User talk:Nishidani

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

The West Bank/Judea and Samaria Problem

Personal work section notes. I get headaches and am as slow as a wet week, in dragging up diffs, and even have a geezer's trouble in following these arguments all over several pages, so I can't really make an adequate case. So I'll have to make my contribution in the next few days, according to the fashion I normally work after, when I did work, in the real world. Reflecting from principles, through to the problem, the evidence and conclusions. Apologies to anyone reading this. It's written to help myself get some order into this chat, not to guide others.

• An editorial split between those in favour of using 'Judea & Samaria' to designate (a) parts of, or (b) all, or (c) all of the West Bank and parts of Israel, and those who oppose the usage, except on those specific pages devoted to (i) Samaria (ii) Judea (iii) the administrative territory known in Israel as 'Judea & Samaria'.

• The 'Judea and Samaria' school holds that (a) these are geographical and historical designations predating the West Bank (b) used in a variety of sources published in Israel and abroad to denote the territory, or parts of it, known as the West Bank (c) and that opposition to the employment of these words in wiki constitutes an 'ethnic-based discrimination' against both Israeli and Jewish people.(d) specifically, that MeteorMaker, Pedrito and myself have conducted a campaign to denigrate or deprecate Jewish terms in the I/P area, a kind of ethnic cleansing of nomenclature, in a way that lends substance to fears our position is motivated by, well let's call a spade a spade, anti-semitism.

• The 'West Bank' school asserts that (a) these terms have an intrinsic denotative vagueness because they refer to different geophysical, administrative and political terrains depending on historical period, and that to use the terms of the territorially bounded and defined area known internationally as the West Bank creates cognitive dissonance (b) that these terms, as documented, were used under the British Mandate, then dropped for 'West Bank', which has remained to this day the default term of neutral usage internationally and in international law and diplomacy (c) that, after the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, in 1967, the terms 'Judea & Samaria' were pushed onto the political agenda by an extremist settler group, Gush Emunim, then adopted by the Likud government in 1977, and imposed by government decree on the Israeli mass media, which suppressed the international term, West Bank (d) that, as documented, the terms 'Judea and Samaria' have a potent ideological charge as appropriative nomenclature, renaming Palestinian land presently occupied, annexed or expropriated illegally by Israel (ICJ judgement 2004), over which Israel has no sovereignty, where Israel is establishing illegal settlements at least half of which on land with private Palestinian title, and with its own Arabic toponyms, and erasing the traditional native nomenclature by creating a neo-biblical toponomy (d) that reliable secondary sources explicitly define the term as partisan, even in contemporary Hebrew and Israeli usage (e) that the evidence for usage overwhelmingly documents the prevalence of 'West Bank' (northern, southern) in neutral sources, whose neutrality is affirmed also by the very sources that otherwise employ the words 'Samaria and Judea' adduced by the former school, (f) that if explicitly attested partisan Israeli toponymy and administrative nomenclature is allowed on non-Israeli territory, then by WP:NPOV criteria, automatically this would mean the corresponding Palestinian toponymy and nomenclature, often covering the same areas, would have to be introduced (g)that in this whole debate, the West Bankers have not even represented the Palestinian side, which is absent, invisible, while the Israeli side is being treated as though its national naming were on terms of parity and neutrality with international usage (h) that wiki criteria, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, WP:RS, WP:NCGN etc. require that neutral terminology, particularly as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, be employed. (i) If we are to allow Israeli terminology to be generally employed in denoting territory over which Israel exercises no sovereignty, but is simply, in law, an occupying belligerent, a very dangerous precedent, with widespread consequences for articles where ethnic conflicts exist, would be created.

(ii)Note on language, naming as an appropriative act of possession and dominion.

'According to the aboriginal theory, the ancestor first called out his own name; and this gave rise to the most sacred and secret couplet or couplets of his song. The he 'named' (tneuka) the place where he had originated, the trees or rocks growing near his home, the animals sporting about nearby, any strangers that came to visit him, and so forth. He gave names to all of these, and thereby gained the power of calling them by their names; this enabled him to control them and to bind them to his will.'

Wa’-yitser’ Yĕhôwāh’ (Adonai) ĕlôhīm’ min-hā'ădāmāh’ kol-‘ha’yath’ ha’-sādeh’ wĕ'ēth kol-ôph ha’-shāma’yim wa’-yāvē ‘ el-hā'ādām’ li-r'ôth mah-yiqrā-lô’ wĕ-kôl ăsher yiqrā-lô’ hā'-ādām‘ ne’pfesh ‘ha’yāh’ hû shĕmô. (20) Wa’- yiqrā’ hā'-ādām‘ shēmôth….

‘And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20. And Adam gave names.. .'

Wa-‘allama ādama l-asmā’a kullahā,

'And He taught Adam the names, all of them.’ Qu’ran 2:31.

