680:
and after the riots, the invocation of the 'historical right', and the 'Jewish labour' policy was not changed), but if they were then these events can be mentioned as events that deeply influenced the attitudes. In fact Flapan and Gorny mention them and their effect, which was mainly that the
Zionists realised that there was forceful opposition to them (and more to be reckoned with in the future), and that the British restricted immigration, which in turn was disliked by the Zionists. These facts can be mentioned, but if they are discussed completely it is clear that also British attitudes should be mentioned and discussed. That would make the article even bigger. Why should we do this if it is completely unneccesarry for NPOV? There is nothing in
563:
important reason, and fears of exploiting cheap indiginous labor (a socialist argument) a much less important reason. Yet the sources attribute about equal importance to these reasons, and that is why I wrote it like that. That's what NPOV is about. Adding that Jews earned 2 or 3 times as much as Arabs, and therefore few Jews worked in the Arab sector has no effect on the neutrality of the former. It introduces however a different subject. The problem I have with that is article size.
688:
word easily used by pro-Palestinian writers. That's why I chose the more neutral 'Palestinian Arabs'. I chose 'Zionist attitudes toward ...' to limit the article to that, and if the title is changed to 'Zionism and the
Palestinian Arabs' it will not be limited to that. In that respect writers of books have much more freedom in choosing their title, while at the same time limiting their subject. Segev, along with many others, did not limit himself to this subject. --
321:
subject covered by the title, which is percieved as one-sided. Equivalently creationists could have a problem with the article on 'evolution', because they percieve that as one-sided. Ceedjee would like to extend the subject to include
Palestinian attitudes toward the Zionists and the British. In view of the size of the article (already 44 kB readable text ) I'd propose to deal with that in a separate article, and to prominantly link the articles. --
230:- This proposal of deletion is a bad idea. I wrote on the talk page that I considered (too) there was some pov-fork and maybe a little PoV issues in the article BUT the way to solve this is certainly not first in deleting whole JaapBoBo's work and just after in starting this process of deletion... Currently (but it should be discussed) I think the best title for an article on the topic would be
389:, although I added some texts that were not included there because of space-considerations. This part is also fairly NPOV. The first three sections were added in the last three days. I don't think they are very pov, but improvement by other editors is welcome. This is of course normal in an article that is only four days old.
504:
gives about 10 percent space to discuss the Arabs, but he also discusses mainly the attitudes of the
Zionists. Teveth discusses only Ben-Gurion's attitude. Note that Gorny and Teveth are pro-Israeli historians. Have they been accused of onesidedness? No, because in this context onesidedness has nothing to do with NPOV.
503:
My comment: Actually the title is not one-sided, as it is a neutral title for the subject covered. I admit the subject covered is one-sided. However there are many books covering this 'one-sided' subject. In Gorny's work only the
Zionist attitudes are discussed. The same in Finkelstein's work. Flapan
320:
It seems that JzG/Guy has dropped most of his allegations, and has reduced his criticism to the criticism of
Ceedjee. As Ceedjee points out 'Zionists' is the usual way to refer to Zionists before 1948. So I think there's no problem with the title in itself. Apparently there is only a problem with the
1098:
If none of the 'POV-fork' supporters is offering any substantial arguments as to why it is a POV-fork, and if the result of this 'trial' is a 'delete', than I will certainly object! This would be unfair. Certainly on
Knowledge (XXG) a consensus should be reached by discussion and offering arguments,
194:
on the talk page of the article and went directly to a nomination for deletion. Maybe he doesn't like the thruths stated in the article and thinks there are many sources that would claim something different. I'm quite sure the article uses sources from both sides and gives their bearing in a neutral
679:
Of course
Zionist attitudes were affected by events and circumstances. This is also clear in the books I refer to. However despite that they limit themselves to the Zionist attitude. I don't think the Zionist attitudes were 'deeply influenced' by these events (the basic attitude was the same before
198:
The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources (which are both in it). Also, to call 'Zionist attitudes toward the
Palestinian Arabs' in itself pov would be an admittance of a personal pov of an editor that
762:) seems reasonable, although it doesn't include the pre-1917 era. I'd prefer 'Mandatory Palestine' to 'Mandate Palestine' (30.200 vs. 6.100 hits with google), but otherwise it's okay with me. I do think though that we would have to write in the intro that the article focusses on the attitudes. --
687:
Flapan's and Gorny's titles are about
Zionism in relation to the Palestinian Arabs. Their chief subject is Zionist attitudes and not Arab attitudes. By the way their titles are not neutral: for the pre-1948 era 'Palestinians' is not a word easily used by pro-Isreaeli writers, and 'Arabs' is not a
521:
Okay, I see... I think. Actually, as I am unfamiliar with literature on the subject, I will have to rely on your word here in terms of the attitudes of the historians you mention, as well as how respected they are. Now, as there are two sides to every story, do you think it wouldn't be prudent to
421:
from the sources, but there is enough original research and synthesis in the article (on top of clear ownership problems) as well as it reads like a personal essay...rather than an encyclopedic article. You are more than welcome to have this hosted on your own personal website, but unfortunately
562:
E.g. in the article you can read that the Zionist movement had a policy of excluding Arab workers and that therefore few Arabs worked in the Jewish sector of the economy. Quite some reasons are given for this policy. Personally I think that the absorption capacity for immigration was a quite
203:
article gives a lot of attention to his Nazi-ties, and (2) the article is already quite long (readable text of the article is now 44 kB), so e.g. 'Palestinian Arab attitudes toward Zionism' can better be treated in a separate article (which we could link to directly below the title of this
1014:. This is a notable subject which should have an article. Any POV issues can be fixed by editing. As for the assertion that "zionist" is a pejorative term, that's just ridiculous. I'm sure any of the people whose attitudes are described in the article would be proud to be called zionists.
