1114:- Secondary sources Steinmetz (2005), Bermant (1974) Schimel (2002), Rosenfeld (1990), Coldoff (1988), Wolfram (2006), Lehmann (1996), the editor of Scholem (1923, ed. 1995), Rotenberg (2003), Borowitz (1999), Yelin (1984), Swartz (1998), Wistinetzki (1999), Institute on Religion and Public Life (2003), The National Jewish monthly (1928), New York Magazine (1997), Sh'ma (1995), Zangwill/Nahshon (2006), Rav Shach on Chumash (2004), Aḳademyah ha-leʼumit ha-Yiśreʼelit le-madaʻim (1969), Cohen (2004) Klauck p213. Bobker (2008) Wex (2006) Detweiler (1967) Goldman (p250) Haber (2001) Goldman (2004) Frey (1812) ... these are alll commenting as secondary sources on the phrase or its use.
1445:. This Hebrew acronym is used in English. And this article isn't a simple dictionary entry; it is valuable content. I came looking for the abbreviation in Hebrew characters and found it only here, so it was definitely helpful to me. I'm concerned about the arbitrary deletion of worthwhile content off of Knowledge (XXG). There are a lot of very frivolous articles and content on this site, so the arbitrary complete deletion of worthwhile content like this seems to me to be pointless and contrary to Knowledge (XXG)'s role as a source of knowledge on nearly every remotely notable public subject of interest.
1349:
and not Hebrew
Knowledge (XXG) probably confirms (what a linguist would expect) that a foreign-language term only has cultural currency as a specific foreign language term in a foreign language, which is why Wex, Steinmetz et al discuss it. Does Encyclopedia Judaica not discuss yimach shemo under Purim, Haman, Hitler or Amalek? Does Encyclopedia Judaica have an article on Hebrew curses?
1037:(except that each of its dozen references are secondary sources). More seriously, per the much-cited Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary, "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well." The question is whether other notable information about
495:
As the page creator yes I am attempting to create/build a page where none previously existed. That is what create a page means. The article has 7 or 8 refs from actual dictionaries, books on dialect, customs, festivals describing the use of the term. To which I added following 13 or 15 illustrations.
395:
FuFoFuEd is quite right that most of the sources on the page are primary sources, but there are four secondary sources, compared to more than 20 primary ones. This seems to be too many primary sources and perhaps too much original research rather than too few secondary sources or an inherent lack of
1153:
Take for instance
Lawrence Schimel Found tribe - 2002 "The worst curse in Hebrew is "Yemach shemo!" May his name be erased!" This is not in-depth coverage. Nobody doubted the expression is verifiable. The Knowledge (XXG) article supplements marginal secondary sources like this by quote mining a ton
1348:
Avi, if you want to try a copy paste of the entire article to
Wiktionary and see what Wiktionary admins say, then be my guest, but I think they would view that there was too much cultural, historical content. Wiktionary is for Dicdefs. The fact that the term has an entry on Yiddish Knowledge (XXG)
1276:
is not part of the
Knowledge (XXG) process. I've written articles on foreign languages terms before and not had this happen since normally language articles are of interest to language buffs, they don't normally get listed under AfD for one particular religious grouping where people who have never
1218:
know, and that's why also why the phrase has entries in linguistic works like
Steinmetz (2005), Wex (2006), etc. cultural works like Bermant (1974) etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. So now what I'm trying to understand is why it's acceptable for Knowledge (XXG) readers to read the other 452 articles in the
1192:
and belongs elsewhere on the internet. My opinion, and it is no more than that, at this point remains that there is not enough critical commentary about the phrase extant to make it worthy of an article in the encyclopedia project here. For example, I could not find an entry for "Yemach Shemo" or
1499:
the article at present is much more than a dictionary entry, but a discussion about the related custom. Being sourced, it's not original research either. In my experience, most widely used phrases of this sort do have sources, and can support an article even if what was intially there is just a
1057:
Dweller, the "expansion" seems to be calculated just to show usage, and does not add anything to the understanding of the phrase, which should be on wiktionary, and not wikipedia. As mentioned above, we can show usage examples of any word or phrase, that does not mean that the phrase belongs on
714:
GS also indicates that the following paper may be of some relevance under the linguistic aspect, but I don't access to it, so I don't know how much coverage is given to this expression, it could be just a passing mention: Bernstein, C. 2006. Representing Jewish
Identity through English. In J.