In Thomas Pynchon's novel Mason & Dixon, the narrator Cherrycoke recounts, against the huge backdrop of seismic shifts in the political and scientific world of that time, the story of the eponymous figures who have undertaken to draw a scientific map of the wilderness and terrain between Pennsylvania and Maryland:

‘what we were doing out in that Country together was brave, scientifick beyond my understanding and ultimately meaningless, - we were putting a line straight through the heart of the Wilderness, eight yards wide and due west, in order to separate two Proprietorships, granted when the World was yet feudal and but eight years later to be nullified by the War for Independence.”

Late in the novel, the Chinaman of the piece remarks:

‘To rule forever, . .it is necessary only to create, among the people one would rule, what we call . . Bad History. Nothing will produce Bad History more directly nor brutally, than drawing a Line, in particular a Right Line, the very Shape of Contempt, through the midst of a People,- to create thus a Distinction betwixt’em. –’tis the first stroke.-All else will follow as if predestin’d, into War and Devastation.’

The dispute here in wiki, like the historical reality it refers to, has its ‘Bad History’. In the novel, the apparently empirical task of defining boundaries is found unwittingly implicated in the later travails of American history, with its exceptionalism, erasure of native peoples, of possible alternative worlds, of Frostian paths never taken. American innocence and pragmatic realism, in the innocuous work of two surveyors, is swept up in the torment of power: cartographic principles embody an Enlightenment’s reach into the unknown, while, applied, to the ends of order and control, they inadvertently engender violent confusion and disarray. What is the ‘right line’ to take on nomenclature, when history’s line demarcating Israel and the West Bank was drawn by war, then the West Bank was occupied in the aftermath of war, and the world of Israeli settlers begins to redraw the map? One thing that happens is that the complexities have drawn editors into a minor war, as Pynchonesque as it is Pythonesque. There is one difference: most the cartographers say one thing, and Israel, the controlling power, asserts a different terminology. So what’s in a name?

Before the world was tribalized and invested by the collateral damage or fall-out from the Tower of Babel, God assigned to the mythical forefather of all, ‘man’ or Adam, the faculty to name the world, though God himself had exercised this right in naming the light (or) day (yom) and the darkness (hôshek) night(layĕlāh) (Gen.1.5) There was only one name for each thing, and in later European thought the primordial language employed in this taxonomy was to be called ‘the Adamic vernacular’. The thesis was that the pristine jargon employed by Adam, being pre-Babelic, represented the true name for every object: every thing had a proper name intrinsic to its nature. The Greeks, as we see in Plato’s Cratylus, were much prepossessed by the philosophical crux of the correctness of names (ὀρθότης τῶν ὀνομάτων): did names have an intrinsic relation to, or represent, things, or was the link arbitrary.. The Confucian school’s doctrine of the Rectification of names (zhèngmíng: 正名). In the Bible itself the Hebrew text is full of the magic of words, of the power of words themselves to alter reality, a belief testified to in Isaiah:

'So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please.'

Modernity, especially after Ferdinand Saussure (1916), has opted, correctly, for the latter position, and disposed of the magical force of naming. But nationalism, another product of modernity, reintroduced it, via the backdoor, in a new sense. Naming was an act of assertive territorial control, of defining ethnic rights over land, especially as Anthony Smith argues, ethnie are defined also by attachment to a specific geophysical reality, the ‘homeland’ that defines in good part their identity ). Since national identities are a political construct, the inculcation of a uniform language, and the use of its lexicon to define or redefine the landscape, are crucial instruments in forging a national sense of common tradition. Nationalism demanded toponymic unison, and linguistic conformity.

John Gaddis, glossing James Scott’s recent book on North Dakota roads and maps, remarks on maps that they reflect

‘what states try to do to those portions of the earth’s surface they hope to control, and to the people who live upon them. For it’s only by making territories and societies legible – by which he means measurable and hence manipulable – that governments can impose and maintain their authority. “These state simplifications,” he writes, are “like abridged maps.” They don’t replicate what’s actually there, but “when allied with state power, (they) enable much of the reality they (depict) to be remade.”

The idea of a nation as a territorial unit speaking one language over that territory is a parlously modern ideology, one engineered by nation-builders into a plausible if specious semblance of commonsense. As Massimo d’Azeglio is said to have remarked at the dawn of the Italian Risorgimento, ‘we have made Italy: our task now is to make Italians’, 95% of whom could neither read, write and nor often even speak ‘Italian’.

Imperialism, venturing into terra incognita to appropriate foreign land and incorporate it into an empire, went side by side with nationalism, which was a form of internal colonization over, and homogenization of, the disparate cultures that made up an historically defined territory. For the natives, their indigenous naming is ‘essentially a process of asserting ownership and control of place and landscape’

Daphne Kutzner, in her analysis of the role of Empire in classic children’s fiction, looks at the question from the perspective of the intrusive Empire and its refraction of imperial renaming as reflected in popular books, notes that

‘Naming a place gives the namer power over it, or at least the illusion of power and control. Colonial powers literally transform a landscape once they rename it and begin reshaping it.’