298:
I understand what you mean when you write that "the term Zionists is pejorative" but this is only true today because it is a way to delegitimate Israel. Historically and for the period covered by the article, it is not. Majority of Jews in Palestine were Zionists (and proud to
187:. Below that, on the same talk page Ceedjee says 'I think the idea of having an article dedicated to this topic could be useful.' and Telaviv1 says 'It might be necessary to create an article "Zionism and the Arabs", which would be of interest to a lot of people.'.
596:
I don't agree that historians do not refer to the Arab attitude towards Zionism and this would be an opposite subject ! It is even a main point on the subject because the Zionist attitude toward them was soon dictated by the Arab reaction and attitude toward
558:
has nothing to do with NPOV, and it would make the article very large. Excluding the opposite subject is certainly not POV-forking as that would require exclusion of an opposite view. The three books and the chapter by Finkelstein I mentioned take this
354:
issues from that editor. The article doesn't seem to follow the title but perhaps would be better retitled to "Zionism and 101 reasons I dislike it...". Unfortunately the article does look beyond repair, not without gutting it to
754:
Considering that most editors favor a very strict interpretation of NPOV (not only inclusion of various views, but also inclusion of opposite subject) I guess I have to give in. So I'll accept extension of the
134:
This is a personal essay on Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs. It starts with a POV title and goes downhill from there. I tried redirecting it, but the creator and sole editor reverted me with a
56:
here to try and get the article deleted. Therefore, after looking at the debate (and removing possible sockpuppet reasons) its almost certainly keep. The renaming issues can be further discussed on the article
100:
95:
1186:
104:
199:
these attitudes were immoral, while they might just as well be moral. I grant that the article might lend itself for pov-edits from one side, but (1) that is true for many articles on wikipedia, e.g. the
1066:
I have given arguments as to why the article is not a POV-fork: The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources
87:
268:
This is the whole problem, for me. The term "Zionists" is pejorative, and rehashing the arguments on one side of the debate made by a handful of books is not what Knowledge (XXG) is for. Per
718:
In history, a fair picture of events or thoughts or attitudes can only be achieved with the appropriate context and the context of the Zionists attitude was the Arab attitude and
1073:, which says nothng about including the opposite subject, I agree to change the subject to include the opposite subject (Arab attitudes toward Zionism), and rename it accordingly
422:
POVFORKs don't belong in Knowledge (XXG). Sorry, comments from the editor with the ownership problem isn't enough to sway my intention to recommend this article for deletion.
385:. It needs copy-editing, but many editors contributed to it in the course of about half a year. I consider it NPOV. The sections in historical order 'During ...' are taken from
127:
526:
view in the article, so as to balance it? Is there literature by/of/on Palestinian Arabs and their attitude towards the Israelis? Preferably by historians of equal stature? --
91:
58:
1076:
The content of the article as it is now is hardly pov (according to Ceedjee, a moderately pro-Israeli editor who knows really a lot of the I/P conflict before 1949:
195:
way. Improvement is of course always possible, certainly in such a new article, and if JzG is interested I'd be happy to cooperate with him to improve the article.
