, if you need to blame somebody, blame me alone please, Mike has nothing to do with it.--
974:
490:
324:
48:. Consensus is that this list constitutes a notable and verifiable intersection. Regards,
1709:
1639:
1593:
1448:
1399:
1391:
1309:
1233:
1209:
978:
700:
574:
Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950
1484:
744:
493:
in place, I really do not see, how one could claim that this article should be deleted.--
237:
1975:
1809:
1260:. Also, as far as I can tell reliable sources have been added for most (all?) laureates.
892:
or thousands of similar lists on Knowledge (XXG). If your concern is that we don't have
2304:
2285:
2197:
1956:
1840:
1749:
1721:
1685:
1665:
1643:
1624:
1435:
1431:
1421:
1174:
1097:
1048:
1028:
946:
921:
862:
843:
729:
637:
563:
530:
498:
449:
376:
332:
2190:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination)
1257:- the topic itself is notable and has been covered in reliable sources since ... 1942
2158:
2031:
1182:
1064:
540:
508:
471:
2322:
2265:
2231:
2172:
2067:
1888:
1556:
1261:
1024:
904:
822:
146:
897:
819:
2126:
2081:
2010:
1782:
1731:
1695:
1669:
1647:
1534:
772:
692:
419:
351:
306:
280:
248:
1644:
User_talk:Mbz1#Strengthening_the_Lead-in_for_List_of_Jewish_Nobel_Prize_Winners
1177:'s "Are Jewish God's blessed people or what?" should be a sufficient reason. --
1790:
1116:
1113:
743:
The subject is notable. However, in a list of this nature, there should be a
2281:
1952:
1836:
1745:
1717:
1681:
1661:
1620:
1417:
1379:
1093:
1068:
1044:
1036:
942:
725:
688:
633:
559:
526:
494:
445:
372:
328:
2230:
IDON'TLIKEIT and completely ignore actual Knowledge (XXG) deletion policy.
695:
are notable for being Nobel Prize winners and there is absolutely nothing
525:. Knowledge (XXG) seems to be the only site that is missing the info :) --
2153:
2188:
I question the process that led to the earlier deletion of the article (
2196:
is a helpful suggestion, and would be an interesting article, I think.
1462:
1387:
1072:
1016:
2066:? Sourcing was the only possible issue here and it has been addressed.
1694:
Yes sorry I didn't read your quote properly. I retract the statement.
99:
Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination)
1126:. Arguments over content like this just screams: "Grow up, already."
813:
2244:
You mean ignoring wikipedia policy like recreating deleted lists?
1383:
1668:
who do not agree with your agenda is not very nice either is it?
2346:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
539:
That's 'cause WP follows published sources, not other websites.
418:
article. This is where it would be most appropriate. Regards. --
2171:
very different inclusion criteria, so there's no issue there.
1020:
2080:(edit conflict) I think it was indeed the main argument. --
1785:. It, like other rare examples with similar qualities (e.g.
402:. It is unfortunate that Knowledge (XXG) has such lists as
1708:
I also believe you should retract your accusation towards
1619:. I'd like to assume good faith in the user vote, but...--
1582:
is a core WP policy, I am open to changing my position of
83:
Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
2262:"Recreating a previously deleted page is not forbidden"
1713:
1617:
1614:
747:
for each individual that indicates she/he is Jewish. —
142:
138:
134:
1789:), actually has a chance of becoming a Featured List.
586:
Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States
204:
1646:
and I would imagine this will be taken into account.
91:
Votes for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners
2064:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
300:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
1883:, and the only way to make it neutral is to create
1787:
List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices
852:
not for being of a particular ethnicity or religion
218:
1921:would certainly be better than having others like
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2356:). No further edits should be made to this page.
442:Jewish Genius. -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
438:List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees
408:List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees
323:I did not know it was deleted, but we have this
1390:lists. Also to Mbz1 with respect to converts,
842:Hence because of POV and redundancy delete. --
8:
1461:Not so complicated, afaik. According to the
896:, feel free to create it using this source:
444:. BTW not all Jews are Ashkenazi you know.--
274:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions
1555:. Appears to be simply a IDON'TLIKEIT vote.