Terra incognita is the foreigner’s name for an ostensibly empty landscape which, had they taken the trouble to learn the local languages, would have revealed itself to be replete from every rocky nook to crannied gulley with ancient toponyms. The tendency was one of erasure, and, as with introduced fauna and flora , the landscape was consistently remade as it was renamed to familiarize the alien by rendering it recognizable, a variation on the landscape settlers came from. The new mapping, as often as not, represent as much the settler’s mentality, as the queerly new features of the foreign landscape under toponymic domestication.

Australia is somewhat the extraordinary exception, and broke with the gusto for imperial nomenclature. There, following the pattern set by the earlier land surveyor Thomas Mitchell and his assistant Philip Elliott that “the natives can furnish you with names for every flat and almost every hill” (1828), native names were adopted in a standarized English form for both euphony and their characteristic relation to the landscape, and indeed a resolution was passed as early as 1884 which established the priority of native names in international usage.

Often imperialism and nationalism go hand in hand. Napoleon’s troops, in 1796, could hardly communicate with each other, such were the grammatical, semantic and syntactical rifts between the various provincial patois at the time. By 1814, Napoleon had formed a European empire, and millions of provincials spoke the one, uniform language of the French state’s army. When two nations, or ethnie, occupy the same territory, the historical victor’s toponymic choices, dictated by the victor’s native language, and as articulated in bureaucratic documents and maps, usually determines what names are to be used. However, the presence of two distinct ethnie on the same national soil creates fissiparous tensions in nomenclature. Speaking of French and British conflict in Canada over areas, Susan Drummond, remarks that, 'Symbolic appropriation of a territory is a critical index of control’, and notes that, as late as 1962, the Québec cartographer Brochu, invoked the political dimension of place names as important, in the conflict with the majoritarian English heritage of Canada over the naming of the northern Inuit lands.

Again, in another familiar example, Alfonso Pérez-Agote notes that Spain has its Basque Autonomous region, Euskadi. But the original force of that name covers an area beyond the administrative and territorial units of Spain, and Basque nationalists evoke its symbolic territory, comprising also the Basque area of Navarre in France. Euskadi has, on one level, within Spanish administrative discourse, a ‘territorial political objectification’, and on another level, in Basque nationalism, a ‘non-administratively objectified’ territory extending into a neighbouring country.. The analogy with Israeli and Palestinian nationalism is close. In Israeli discourse, Israel or Eretz Israel can denote Israel and its outriding West Bank, while Palestine, which is the favoured term of West Bank Arabs for the land they inhabit, also can refer to the whole neighbouring territory of Israel as well.

The anomaly, in comparative terms, is that history has settled the question, whatever local separatist nationalisms, revanchist or irredentist, may claim, except for such places as ‘Palestine’. For there, while Israel is a constituted state, it emerged the victor, manu militari in a conflict that gave it control over a contiguous land, but has no recognized legal right, since that land is defined as and ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory. Acts of unilateral annexation, the extension of administrative structures, settlements, toponymic remapping, and widescale expropriation of land in Palestinian title, is not only not recognized, but judged ‘illegal’ by the highest international bodies of law. All major encyclopedias (Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta etc.,), except Wiki, maintain a strict neutrality, and, in recognition of the fraught difficulties, adopt the neutral toponymic convention of ‘(northern/southern) West Bank’ in order to avoid lending their prestige to the partisan politics of the parties in this regional conflict.

(iii)The specific instance of Palestine and the West Bank

When the British wrested control over Palestine from the Ottomans in the First World War, and established themselves there to administer the region, Selwyn Troen notes that, 'naming also became part of the contest for asserting control over Palestine'.. As early as 1920 two Zionists advising the British Mandatory authority on everything regarding the assignment of Hebrew names, fought hard for the restoration of Hebraic toponymy, and when, with such places as Nablus, or indeed 'Palestine' itself, were given non-Hebrew names, they protested at the designations as evidence of discrimination against Jews. The point is made by the Israeli historian and cartographer Meron Benvenisti:-

'When the Geographical Committee for Names, which operated under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society (the only body authorized to assign names throughout the British Empire, decided to call the Mandatory geopolitical entity “Palestine” and the city whose biblical name was Shechem, “Nablus” these Jewish advisers saw this as an act of anti-Jewish discrimination, and a searing defeat for Zionism.'

One pauses to reflect. We are being accused here of 'anti-Jewish/Israeli discrimination' for refusing to insert Israeli toponyms into the West Bank. Nothing is said of the logic of this POV-pushing, i.e. that a Palestinian reader might well regard a Wiki endorsement of suc h foreign nomenclature as a 'searing defeat', and adduce it as proof of 'anti-Palestinian discrimination' both by Zionist editors, and Wikipedia itself.