83:
75:
603:, a new historian who cannot be accused of pro-israeli bias, give numerous exemples of this mutual perception and interaction. He has chapters dedicated to the
1167:
1140:
1119:
1051:
1039:
1023:
1002:
981:
965:
944:
923:
902:
875:
850:
831:
806:
771:
742:
697:
674:
591:
575:
537:
516:
494:
477:
454:
431:
412:
372:
350:
together into an essay. The fact that it is from one editor is a little worrying inasmuch as that implies a lack of consensus, particularly with the
330:
315:
293:
259:
220:
160:
69:
139:. As far as I can tell this essay is partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references (not since the opening chapters of
1082:
There really was a space-problem in the Zionism article, as TelAviv1 has repeatedly removed my additions with 'article length' as the only argument.
715:
prevents the current title ? Nothing. This policy doesn't deal article titles but -as you wrote- the subject is one-sided, which is never very good.
1099:
and not simply, as I fear is happening here, by letting some editors have a superficial glance at the article and base their vote on that. The
280:
sides of the dispute. This has served us well in the past and has gained critical acclaim for our handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
382:
759:
706:
48:. Most of the keep arguments actually have good reasoning, while most of Delete arguments seem to be not offering arguments for it, as
580:
I'll have to really bite into the article to continue this discussion, but we're both keep !voters anyway. Give me some time. Cheers,
615:, which are "Arabs attitudes toward Zionists" that deepely influenced Zionists attitude toward Arabs. And they are many other things.
17:
445:
This is a mostly well-written article that deserves inclusion. It could stand to be copy-edited, but that's another issue, so keep.
1177:
per Phil Bridger; notable indeed, and enlightening to help understand many of the underlying issued that divide the two sides.
730:
1032:
726:
231:
346:
Doesn't read like something that appears in an encyclopedia. It seems to be a collection of material from various sources
147:
from the outset. Since the creator won't allow it to be quietly redirected, here it is for the community's consideration.
1182:
1201:
36:
52:
rightly points out. I'm also concerned that because of the constant "Delete - POV fork" argument that there is some
977:
1086:
466:
whichever should follow (must admit I haven't read it in whole). Afterwards it deserves a thorough peer review. --
1200:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1048:
702:
Segev just added the British in the picture but he puts them in the context of the Arab and Jews relationships.
200:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1178:
633:
More, when we have 3 historians who chose precise (neutral) titles to their work, we should chose the same :
211:
of the article before taking any decisions. I already started the discussion, and I hope JzG will join it. --
190:
I suspect JzG has only taken a superficial glance at the article. He refused to substantiate his allegations:
143:
have I seen quite so many references to quite so few sources) and is in sundry ways unacceptable, violating
554:
is necesarry for balance and NPOV (as it is now views from both sides are already included). Including the
1019:
998:
973:
490:
450:
1163:
871:
827:
738:
670:
311:
255:
994:
446:
935:
Looking at the Zionism talk, it does appear to be. Was it a staged thing? I'll assume good faith.
612:
608:
604:
418:
360:
889:
be POV by nature, but it is an important topic and seems fairly well written. Needs some editing.
427:
368:
1159:
867:
823:
734:
666:
307:
251:
1115:
1036:
767:
693:
571:
512:
408:
326:
216:
273:
381:
In my view the article as it is now is already quite NPOV. The 'Transfer idea' section is from
1015:
961:
401:
Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1070:
712:
681:
356:
269:
144:
53:
486:
65:
396:
392:
351:
347:
940:
919:
898:
846:
507:
Why should Knowledge (XXG) adopt a different approach than these respected historians? --
802:
586:
532:
472:
423:
364:
1136:
1111:
763:
689:
567:
508:
404:
322:
288:
282:
212:
155:
149:
49:
957:
234:
referring to 2 books used in the bibliography of the article (Flapan, Simha, 1979,
1100:
121:
395:
is not applicable here. There are no conclusions that are not in the sources. As
1153:
Judging the NPoV of an article requires to know all the pov's it must introduce.
61:
663:
Particulary when 2 first are the one the most used references in the articles !
302:
For the remaining, I think we have the same point of view except I deplore the
936:
915:
894:
866:
Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ?
842:
822:
Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ?
209:
first discuss whether there is substance to JzG's allegations on the talk page
192:'partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references'
733:
we create some pov-fork's because articles will deal with the same material.
566:
There is literature on the opposite subject of course, e.g. by R. Khalidi. --
798:
600:
581:
527:
467:
1091:
partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references
1131:
462:
first of all - the title is too one-sided, it should read something like
911:
386:
181:
1110:
Please, if you find it a POV-fork, try to convince me of that. Thx. --
1150:
What do you know about this subject to state that it is "balanced" ?