1246:
The others may not be OK for all I know (although see FuFoFuEd below). There are many articles in many categories which should be deleted, in my opinion, but I do not spend all my wikitime on nominating AfDs. We are all volunteers and may choose where to spend our time and effort. However,
1117:- Primary sources Schloss (2000), Meʼir ben Mordekhai Ṿalakh (2002), Ilan Stavans (2000 citing Alberto Gerchunoff 1910), Jewish currents (1990), Lifschitz (2003), Kranzler (1991), Seltzer (2006), Eliach (1982), Kaplan (2003), Wolfthal (2004)/Cuneo (2002) are primary sources.
1084:
1080:
321:. There are third-party sources indicating that the phrase is used in English, and they seem to rise to a required level of notability. (My !vote is weak because I'm not sure whether the phrase warrants a stand-alone article or inclusion in some glossary or list.)
1170:
FuFoFuEd - by all means, if you link to a phrase/word entry you have done, and I can see how you have sourced/refed it am happy to learn from
Knowledge (XXG) best practice. But over-referencing aside, is your objection to this article joing the other 452 in the
1386:
was pointed to me, I nominated some of the seemingly unwarranted ones for deletion. There are also thousands of articles about software products, but that does not mean that any particular article is justified based on the existence of the others.
1401:
On a quick inspection +95% of the articles in that category are not about words or expressions and usage thereof, but rather about concepts or entities with Hebrew names, which makes the category name fairly misleading. E.g., it contains
445:
FuFoFuEd makes legimate criticism about the Amalek connection, - fixed: overweight; nonrelevant primary sources deleted and non-scholarly anecdote from Bobker (2008) beefed up with more substantial ref from Mex (2006) on
Yiddish.
1256:, and, in my (and others') opinion, it does not meet wiki notability requirements. I understand your frustration; I've had articles (well, at least 1) that I have created be deleted at AfD. That is part of the wiki process. --
1251:
is not, and has never been, a valid reason to keep an article. My nomination is not meant to be part of a dastardly plot to destroy your on-wiki work; this article caught my eye due to my involvement with the articles on
1110:
that another editor's sources are OR, and hearing you I'm even convinced myself, (and I'm the one who has been building the article while you've been attempting to have it deleted) but I went and checked, please count
1319:
pointing there. I don't know
Yiddish well enough to read the article and see if it can add anything here; nor do the policies of YiWIki have bearing here and vice-versa. The proper place for phrase definitions is
496:
If the 13 or 15 illustrations of actual usage are not OR if they agree with the 7 or 8 refs from dictionaries and books on dialect and customs. In comparison with almost any of the 452 other articles listed under
220:
157:
781:
Could one of the people arguing to delete per DICDEF please explain to me why this is a dicdef? I'd expect to find about 10% of the material already in this (not very well developed) article in a dictionary.
1000:
I honestly can't understand any of the rationales being made for deletion. The subject seems to be notable and there's far more material already than you'd find in a dictionary definition. It's a keeper.
299:
Meets the criteria of independent notability of a foreign language phrase which appears in
English texts carrying specific cultural meaning, as per comparison with the 452 articles listed under
1154:
of primary sources, resulting in an article longer than any coverage in secondary sources I can find. Publishing new essays on word usage is not in the mission statement of Knowledge (XXG).
697:. If someone wants to write an article about that general topic, this could become a redirect there. There are a few more hits in Google Scholar, but don't appear particularly useful.
118:
275:
339:
214:
151:
608:- The phrase is an important phrase in the Hebrew culture. The current article should be improved and any OR removed, but we SHOULD have an article with this title.