Since Zionism took root, and especially since Israel was founded, the making of a people, living in a defined territorial unit and speaking one language, has followed the universal pattern of modernity. The landscape, full of Arabic words, had to be renamed, often according to Biblical terminology, but, more often, by the invention of Biblical-sounding names. To do this, a good part of the 10,000 odd Arabic toponyms collected by Herbert Kitchener, T. E. Lawrence and others in surveying that part of the Middle East had to be cancelled, and replaced with Israeli/Hebrew terms, to remake the landscape and its topographic songlines resonate with historical depth. Hebrew is a ‘sacred tongue’ (Leshon HaQodesh:לשון הקודש), the Bible describes the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and the dispossession of its indigenous peoples, who were not part of the chosen: the pattern is repeated in modern times, down to the renaming. The revival of Hebrew, with its potent shibboleths, understandably exercises a powerful hold over the new culture of the country.

The problem is, as Steven Runciman pointed out in the mid-sixties, that the part assigned to Israel by the UN deliberation of 1947 was the western, non-Biblical part, whilst the part assigned to a future Palestinian state, what we now call the West Bank, is precisely the area most infused with Biblical associations cherished by the Jewish people, with sites and names redolent of the founding myths and realities of their ancient forefathers. Israelis, in their secular land, mostly dwell where the Philistines dwelt. The Palestinians dwell where the ancient Jewish tribes once settled. The tensions simmer between the secular Israel, which thrives in its new Mediterranean world, and the religiously-identified Israel that aspires to return to a geophysical space where origins and the present, the sacred nomenclature of the Bible and the modern world of Jewish life, might at least, once more overlap, in an ‘Adamic’ harmony congruent with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

(iv)The Negev Precedent With the foundation of Israel, and in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the vast Negev and part of the Arava were captured, and Ben Gurion duly established a Negev Names Committee to ‘hebraize’ the landscape’s features, its mountains, valleys and springs. The area already had a rich Arab toponymy, and some on the committee thought these terms might be preserved as a ‘democratic gesture towards the Arab population of the new state.’ It was not to be. The nomadic Bedouin who dwelt throughout the area were rounded up and expelled by force. They had terms for everything, but with their uprooting and displacement, Benvenisti notes, ‘an entire world, as portrayed in their toponomastic traditions, died.' Ben Gurion wrote to the committee setting forth his view that:-

We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arabs’ political proprietorship of the land, so also we do not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names.

Political pressure and ‘the influence of patriotic arguments’ prevailed over those who, like S.Yeibin, thought the erasure of Arab names, many of which might preserve an archaic Hebrew origin. Yeibin thought this a disaster:-

‘With a clap of the hand they were wiping out an entire cultural heritage that must certainly conceal within it elements of the Israeli-Jewish heritage as well. The researchers did indeed endeavour to identify all those names that had a link to ancient Hebrew ones in an attempt “to redeem, as far as possible, names from the days of yore.” <

Any Arabic toponym in short only interested the topographers in so far as it might provide a clue to reconstructing the hypothetical Hebraic original that might lie behind it. This consideration, however, often created a mess of concocted pseudo-traditional names. The hebraization of such Arabic toponyms did not restore the historic past, but invented a mythical landscape, resonant with traditionalist associations, that had, however, no roots in Jewish tradition. The most striking geologic formation in the Negev, Wadi Rumman was rewritten as if that word disguised an ancient Hebrew Ram ('elevated'), whereas the Arabic term it was calqued from actually meant 'Pomegranate Arroyo', for example.

Reflecting on Benvenisti’s account in his larger study of language conflict in the Middle east, the Palestinian expatriate scholar Yasir Suleiman makes remarks that,

’By assigning Hebrew names anew to places on the map, the committee was therefore ‘redeeming’ these places from the corrupt and ‘alien’ Arabic names that they have acquired over the centuries’

and likens this process of linguistic erasure of Arabic and the reconstitution of Hebrew metaphorically to the nakba:-

‘The cartographic cleansing of the Negev map of Arabic place names and their replacement by Hebrew names is an enactment of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland’

The record is therefore one of a linguistic cleansing of Palestine of any trace of its long Arabic history, and, as we shall see, an attempt to remodel Arabic usage in the territories Israel conquered and controls, to conform with Hebrew. Toponyms can only retain some semblance of an Arabic form, if that form is suspected to camouflage, in turn, an original Hebraic name. Adapting the reborn Hebrew language to the alien realities of the Palestinian landscape, the obvious problem was that the nomenclature for much of the flora and fauna, not to speak of the landscape itself, was infused with the very language, Arabic, a revarnished Hebrew had to compete with. As early as 1910 Jacob Fichman, a member of the Language Council, stated that Hebrew:

‘will not digest the new names of plants, especially those which have been taken from the Arabic language’ and that these borrowed names ‘will always be like atrophied limbs’ for ‘despite the fact that the Arabic language is our sister language in the family of Semitic languages, it has no foundation in our |psyche ’