655:
One Palestine, Complete : Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate
1194:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
993:
Was that a poetic vote for deletion or just pure randomness? :)
185:
893:
may be reasonable, but I don't know what to rename it to...
863:
Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?
819:
Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?
276:, we shold cover such arguments in an article that covers
684:
that says inclusion of the opposite subject is necesarry?
1129:
Actually reading it, its an objective balanced article.
136:
117:
113:
109:
760:
Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine
707:
Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine
860:Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...
816:Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1204:). No further edits should be made to this page.
910:POV fork. The argument that it was a split from
84:Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs
76:Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs
1089:to see how Guy/JzG 'defended' his arguments:
1057:POV-fork supporters are offering no arguments
8:
1156:But it is worth keeping the subject, indeed.
550:(Palestinian Arab attitudes). Including the
184:article. I proposed it in the talk section
731:Palestinian Arabs attitude toward Zionists
630:(even if they deal less with the subject).
176:The article was created because there was
1033:Fascist attitudes towards Subhuman People
727:Zionist attitude toward Palestinian Arabs
417:I could mention that it reads like it is
141:A History of the English Speaking Peoples
1078:maybe a little PoV issues in the article
248:Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate
232:Zionists and Arabs in Mandate Palestine
618:But this is also explained in Morris,
383:causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1031:per nom and then merge redlink with
542:We should distinguish between the
24:
647:Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948
240:Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948
1069:Although it is not required by
546:(on Zionist attitudes) and the
1105:Always explain your reasoning.
797:, the article is a POV fork.
747:I understand the issue of the
1:
1063:Please give me a braek here!
639:Zionism and the Palestinians
236:Zionism and the Palestinians
1187:15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
1168:07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
1141:15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
1120:22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
1052:08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
1040:13:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
1024:12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
1003:08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
982:07:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
966:04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
956:POV fork as per Guy et al.
945:04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
924:02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
903:01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
876:09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
851:00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
832:09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
807:19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
772:22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
743:20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
698:19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
675:18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
592:17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
576:17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
538:16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
517:15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
495:14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
478:13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
455:12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
432:04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
413:13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
373:11:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
331:12:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
316:11:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
294:11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
260:11:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
221:11:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
161:10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
70:18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1221:
1085:Please take a look at the
173:This is really ridiculous.
242:) and also to Tom Segev,
1197:Please do not modify it.
971:Burn with fire then salt
705:The best title would be
201:Mohammad Amin al-Husayni
32:Please do not modify it.
244:One Palestine, Complete
238:- Gorny, Yosef, 1987,
841:per above. POV fork.
725:Finally if we create
137:charming edit summary
613:1929 Hebron massacre
246:, whose subtitle is
624:The Unseen Question
1047:per Phil Bridger.
711:What precisely in
628:History of Zionism
1179:CasualObserver'48
1101:Guide to Deletion
922:
914:in unconvincing.
758:Ceedjee's title (
751:but I think that
620:Righteous Victims
590:
536:
476:
292:
159:
1212:
1199:
974:Kyaa the Catlord
918:
609:1921 Jaffa riots
584:
556:opposite subject
548:opposite subject
530:
470:
460:Keep, but rename
286:
153:
125:
107:
44:The result was
34:
1220:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1202:deletion review
1195:
1035:- per Kyaa . --
626:chapter of his
622:or in Laqueur,
605:Nebi Musa riots
272:and especially
228:Keep but rename
98:
82:
79:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1218:
1216:
1207:
1206:
1190:
1189:
1171:
1170:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1123:
1122:
1108:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1083:
1080:
1074:
1067:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1042:
1026:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
985:
984:
968:
950:
949:
948:
947:
927:
926:
905:
885:article topic
879:
878:
864:
861:
858:
854:
853:
835:
834:
820:
817:
814:
810:
809:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
756:
745:
723:
716:
709:
703:
685:
664:
661:
660:
659:
650:
642:
631:
616:
598:
564:
560:
505:
498:
497:
480:
457:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
390:
376:
375:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
300:
263:
262:
224:
223:
205:
196:
188:
174:
170:
169:
132:
131:
78:
73:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1217:
1205:
1203:
1198:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1037:Jack Merridew
1034:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
979:
975:
972:
969:
967:
963:
959:
955:
952:
951:
946:
942:
938:
934:
931:
930:
929:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
906:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
881:
880:
877:
873:
869:
865:
862:
859:
856:
855:
852:
848:
844:
840:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
821:
818:
815:
812:
811:
808:
804:
800:
796:
793:
792:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
750:
746:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
721:
717:
714:
710:
708:
704:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
686:
683:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
665:
662:
657:
656:
651:
649:
648:
643:
641:
640:
635:
634:
632:
629:
625:
621:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
595:
594:
593:
588:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:opposite view
549:
545:
544:opposite view
541:
540:
539:
534:
529:
525:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
479:
474:
469:
465:
461:
458:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
440:
433:
429:
425:
420:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
370:
366:
363:going on.