645:. It's not clear no me if they're reliable, and they certainly don't appear to be in-depth--a paragraph at the most in each. So, this seems far more suitable for
873:
Fantastic. Why would they need to be scholarly explanations of the subject? We need reliable sources to prove it's notable and then we can expand from there. --
544:
True, but the reality is that in AfD discussions one decision does tend to then carry on into the rest of the category - and a large number of the articles in
369:. The there is hardly any secondary source cited here discussing the use of the phrase. The article is mostly assembled by finding quotes in sources that are
1214:
You say that you "know" the phrase is used, I didn't see where FuFoFuEd said that he knew the term was used, but either way most Knowledge (XXG) users
1019:
that way? Hundreds of thousands of references are available! Imagine awesome examples, "is good", "is nice", "is pretty", all impeccably sourced!
1366:
is a Hebrew term, not Yiddish. Strange that it's even on Yiddish Knowledge (XXG), unless they're including it in their list of juicy curses...
581:
WP is not a dictionary. To whatever extent this phrase is relevant to this encyclopedia, it will be in the context of articles on actual topic
504:
and see how many can be nominated for AfD. At a brief look, I'm guessing that if this doesn't pass then 150-250 out of 452 should be deleted.
963:. This makes sense to me, as it compiles many different honorifics into one article. Maybe there is a broader category in which to include
500:
this goes way beyond. However I'm quite happy to go with that provided it's consistent, and can go to the other 452 articles listed under
473:. The page creator is attempting to build a page where none exists, and the buildup of references citing usage of the term smacks of OR.
597:
48:. People disagree about whether this is only a DICDEF or whether the underlying custom is notable and merits encyclopedic treatment.
17:
1220:
1172:
1127:
545:
501:
497:
300:
91:
86:
95:
523:
235:
172:
78:
1248:
202:
139:
1545:
1332:
article. The wikimedia project space encompasses more than just an encyclopedia, and this should be on Witktionary. --
1301:
that this AfD is for reasons of religious sensitivity, you don't want this having an article entry on Knowledge (XXG).
1289:
is mentioned, but not explained. I added this article because, like most Knowledge (XXG) readers, I wouldn't know what
819:(a Hebrew abbreviation for "He should live for many long and good years") to an important rabbi's name, such as "Rabbi
36:
1316:
668:
appears reasonably reliable, despite not having a Knowledge (XXG) entry, but the tone in that book strikes me as
1544:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
196:
133:
1281:
article has been leapt upon, as you say above due to your/Jayjg/Slrubenstein involvement with the article on
981:
If it's a notable term and we have more than enough for it to pass DICDEF, it should have its own article. --
1354:
1321:
1306:
1235:
1144:
553:
509:
451:
307:
1467:
1383:
1176:
1131:
1041:
can be reliably reported. I think such information exists, but accept that the question is open to debate.
585:
691:
593:
693:
about the Jewish traditional approach/attitudes to memory, which encompasses several other phrases, e.g.
192:
129:
1528:
1511:
1487:
1454:
1427:
1396:
1375:
1358:
1341:
1310:
1265:
1239:
1206:
1163:
1148:
1096:
1067:
1050:
1028:
1010:
990:
976:
960:
936:
922:
904:
882:
868:
850:
836:
820:
791:
773:
744:
728:
709:
681:
658:
631:
617:
557:
535:
513:
482:
455:
436:
432:
405:
390:
354:
330:
311:
290:
267:
60:
1194:
1188:
the phrase is used, and if you want to pen an essay about it, you are more than welcome, but that is
613:
1471:
1298:
1278:
636:
Using an alternative (Google suggested) English spelling, I was able to find some secondary sources
370:
242:
179:
228:
165:
765:
753:
737:
466:
417:
255:
1483:
1423:
1392:
1350:
1302:
1231:
1159:
1140:
1126:
Now the above prompts the question, is the objection to this article joing the other 452 in the
1024:
932:
724:
705:
677:
663:
654:
627:
549:
505:
447:
386:
303:
1517:
761:
1450:
1371:
1337:
1261:
1202:
1121:
1092:
1063:
1006:
986:
972:
918:
900:
878:
864:
846:
832:
787:
769:
637:
589:
531:
478:
350:
286:
263:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
374:
1046:
428:
401:
326:
1516:"Being sourced, it's not original research either."? Seriously? I think you need to review
1475:
892:
757:
470:
927:
The normal improvement for OR is to delete it, which would leave little beyond a DICTDEF.