Hebrew was thus to be programmatically sealed off from Arabic, to prevent atrophisation, and cultivate purism by means of a fake Biblical antiquarianism. Theodor Adorno, writing in the melancholic aftermath of the Holocaust on the effects of cultural purism, once remarked on the purging of foreign words from German undertaken by nationalists intent restoring an ideal of cultural authenticity. He saw this as part of the pathology of nationalism in Germany. Foreign words were treated as if they were 'the Jews of language' (Fremdwörter sind die Juden der Sprache). In expunging the landscape and the human world of Palestine of its Arabic language, of landscape and culture, Zionism likewise treated Arabic as German or French linguistic purists treated loan-words in their own languages, or, later, actual Jews in their midst, as foreign bodies to be expelled, or expunged if a proper 'foundation for an authentically Jewish psyche' were to be successfully engineered. One would call this ironic, were it not so tragically melancholic in its unintended resonances.

(v)The West Bank. History and Naming The relationship between demographic displacement and the loss of one's landscape through the erasure of its traditional placenames in Palestine has been remarked on by Paul Diehl.

‘The exclusive attachment to territory is reflected in the naming and renaming of places and locations in accordance with the historic and religious sites associated with the dominant political group. Not only did the outflow of Palestinian refugees bring about a change in the Jewish-Arab demographic rations, it brought about the replacement of an Arab-Palestinian landscape with a Jewish-Israeli landscape. The names of abandoned villages disappeared from the map and were replaced with alternative Hebrew names . . Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have taken on biblical names associated with the specific sites as a means of expressing the Jewish priority in these places and the exclusive nature of the territorial attachment. Modern Israeli and Palestinian maps of Israel/Palestine possess the same outer borders, but the semantic content of the name is completely different.. The means by which new landscapes are created to replace or obliterate former landscapes is a good example of the way in which metaphysical and symbolic attachment to territory is translated into concrete realities on the ground.’

In 1950, when King Abdullah, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, unilaterally annexed the territory he had conquered in 1948, he changed the name of his country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which incorporated the remaining fragment of Palestine as aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, or 'the West Bank' of that kingdom. The usage is still current in German (Westjordanland). Though only Britain recognized his annexation, the word itself found ready acceptance in, and was not, 'forced on', the international community, as Binyamin Netanyahu argued.

In 1967, Israel conquered what the world knew as ‘The West Bank’, the Biblical heartland, and a decree calling it ‘Judea and Samaria’ was issued by the Israeli military on December 17 that year with the explicit definition that it would be identical in meaning for all purposes to the West Bank region to replace the interim terms 'Occupied Territories' (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim), and ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) in use since the immediate aftermath of the June war. The term 'Judea and Samaria' however was rarely used until Likud took power. The Labour Government never enacted a settlement policy, though Gush Emunim, an extremist settler ground with a fundamentalist ideology, pressed settlement, and propagated the terminology ‘Judea and Samaria’. When the Likud party, the maximalist, expansionist party with strong ties to both religious and ultra-Zionist groups and traditions, was elected in 1977, it imposed Samaria and Judea as the vox propria in modern Hebrew on the mass media, expressly forbidding the use of the international term West Bank. Notably, the government's imposing of these terms on Israeli usage was seen as a prerequisite for an envisioned settlement policy, since accepting the terms would predispose the public to accepting the policy.

Gideon Aran describes the achievement:

‘The importance of changing names in the process of conquering territory is well known. Assimilation of the name “Judea and Samaria” in normal and official language, as well as in jargon, attests to G(ush)E(numin)’s political and cultural achievements.'

The Camp David Accords negotiations of and the final agreement, in 1979, only underline how great was the linguistic rift between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's position and the American government intent on brokering an agreement.

‘Begin consistently proved to be the most extreme member of his delegation, insisting on seemingly innocent terms such as “autonomy” as opposed to “self rule,” on the labelling of the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” in the Hebrew text, and on the use of the phrase “undivided Jerusalem.'

A huge amount of wrangling between the American negotiators and Begin revolved around this term.

‘for what must have been the tenth time, he (Begin) objected to the term West Bank, giving a lesson to the president on the geographic and historical appropriateness of the term and the importance of using the words Judea and Samaria.’

Begin refused to back down from his ‘rock-hard’ intransigence on using ‘Judea and Samaria’ and at the Camp David signing ceremony, (March 26,1979) several interpretive notes were required to be added as annexes to the basic documents, one specifically dealing with the West Bank, which President Carter annotated with his own hand with the words:

‘I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’.