362:
358:
353:
349:
345:
342:
341:
332:
328:
324:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
290:
285:
284:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
207:I propose we
206:
202:
197:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
178:lack of space
175:
172:
171:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
157:
152:
151:
146:
142:
138:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
63:
60:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1196:
1193:
1174:
1130:
1126:
1104:
1090:
1077:
1056:
1044:
1028:
1016:Phil Bridger
1011:
990:
970:
953:
932:
907:
890:
886:
882:
838:
794:
748:
719:
654:
653:
646:
645:
638:
637:
627:
623:
619:
555:
551:
547:
543:
523:
522:include the
482:
464:Relations...
463:
459:
442:
400:
343:
303:
281:
277:
247:
243:
239:
235:
227:
208:
191:
177:
166:
148:
140:
133:
54:sockpuppetry
45:
43:
31:
28:
1103:page says:
995:Alloranleon
652:Tom Segev,
487:Avani patel
485:per above.
447:Alloranleon
720:vice versa
357:neutralise
1087:talk page
916:≈ jossi ≈
636:Flapan -
601:Tom Segev
587:blah blah
559:approach.
533:blah blah
473:blah blah
424:Shot info
365:Shot info
352:ownership
304:procedure
204:article).
59:talkapge.
1112:JaapBoBo
764:JaapBoBo
755:subject.
690:JaapBoBo
644:Gorny -
568:JaapBoBo
524:opposite
509:JaapBoBo
405:JaapBoBo
323:JaapBoBo
274:WP:UNDUE
213:JaapBoBo
128:View log
50:JaapBoBo
1160:Ceedjee
1147:Well...
1071:WP:NPOV
991:Comment
933:Comment
912:Zionism
868:Ceedjee
824:Ceedjee
735:Ceedjee
713:WP:NPOV
682:WP:NPOV
667:Ceedjee
387:Zionism
361:forking
308:Ceedjee
270:WP:NPOV
252:Ceedjee
182:Zionism
180:in the
145:WP:NPOV
101:protect
96:history
1029:Delete
954:Delete
920:(talk)
908:Delete
891:Rename
839:Delete
795:Delete
749:length
419:copied
399:says:
397:WP:syn
393:WP:syn
348:welded
344:Delete
105:delete
62:D.M.N.
937:Hobit
895:Hobit
843:Tavix
597:them.
289:Help!
156:Help!
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
1183:talk
1175:Keep
1164:talk
1137:talk
1127:Keep
1116:talk
1093:etc.
1045:Keep
1020:talk
1012:Keep
999:talk
978:talk
962:talk
941:talk
899:talk
883:Keep
872:talk
847:talk
828:talk
803:talk
799:6SJ7
768:talk
739:talk
729:and
694:talk
671:talk
611:and
582:Ouro
572:talk
528:Ouro
513:talk
491:talk
483:Keep
468:Ouro
451:talk
443:Keep
428:talk
409:talk
403:. --
369:talk
359:the
327:talk
312:talk
299:be).
278:both
256:talk
217:talk
167:Keep
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
66:talk
46:Keep
1132:DGG
958:Avi
887:may
857:Hi,
813:Hi,
283:Guy
150:Guy
126:– (
1185:)
1166:)
1139:)
1118:)
1049:PR
1022:)
1001:)
980:)
964:)
943:)
901:)
874:)
849:)
830:)
805:)
770:)
741:)
696:)
673:)
607:,
574:)
515:)
493:)
453:)
430:)
411:)
371:)
329:)
314:)
306:.
258:)
250:.
219:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
68:)
1181:(
1162:(
1135:(
1114:(
1107:.
1018:(
997:(
976:(
960:(
939:(
897:(
870:(
845:(
826:(
801:(
766:(
737:(
722:.
692:(
669:(
658:.
589:)
585:(
570:(
535:)
531:(
511:(
489:(
475:)
471:(
449:(
426:(
407:(
367:(
325:(
310:(
291:)
287:(
254:(
215:(
158:)
154:(
130:)
124:)
86:(
64:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.