609:
208:
145:
1521:
1189:
887:
By "scholarly explanations" I meant third-party sources which discuss the term, not just
366:
1328:
have an entry on "Yemach Shemo", b/c the phrase is inherently not notable enough for an
642:
639:
51:
1507:
1479:
1419:
1388:
1155:
1020:
928:
808:
720:
701:
673:
650:
623:
382:
1315:
I'm sorry you feel that way. I have no problem with this being on wiktionary, and a
698:
1446:
1367:
1333:
1286:
1257:
1198:
1088:
1059:
1002:
982:
968:
914:
896:
874:
860:
842:
828:
800:
783:
669:
622:"an important phrase in the Hebrew culture". So far no secondary sources for that.
527:
474:
346:
282:
259:
74:
66:
112:
1277:
voted on a language AfD get drawn in. This completely innocuous, uncontroversial
1197:, although there are over 100 references and multiple full articles on Jesus. --
1042:
397:
322:
909:
I struggle to understand that definition of OR. At any rate, OR is a reason to
1525:
827:". Both terms belong in Wikitionary; there's not much else to say about them.
741:
716:
646:
1500:
definition. Indeed, all articles are supposed to start with a definition!.
420:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
377:
that the notion of Yimakh shemo predates that term, but the sources cited do
1407:
841:
That's odd, because this article already says quite a lot more than that. --
1502:
666:
799:
is a Hebrew expression added on to a name of a Jew-persecutor, such as "
1463:
1403:
1075:
A couple of additional sources that are reliable and go beyond DICDEF:
895:
as a collection of citations which just use the term, not explain it.
373:
for the purpose of this article. Furthermore, almost half the article
254:- Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary; foreign language or otherwise (
1415:
694:
517:
1411:
1282:
1253:
1034:
859:
of the phrase in use, not scholarly explanations of the subject.
1538:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1382:
That category probably deserves some scrutiny. In the past when
719:: Signs of Race Series Publication. London: Macmillan Palgrave.
1179:
of this term related to the other 452 or is it something else?
1293:
meant. I didn't know all the history about Haman and Amalek,
1134:
of this term related to the other 452. Because if it isn't,
1016:
672:. Something more academically written would be preferable.
1120:- And four more sources in the related terms section on
1324:. As I said before, even the Encyclopedia Judaica does
1297:. I can only conclude, based on the term clearly being
108:
104:
100:
227:
164:
427:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
241:
178:
1295:I didn't know it had an entry on Yiddish wikipedia
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1548:). No further edits should be made to this page.
649:entry with a soft redirect from here to there.
855:Take a close look at the references. Most are
690:In more academic contexts I was able to find
365:. Appears to contain a significant amount of
276:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
1272:Avi. No, with respect I don't think so Avi,
913:an article, not an argument for deletion. --
715:Brutt-Griffler & C. Evans Davies (eds),
340:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions
338:Note: This debate has been included in the
274:Note: This debate has been included in the
1524:can (and often does) have lots of sources.
891:it. As it is now, the article suffers from
337:
273:
516:e.g. at random from those 452, let's AfD
1418:, but it's written as a dab page. YMMV.
1414:. I did find one questionable article,
1015:Can we create an article for the word
1229:unacceptable, but those 452 are okay?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
815:". Similarly, religious Jews add on
524:Knowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists
24:
1221:Category:Hebrew words and phrases
1173:Category:Hebrew words and phrases
1128:Category:Hebrew words and phrases
1033:You might want to stay away from
546:Category:Hebrew words and phrases
502:Category:Hebrew words and phrases
498:Category:Hebrew words and phrases
301:Category:Hebrew words and phrases
1322:Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Phrasebook
1193:similar spellings in the online
1175:due to the lack of linguistic
1130:due to the lack of linguistic
1:
1466:? And the counterargument to
1317:Knowledge (XXG):Soft redirect
1184:As FuFoFuEd says above, we
1565:
1529:20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
1512:17:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
1488:12:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
1455:05:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
1428:13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1397:12:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1376:21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1359:21:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1342:21:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1311:20:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1266:14:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1240:10:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1207:02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1164:19:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1149:17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1097:11:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1068:14:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1051:12:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1029:10:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1011:09:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
991:09:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
977:09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
937:10:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
923:10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
905:09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
883:09:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
869:09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
851:09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
837:09:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
792:08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
774:04:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
745:02:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
729:22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
710:21:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
682:21:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
659:21:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
632:21:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
618:00:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
558:00:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
536:00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
61:05:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
548:aren't sourced. This is.