1031:) managed to avoid persecution during the
554:is only one example. Anyway here's a very
294:
268:
1642:are very protective over this article ..
1027:origin ("Jelinek" means "little deer" in
2097:List of Nobel prize winners by ethnicity
1852:List of Nobel laureates by ethnic groups
920:much, which is your sad-but-true-POV. --
901:WP:CFORK#What content/POV forking is not
716:You wanted a published reliable source?
298:: This debate has been included in the
272:: This debate has been included in the
2299:gives a test. Can you make the article
671:It's a fascinating list. We also have
96:
87:
80:
1208:Argue the merits, not the motivation--
594:many Jews are laureates of Nobel Prize
1124:List of Caucasian Nobel Prize Winners
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2194:List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity
2101:List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity
2007:list of Nobel laureates by ethnicity
1971:List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity
1909:is not gathering classes similar to
1806:List of Nobel laureates by ethnicity
1779:List of Jewish American entertainers
1744:Then admit you were unfair to him.--
1279:
1919:List of presidents by ethnic groups
1885:List of presidents by ethnic groups
1153:verifiable, notable, and per Mbz1.
79:
1814:List of Nobel laureates by country
894:List of German Nobel Prize Winners
348:Knowledge (XXG) cannot cite itself
109:List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
73:List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
24:
1173:: the particular stench alone of
941:bold to look as a double vote. --
884:This list is just as relevant as
681:Russians are proud of their poets
1280:
677:List of black ice hockey players
1553:Knowledge (XXG) deletion policy
691:is absolutely right that these
580:on that book, also viewable at
2005:While you're free to create a
1:
2295:criteria for making lists in
1915:List of presidents by country
1526:18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1499:07:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1475:06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1457:05:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1426:04:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1408:00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1394:(a convert) is counted among
1340:List of Muslim businesspeople
1336:List of Muslim mathematicians
1318:23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1297:23:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1270:22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1242:00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1218:23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1201:19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1187:19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1163:18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1053:18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1006:17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
987:17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
951:17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
930:16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
913:16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
890:List of American philosophers
875:15:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
831:15:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
804:12:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
781:10:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
758:07:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
734:06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
709:05:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
657:06:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
642:06:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
607:06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
576:pp. 281-283 (we even have an
568:05:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
549:05:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
535:05:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
517:05:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
503:04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
480:04:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
454:05:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
434:List of black Nobel Laureates
428:05:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
404:List of black Nobel Laureates
381:04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
360:03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
337:03:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
315:04:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
289:03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
261:03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1481:Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia
432:Well, you said it yourself:
1969:That's way the creation of
1911:List of American presidents
1877:List of American presidents
899:. I also suggest you visit
584:). Also Zukerman, Harriet.
2373:
2301:Jewish Nobel Prize winners
1372:List of Muslim geographers
1356:List of Muslim astronomers
812:. Notable and verifiable:
2331:03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2317:02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2290:02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2274:03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2254:01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2240:22:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
2221:07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
2204:17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2181:04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2163:04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2135:03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2116:02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2090:02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2076:02:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2056:00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2035:00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2019:03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
1991:15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1961:15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1942:12:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1927:List of Jewish presidents
1897:12:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1867:03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1845:02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1829:02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1794:01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1754:04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1740:04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1726:04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1704:03:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1690:03:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1656:02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1629:02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1602:02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1565:01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1543:01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
1368:List of Muslim astronauts
1352:list of Muslim scientists
1348:List of converts to Islam
1344:List of Muslim historians
1136:02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
1102:22:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
1085:20:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
67:04:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2349:Please do not modify it.
1923:List of black presidents
1879:is a racist POV fork of
1730:He gave you good advice
32:Please do not modify it.
1442:or Jewish-Christians.