An ambitious programme of colonising settlement, toponomastic Hebraisation and cultural Judaization was undertaken, and indigenous Palestinians were shifted off their land, in a repetition of the Negev programme, which forms the precedent. The programme took wing especially after the unprovokedinvasion of Lebanon in 1982, whose key political objectives included ousting the refugee Palestinian resistance in the para-state on Israel’s northern flank from Lebanon, where the PLO projected a 'state in waiting' image that threatened Israel’s plans for long-term control over the West Bank. The war was, the head of the IDF said at the time, ‘part of the struggle over the Land of Israel. It aimed to further the isolation of Palestinians on the West Bank by depriving them of close support, halt the rise to political respectability of the PLO, which embodied Palestinian nationalist aspirations, and deprive that body of its claims to be a political partner in the peace process for Israel’s normalization of its relations with the outside world. One calculation, a minority view entertained by both Ariel Sharon and Raphael Eytan, however, was that, expelled from Lebanon, the PLO would be forced to return to Jordan, topple king Hussein, and establish a Palestinian state there to satisfy Palestinian national ambitions that Israel would thwart on the West Bank.

Changing the realities of occupied territory by the manipulation of language, Hebrew, Arabic, and in controllable sources like the global Wikipedia, became a programmatic goal. The settlers were in fact 'colonists' in the old sense, but Israeli English usage has here prevailed in the politics of the culture wars to determine how the international community perceives the dynamics of that area. The corresponding Hebrew usage is complex (see Israeli Settlements), but continuity with the biblical setlement of Eretz Yisrael is evoked by referring to Jewish settlers as mitnahalim. The root *n-h-l directly evokes a passage in the Book of Numbers where each tribe is assigned its portion on entering Canaan, or the Land of Israel, particularly as ' in the pledge by the tribes of Gad and Reuben that they will fight on the west side of the Jordan river to help the other tribes take possession of their assigned portions' Settlers, qua, mitnahalim are not colonizing anybody's land, in this usage: they are simply taking up their 'assigned portions' as those were marked out by God to the Chosen People.

Rashid Khalidi has remarked how the Israeli authorities themselves try to engineer the way Palestinians think in Arabic by tampering with that language's natural idiom in the Arabic broadcasts they authorize. Over Israeli Arabic channels, one does not hear Jerusalem referred to, as it is customarily in Arabic, and by Palestinians, as Bayt al-Maqdis ('The House of Sanctity') or Al Quds al-Sharif ('The Noble Holy Place'). Arabic usage as sanctioned by Israel speaks rather of Urshalim ('Jerusalem') or Urshalim/al-Quds ('Jerusalem Al-Quds'). The purpose is to diffuse a variety of Arabic names for places that are calques on the Hebrew terms chosen for the area..

This goes right through the bureaucratic language, a form of linguistic colonization that reinforces the physical occupation of the west Bank by cultural re-engineering. A new travel permit was imposed on the colonized Palestinians in the West Bank in 2002, and required of any of them wishing to travel in that area. This was issued, printed and released by Israeli authorities who call it in Arabic Tasrih tanaqul khas fi al-hawajiz al-dakhiliyya fi mantaqat yahuda wa al-samara. ('Special Travel Permit for the Internal Checkpioints in the Area of Judea and Samaria.'). Here, Palestinians who must travel in the West Bank, for them 'Filastin', are required to obtain a document which requires that area to be referred to by the settler term, 'Judea and Samaria'. It is this form of Arabic which they are expected to use in negotiating their way with Israeli authorities through checkpoints. But West Bank Palestinians simply abbreviate it and refer to their tasrih dakhili (Checkpoint permit), , thereby eluding the settler term imposed on them.

A proposal is now being made to apply the principle of Hebraization, as of 2009, even to those places within Israel which the world designates by traditional toponyms, such as Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) Nazareth (Natzrat) and Jaffa (Yafo).

(vi) Analysis of Ynhockey's suggestions

‘Mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy and codified’

'Mapmaking is not, however, solely an instrument of war; it is an activity of supreme political significance – a means of providing a basis for the mapmaker’s claims and for his social and symbolic values, while cloaking them in a guise of “scientific objectivity.” Maps are generally judged in terms of their “accuracy”, that is, the degree to which they succeed in reflecting and depicting the morphological landscape and its “man-made” covering But maps portray a fictitious reality that differs from other sorts of printed matter only in form.'

After 1967 ‘Cartographers . .had many options, which tended to reveal their political proclivities. Those who were sympathetic to Israel labelled the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Sinai as “administered territories” and used the phrase “Judea and Samaria” for Jordan’s former West Bank. They also included all of Jerusalem within Israeli territory,. Mapmakers who were ideologically neutral generally referred to “occupied territory” and maintained the term “West Bank”. . . In the post-1993 period a Palestinian Authority has been established in the West Bank and Gaza, yet there is no actual independent state of Palestine. Most international maps have stayed with the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” but maps published by the Palestinian Authority describe these areas as “Palestine.” Furthermore, Palestinian Authority maps usually leave out Israel and assign its territory to “Palestine,” with the added designation that it is “occupied territory.”Arthur Jay Klinghoffer, Harvey Sicherman, The power of projections: : how maps reflect global politics and history, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 pp.37-8

We are dealing with a defined territory and its naming. User:Ynhockey would make tidy distinctions, define the bound geographical territory (CIA Factbook) as just a political reality, and use Judea and Samaria for all other contexts. In his own work on Wiki, much of it admirable, we find many maps. Examine the following map he authored and uploaded, and which is employed on the Battle of Karameh