514:23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
483:08:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
456:02:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
437:00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
406:23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
391:21:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
355:15:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
331:02:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
312:22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
291:19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
268:07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
1541:Please do not modify it.
1470:is policy in this case--
32:Please do not modify it.
600:) 07:53, July 31, 2011
961:Honorifics in Judaism
821:Yosef Sholom Eliashiv
764:as explained above.
717:English and Ethnicity
381:make the connection.
1223:, but not this one?
1195:Encyclopedia Judaica
1249:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
44:The result was
1122:damnatio memoriae
602:
588:comment added by
439:
375:advances a theory
367:original research
357:
343:
293:
279:
59:
1556:
1543:
1138:then what is it?
601:
582:
426:
422:
344:
280:
246:
245:
231:
183:
182:
168:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1546:deletion review
1539:
583:
415:
188:
125:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1562:
1560:
1551:
1550:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1458:
1457:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1399:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1212:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1135:
1124:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1058:wikipedia. --
1055:
1054:
1053:
995:
994:
993:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
776:
747:
731:
712:
699:"Yemach+shemo"
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
643:"Yemach+shemo"
640:"Yemach+shemo"
634:
603:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
486:
485:
459:
458:
442:
441:
440:
424:
423:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
359:
358:
334:
333:
315:
314:
294:
249:
248:
185:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1561:
1549:
1547:
1542:
1536:
1535:
1530:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1504:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:WP:EVERYTHING
1465:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1384:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1351:In ictu oculi
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1303:In ictu oculi
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:In ictu oculi
1230:
1228:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1177:WP:Notability
1174:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1141:In ictu oculi
1139:
1136:
1133:
1132:WP:Notability
1129:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1106:It's easy to
1105:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
955:I just found
954:
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
885:
884:
880:
876:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
794:
793:
789:
785:
780:
777:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
748:
746:
743:
739:
735:
732:
730:
726:
722:
718:
713:
711:
707:
703:
700:
696:
692:
689:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
665:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
638:
635:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
599:
595:
591:
587:
580:
577:
576:
559:
555:
551:
550:In ictu oculi
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:In ictu oculi
503:
499:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
448:In ictu oculi
444:
443:
438:
434:
430:
425:
421:
419:
414:
413:
407:
403:
399:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
341:
336:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
313:
309:
305:
304:In ictu oculi
302:
298:
295:
292:
288:
284:
277:
272:
271:
270:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
190:Find sources:
186:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1540:
1537:
1501:
1496:
1442:
1364:Yemach shemo
1363:
1330:encyclopedia
1329:
1325:
1294:
1291:yimakh shemo
1290:
1287:yimakh shemo
1273:
1226:
1224:
1215:
1185:
1137:
1107:
1074:
1039:yimakh shemo
1038:
997:
965:yimakh shemo
964:
956:
910:
888:
856:
824:
816:
813:yimakh shemo
812:
805:yimakh shemo
804:
801:Adolf Hitler
797:Yimakh shemo
796:
778:
749:
733:
670:purple prose
605:
590:Slrubenstein
584:— Preceding
578:
462:
416:
396:notability.