1364:List of Muslim painters
1360:List of Muslim soldiers
1332:List of Muslim scholars
886:List of Italian writers
234:long discussion in 2007
1907:List of all presidents
1881:List of all presidents
1533:- the article is POV.
620:I provided 2 sources:
416:Ashkenazi intelligence
396:Ashkenazi intelligence
78:AfDs for this article:
1396:List of Jewish actors
1041:Christian B. Anfinsen
673:List of Jewish actors
1666:calling people nazis
1913:, in the best case
1875:While we're at it,
769:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
699:with such a list.
693:Nobel Prize winners
685:and their inventors
44:The result was
2114:
2054:
1989:
1940:
1865:
1827:
1816:or by specialty.
1578:- Vexorg - Since
1518:Elen of the Roads
878:
861:comment added by
659:
609:
317:
303:
291:
277:
264:
247:comment added by
2364:
2351:
2314:
2311:
2251:
2248:
2218:
2215:
2113:
2111:
2104:
2053:
2051:
2044:
1988:
1986:
1979:
1939:
1937:
1930:
1864:
1862:
1855:
1826:
1824:
1817:
1328:lists of Muslims
1285:
1284:
1283:
1133:
1130:
1082:
1079:
1033:Second World War
1013:Elfriede Jelinek
877:
855:
652:
647:
602:
597:
523:all over the NET
414:sources) in the
304:
278:
263:
241:
223:
222:
208:
160:
150:
132:
64:
34:
2372:
2371:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2354:deletion review
2347:
2312:
2309:
2249:
2246:
2216:
2213:
2198:Walter Siegmund
2107:
2105:
2047:
2045:
1982:
1980:
1933:
1931:
1858:
1856:
1820:
1818:
1497:
1392:Sammy Davis Jr.
1295:
1281:
1131:
1128:
1080:
1077:
998:Mercurywoodrose
856:
756:
723:
650:
630:reliable source
627:
600:
556:reliable source
242:
165:
156:
123:
107:
104:
93:
76:
60:
56:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2370:
2368:
2359:
2358:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2305:Charles Murray
2278:
2277:
2276:
2224:
2223:
2206:
2183:
2165:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2119:
2118:
2078:
2059:
2058:
2038:
2037:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1964:
1963:
1945:
1944:
1900:
1899:
1870:
1869:
1832:
1831:
1796:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1632:
1631:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1546:
1545:
1528:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1493:
1483:won't do). If
1438:are Christian-
1436:Messianic Jews
1432:Jews for Jesus
1321:
1320:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1291:
1273:
1272:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1190:
1189:
1175:User:Yikrazuul
1166:
1165:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1119:
1090:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
916:
915:
834:
833:
796:173.52.134.191
784:
783:
761:
760:
752:
737:
736:
717:
711:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
628:Page 198. and
621:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
570:
483:
482:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
386:
385:
384:
383:
365:
364:
363:
362:
340:
339:
318:
292:
226:
225:
162:
158:AfD statistics
103:
102:
101:
95:
94:
89:
86:
85:
77:
75:
70:
58:
54:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2369:
2357:
2355:
2350:
2344:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2252:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2222:
2219:
2210:
2209:Strong Delete
2207:
2205:
2202:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2184:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2169:
2166:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2155:
2149:
2146:
2145:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2117:
2112:
2110:
2102:
2098:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2060:
2057:
2052:
2050:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2036:
2033:
2029:
2026:
2025:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2003:
1992:
1987:
1985:
1977:
1972:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1943:
1938:
1936:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1868:
1863:
1861:
1853:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1830:
1825:
1823:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1677:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1590:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1531:Strong Delete
1529:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1512:
1511:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1490:Malik Shabazz
1486:
1482:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1308:per Radeksz.