The central colour, a washed acquamarine tint, allows one to highlight the field of movement in the battle, and blurs the neat territorial division between the West Bank, and Jordan. But note that, in a wholly unnecessary manner, Israel is stamped in large bold characters and made to overlay the West Bank, which is placed diminutively in parentheses. Willy-nilly, the impression is that the West Bank is some territorial hypothesis or province within Israel. Whether Ynhockey meant to give the reader this impression or not is immaterial. Maps, as one source already quoted noted, reflect the cognitive bias of the mapmaker as much as an interpretation of a landscape, and here the bias is that the West Bank is under Israel, behind Israeli lines, a subset of that state. It is a fine example of what many cartographers and historians of cartography argue: the making of maps, and toponymic nomenclature in them, serves several purposes, to clarify, as here, a battle landscape, for example, but also to impose or assert power, or claims, or blur facts. Objectively, User:Ynhockey has loaded wiki with a map that cogs our perceptions, tilting them to an annexationist assumption. Indeed, unlike the Israeli government so far, his map actually looks like it has the West Bank annexed.

On the fraudulence or illiteracy of those who propose an alternative candidature for Shakespeare's works. A note for Wikipedians unfamiliar with the facts.

Each of the following historical notices, which, taken together, according to the core principles of historiography suffice abundantly to confirm, if ever doubted, the traditional attribution of Shakespeare's works to Shakespeare, must be finangled, talked round, cast under suspicion, subject to the hermeneutics of conspiratorial blindsiding, denied or ignored by those who propose the fringe lunatic proposition that someone else, unknown to Shakespeare or his contemporaries, wrote the works contained in the First Folio. Uniquely, Shakespeare's evidentiary record is subject to a radical Pyrrhic scepticism that would deny the face value of the empirical documentary record. The challenge which the various and variegated proponents of the Shakespeare Authorship Question pose is not to Shakespeare's identity, which is secure, but to the fundamental principles of historical analysis, to historical writing itself. Were one to generalize the implicit working methods of these sceptics to the general field of documentary analysis, the discipline of history itself would be erased as an impossible undertaking, except as the quest for latent codes and ingenious signing ciphers, which however would subordinate the aesthetic thrust of great writing to an overriding neurotic tic of toying endlessly with cryptograms, just in case the author feared readers would believe, or disbelieve as the case may be, the evidence of the name on the frontispiece. One seminal reason for the fact that their amateurish fumblings are ignored by mainstream scholarship is that they refuse to recognize (and thereby underwrite their incompetence as reliable commentators) how all history is written. No other writer or historical figure of distinction before modern times could survive the same pseudo-tests that have been devised by those enchanted by the afflatus of alternative candidature to attempt to undermine what the solid facts of the Elizabethan and Jacobean records attest. That the madness of methodless method is attached uniquely to him betrays one of the residual collateral consequences of the old cult of bardolatry, an inquisitive obsession with the identity and life of a poet about whom, as with most early writers and poets, little is known. To leaven out the bare record, therefore, one seizes on a better known contemporary and retrofits his biography to the works universally attributed to the otherwise little-known bard of Stratford, and by this antic ruse one fudges an impression that finally we know more about the author than the skimping austeries of history otherwise permit us to know. The result is farce, as with the Oxfordian candidate Edward de Vere, whose most recent biographer tells us that, among other things, this aristocrat, otherwise known for some stray scraps of limp to middling verse, (which, as thorough computerized testing has proven, shares nothing with Shakespeare's style) was an 'egotist, thug, sodomite, atheist, vulture, traitor, murderer, rapist, pederast, adulterer, libeler, fop, playboy, truant, tax evader, drunkard, snob, spendthrift, deadbeat, cheat, blackmailer, malcontent, hypocrite, conspirator, and ingrate,' all undoubtedly indispensable traits required to write the world otherwise written by the industrious middle-class gentleman, Shakespeare of Stratford, whom all of his contemporaries spoke of as endowed with an amiably sweet temper, natural wit and with a gift for rapid, fluent, mellifluous composition. Attachment to these theories belongs to the type of hysterical popular delusion surveyed by Charles Mackay in his path-finding essay Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds(1841), which by chance happened, with premonitory intelligence, to have been published just 4 years before Delia Bacon started off the hare of the first hypothesis of alternative authorship.

Witnesses to Shakespeare:

‘intelligent and knowledgeable bibliophiles contemporary with both the historical William Shakespeare and the historical 17th earl of Oxford (as well as the historical Christopher Marlowe and the historical Sir Francis Bacon), consistently attributed the canonical Shakespeare plays and poems to William Shakespeare, never to Oxford (or Marlowe or Bacon), even in the privacy of their personal libraries and notebooks.’

Group A.