378:
362:
318:
296:
251:
250:
238:
232:
224:
217:
211:
205:
199:
189:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
75:Yimakh shemo
67:Yimakh shemo
53:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1227:this phrase
664:Gefen books
429:Ron Ritzman
215:free images
152:free images
1472:WP:NOTDICT
1299:WP:notable
1279:WP:notable
1225:So why is
647:Wiktionary
610:Linguogeek
371:WP:PRIMARY
54:Sandstein
1408:Krav Maga
754:WP:DICDEF
738:WP:DICDEF
467:WP:DICDEF
319:Weak keep
283:• Gene93k
256:WP:DICDEF
1518:WP:SYNTH
1480:FuFoFuEd
1420:FuFoFuEd
1389:FuFoFuEd
1285:, where
1216:wouldn't
1156:FuFoFuEd
1021:FuFoFuEd
929:FuFoFuEd
857:examples
762:WP:SYNTH
721:FuFoFuEd
702:FuFoFuEd
674:FuFoFuEd
651:FuFoFuEd
624:FuFoFuEd
598:contribs
586:unsigned
418:Relisted
383:FuFoFuEd
119:View log
1464:Acronym
1447:Big Mac
1404:Ketuvim
1368:Yoninah
1089:Dweller
1003:Dweller
983:Dweller
969:Yoninah
957:shlit"a
915:Dweller
911:improve
897:Yoninah
875:Dweller
861:Yoninah
843:Dweller
829:Yoninah
825:shlit"a
817:shlit'a
807:", or "
784:Dweller
779:Comment
766:Ovadyah
475:Yoninah
221:WP refs
209:scholar
158:WP refs
146:scholar
92:protect
87:history
1526:Jayjg
1476:WP:NOR
1416:Maamor
1043:Cnilep
959:under
760:, and
758:WP:NOR
750:Delete
742:Jayjg
736:, per
734:Delete
695:zakhor
579:Delete
518:Hakham
471:WP:NOR
463:Delete
398:Cnilep
363:Delete
323:Cnilep
252:Delete
193:Google
130:Google
96:delete
1522:WP:OR
1508:talk
1412:Likud
1283:Yeshu
1254:Yeshu
1190:WP:OR
1111:them:
1035:to be
809:Haman
526:. --
236:JSTOR
197:books
173:JSTOR
134:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1497:Keep
1484:talk
1474:and
1451:talk
1443:Keep
1424:talk
1393:talk
1372:talk
1355:talk
1338:talk
1307:talk
1274:this
1262:talk
1236:talk
1211:Avi,
1203:talk
1186:know
1160:talk
1145:talk
1093:talk
1087:) --
1083:), (
1064:talk
1047:talk
1025:talk
1007:talk
998:Keep
987:talk
973:talk
933:talk
919:talk
901:talk
879:talk
865:talk
847:talk
833:talk
788:talk
770:talk
752:per
725:talk
706:talk
678:talk
655:talk
628:talk
614:talk
606:Keep
594:talk
554:talk
532:talk
510:talk
479:talk
469:and
465:per
452:talk
433:talk
402:talk
387:talk
351:talk
327:talk
308:talk
297:Keep
287:talk
264:talk
229:FENS
203:news
166:FENS
140:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
1503:DGG
1334:Avi
1326:not
1258:Avi
1199:Avi
1108:say
1103:Avi
1060:Avi
889:use
528:Avi
379:not
347:Avi
260:Avi
258:).
243:TWL
180:TWL
117:– (
1520:.
1510:)
1486:)
1478:.
1453:)
1426:)
1410:,
1406:,
1395:)
1374:)
1357:)
1340:)
1309:)
1264:)
1238:)
1205:)
1162:)
1147:)
1095:)
1066:)
1049:)
1027:)
1017:is
1009:)
1001:--
989:)
975:)
967:?
935:)
921:)
903:)
893:OR
881:)
867:)
849:)
835:)
823:,
811:,
803:,
790:)
782:--
772:)
756:,
740:.
727:)
708:)
680:)
657:)
630:)
616:)
596:•
556:)
534:)
520:.
512:)
481:)
454:)
435:)
404:)
389:)
353:)
342:.
329:)
310:)
289:)
281:—
278:.
266:)
223:)
160:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
1506:(
1482:(
1449:(
1422:(
1391:(
1370:(
1353:(
1336:(
1305:(
1260:(
1234:(
1201:(
1158:(
1143:(
1091:(
1085:2
1081:1
1079:(
1062:(
1045:(
1023:(
1005:(
985:(
971:(
931:(
917:(
899:(
877:(
863:(
845:(
831:(
786:(
768:(
723:(
704:(
676:(
653:(
626:(
612:(
592:(
552:(
530:(
508:(
477:(
450:(
431:(
400:(
385:(
349:(
345:—
325:(
306:(
285:(
262:(
247:)
239:·
233:·
225:·
218:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
195:(
187:(
184:)
176:·
170:·
162:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
124:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.