1307:
1304:
1303:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1288:Malik Shabazz
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1137:
1134:
1125:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:Pyotr Kapitsa
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
991:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
977:guidelines.--
976:
972:
968:
952:
948:
944:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
918:
917:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
895:
891:
887:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
853:
849:
845:
840:
838:
837:Strong delete
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
814:
811:
808:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
792:
788:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
763:
762:
759:
755:
750:
749:Malik Shabazz
746:
742:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
722:
721:
715:
712:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
667:
666:
658:
654:
653:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
626:
625:
619:
608:
604:
603:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
468:
465:
464:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:WP:OTHERSTUFF
397:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
382:
378:
374:
369:
368:
367:
366:
361:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
316:
312:
308:
301:
297:
293:
290:
286:
282:
275:
271:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
239:
235:
231:
221:
217:
214:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
167:Find sources:
163:
159:
154:
148:
144:
140:
136:
131:
127:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
105:
100:
97:
92:
88:
84:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
62:
61:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2348:
2345:
2208:
2185:
2167:
2152:
2147:
2108:
2048:
2027:
1983:
1976:K'iche' Maya
1934:
1859:
1821:
1810:K'iche' Maya
1802:
1798:
1774:
1610:
1587:
1583:
1575:
1530:
1513:
1480:
1443:
1439:
1375:
1323:
1322:
1305:
1254:
1205:
1198:Tom Harrison
1193:
1170:
1150:
992:
966:
965:
851:
841:
836:
835:
809:
790:
786:
785:
764:
740:
719:
713:
696:
668:
648:
623:
598:
593:
590:google books
585:
573:
466:
411:
320:
295:
269:
243:— Preceding
230:back in 2004
227:
215:
209:
201:
194:
188:
182:
176:
166:
53:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1783:User:Avenue
1584:Strong Keep
1278:Nice find!
1151:Strong Keep
967:Strong Keep
857:—Preceding
724:Page 198.--
669:Strong Keep
588:pp. 78-82 (
321:Strong Keep
192:free images
1803:merge into
1710:Mike Cline
1640:Mike Cline
1594:Mike Cline
1449:Stellarkid
1400:Stellarkid
1310:Racepacket
1234:Stellarkid
1210:Mike Cline
979:Mike Cline
720:Here we go
701:Stellarkid
624:Here we go
57:rbitrarily
2109:franklin
2049:franklin
1984:franklin
1935:franklin
1860:franklin
1822:franklin
1589:material.
1380:Christian
1069:Igor Tamm
1037:Holocaust
922:Yikrazuul
863:Yikrazuul
844:Yikrazuul
821:, etc. —
787:Nota Bene
2032:Ynhockey
1576:Question
1467:Broccoli
1434:and the
1155:Broccoli
871:contribs
859:unsigned
651:nableezy
601:nableezy
541:Kitfoxxe
509:Kitfoxxe
491:articles
472:Kitfoxxe
412:external
325:category
257:contribs
245:unsigned
153:View log
2297:WP:LIST
2173:JoshuaZ
1889:Rankiri
1680:back.--
1660:Oh and
1611:Comment
1580:WP:NPOV
1463:Halakha
1388:atheist
1324:Comment
1017:chemist
971:WP:List
905:Rankiri
823:Rankiri
714:Comment
578:article
198:WP refs
186:scholar
126:protect
121:history
2313:dog123
2250:dog123
2217:dog123
2201:(talk)
2127:Avenue
2082:Avenue
2011:Avenue
1799:Delete
1791:Jayjg
1732:Vexorg
1696:Vexorg
1670:Vexorg
1648:Vexorg
1535:Vexorg
1132:dog123
1081:dog123
1021:Jewish
975:WP:CLN
791:before
773:Avenue
582:Amazon
521:It is
467:Delete
420:BomBom
352:BomBom
307:BomBom
281:BomBom
249:BomBom
170:Google
130:delete
2323:radek
2266:radek
2232:radek
2159:talk
2068:radek
1887:. —
1557:radek
1495:Stalk
1485:WP:RS
1384:Hindu
1293:Stalk
1262:radek
1206:Agree
1029:Czech
1025:Czech
754:Stalk
745:WP:RS
697:wrong
238:WP:RS
213:JSTOR
174:books
147:views
139:watch
135:links
16:<
2327:talk
2310:Bull
2286:talk
2282:Mbz1
2270:talk
2247:Bull
2236:talk
2214:Bull
2186:Keep
2177:talk
2168:keep
2148:Keep
2131:talk
2086:talk
2072:talk
2028:Keep
2015:talk
1957:talk
1953:Mbz1
1893:talk
1841:talk
1837:Mbz1
1801:and
1775:Keep
1750:talk
1746:Mbz1
1736:talk
1722:talk
1718:Mbz1
1700:talk
1686:talk
1682:Mbz1
1674:talk
1662:Mbz1
1652:talk
1625:talk
1621:Mbz1
1616:and
1598:talk
1561:talk
1539:talk
1522:talk
1514:Keep
1471:talk
1453:talk
1444:Most
1440:Jews
1422:talk
1418:Mbz1
1404:talk
1376:more
1374:and
1314:talk
1306:Keep
1266:talk
1255:Keep
1238:talk
1214:talk
1194:Keep
1183:talk
1171:Keep
1159:talk
1129:Bull
1098:talk
1094:Mbz1
1078:Bull
1073:NPOV
1067:and
1049:talk
1045:Mbz1
1002:talk
993:Keep
983:talk
973:and
947:talk
943:Mbz1
926:talk
909:talk
867:talk
848:talk
827:talk
810:Keep
800:talk
777:talk
765:Keep
741:Keep
730:talk
726:Mbz1
705:talk
689:Mbz1
683:and
638:talk
634:Mbz1
564:talk
560:Mbz1
545:talk
531:talk
527:Mbz1
513:talk
499:talk
495:Mbz1
476:talk
450:talk
446:Mbz1
424:talk
377:talk
373:Mbz1
356:talk
333:talk
329:Mbz1
311:talk
296:Note
285:talk
270:Note
253:talk
206:FENS
180:news
143:logs
117:talk
113:edit
46:keep
2154:DGG
2099:or
1925:or
1664:,
1386:or
1179:RCS
1019:of
854:"
436:or
406:or
220:TWL
155:•
151:– (
2329:)
2288:)
2272:)
2238:)
2179:)
2161:)
2133:)
2088:)
2074:)
2017:)
1959:)
1929:.
1917:.
1895:)
1843:)
1752:)
1738:)
1724:)
1702:)
1688:)
1676:)
1654:)
1627:)
1600:)
1563:)
1541:)
1524:)
1488:—
1473:)
1455:)
1424:)
1406:)
1398:.
1382:,
1370:,
1366:,
1362:,
1358:,
1354:,
1350:,
1346:,
1342:,
1338:,
1334:,
1330:,
1316:)
1286:—
1268:)
1240:)
1216:)
1185:)
1161:)
1100:)
1075:?
1051:)
1004:)
985:)
949:)
928:)
911:)
888:,
873:)
869:•
829:)
815:,
802:)
779:)
732:)
707:)
655:-
640:)
605:-
566:)
547:)
533:)
515:)
501:)
478:)
452:)
426:)
379:)
358:)
335:)
313:)
302:.
287:)
276:.
259:)
255:•
200:)
145:|
141:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
2325:(
2284:(
2268:(
2234:(
2175:(
2157:(
2129:(
2084:(
2070:(
2013:(
1955:(
1891:(
1839:(
1748:(
1734:(
1720:(
1698:(
1684:(
1672:(
1650:(
1623:(
1596:(
1559:(
1537:(
1520:(
1492:/
1469:(
1451:(
1420:(
1402:(
1312:(
1290:/
1264:(
1236:(
1212:(
1181:(
1169:'
1157:(
1096:(
1047:(
1023:-
1000:(
981:(
945:(
924:(
907:(
865:(
846:(
825:(
818:,
798:(
775:(
751:/
728:(
703:(
636:(
562:(
543:(
529:(
511:(
497:(
474:(
448:(
422:(
375:(
354:(
331:(
309:(
305:—
283:(
279:—
251:(
240:.
224:)
216:·
210:·
202:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
177:·
172:(
164:(
161:)
149:)
111:(
59:0
55:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.