• (1) Gabriel Harvey(1550? - 1631) in his copy of Speght's 1598 edition of Chaucer's Works, penned the following note (dated usually 1598- 1601)

(a)’The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeares Venus, & Adonis: but his Lucrece, & his tragedie of Hamlet', Prince of Denmarke, haue it in them, to please the wiser sort. ...

Harvey also refers to Shakespeare in a second note which runs:-

"Sir Edward Dier ... His Amaryllis, & Sir Walter Raleighs Cynthia," followed by Spenser, Constable, France, Watson, Daniel, Warner, Chapman, Silvester, Shakespeare, & the rest of owr florishing metricians.'

• (2) Sir George Buc’s (1560-1622) hand seems to be responsible for the following entry on the title page of a surviving copy of the anonymous Ist quarto of Henry V (1600)

(a)’much ye same w{i}th y{a}t in Shakespeare.’

Alan Nelson comments:

Possibly it is indeed Buc's, and comparison is being made with Henry IV Part 2 (1600), which Henry V much resembles, particularly in its title-page, except that Henry IV Part 2 carries an attribution to William Shakespeare.

(b) In Buc’s personal copy of George a Greene (1599) we read an annotation dated sometime between 1599 and 1605, where the future Master of the Revels shows he inquired of two men of the theatre about the identity of the author, writing on the title page:

Written by ... a minister, who acted

the piners part in it himself. Teste W. Shakespeare (as W.Shakespeare has born witness (to me))

Ed. Juby saith that this play was made by Ro. Greene

In Alan Nelson’s words, the annotation proves that Buc consulted William Shakespeare, together with Edward Juby (of the Admiral’s Men) as reliable witnesses concerning theatrical events dating back to the Christmas season of 1593-94

• (3) John Harington(?1561-1612), the Queen’s nephew and godson, in two lists of quarto plays in his possession in 1609 refers to

K. Leir of Shakspear.

King Leyr. W. Sh.

distinguishing it from the anonymous King Leire (1605), which he called "King Leire.: old." Furthermore, Nelson argues, that:’ Sir John Harington, in the privacy of his personal notebook (the Arundel-Harington manuscript), had no hesitation in naming Oxford as an author - but only of such poems as have been ascribed to him by Professor Steven May.’

• (4) Edward Alleyn, (1566-1626), Shakespeare’s fellow action, wrote in a list of books his own, that he possessed, ‘a book shaksper sonnetts 5d’

• (5) Humphrey Dyson(d. 1633), a notary with pervasive connections to people in the theatrical world of his day, was a book collector, and in his catalogue 6 quartos are listed, one being "Troilus and Cressida" whose title-page, after ‘Written by William Shakespeare’ he annotated in the following way

& printed amongest his workes.

Meaning he considered both Troilus and Cressida and the Folio to be Shakespeare’s works.

• (6) William Drummond (alias Drummond of Hawthornden (1585-1649) makes three entries regarding his collection and reading of Shakespeare’s works:

(a) regarding his London reading of Shakespeare’s plays in 1606 he registers that

'His recorded reading of Shakespeare is confined to 1606 (consisting in) Romeo and Iulieta Tragedie; loues labors lost comedie; the passionat pilgrime; The rape of lucrece, A midsommers nights Dreame comedie.’

(b) Drummond compiled a list of the books in his library, attributing both

"Venus & Adon." and "the rap of Lucrece" to Schaksp in 1611

(c) Books from his library preservd at Edinburgh University include two Shakespeare quartos: Love's Labors Lost (1598) and Romeo and Juliet (1599) , the latter of which, since the title page is anonymous, is annotated by Drummond as Shakespeare’s work.

Wil. Sha.

• (7) Robert Burton(1577-1640), who aside from being the author of The Anatomy of Melancholy, was an Oxford academic playwright, owned Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucrece (1600) and Venus and Adonis (1602), the latter of which, on the title-page, carries an ascription in a contemporary hand: "by Wil. Shakespeare."

• (8) John Rous (1574-1652), in a note on books given to the Library by Robert Burton in his Last Will and testament" contains the following two confirmatory annotations

Venus and Adonis by Wm Shakespear Lond. 1602

The rape of Lucrece by Wm Shakespear Imp{er}fet.’

As Alan Nelson comments, ‘Rous's entries testify to his acceptance of the received attribution of these separately-published poems’

Group B. Fellow writers, historians and poets, contemporary to him, who mention Shakespeare.

• (9) Robert Greene, 1592, or as 'posthumously ventriloquised' by Chettle (Katherine Duncan-Jones: see 10), alludes to Shakespeare, 'Yes, trust them not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is, in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey.'
• (10) Henry Chettle, 1592, in the epistle, 'To those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance', appears to use Greene (above 9) to attack Shakespeare. Very quickly then, Chettle apologized for his remarks, in a second text.
• (11) [[Richard Field|Richard Field (1561-1624), Shakespeare's fellow Stratfordian, now London printer, to whom he sold the rights of Venus and Adonis in 1593. It is to Barnfield that we owe the innovative spelling William Shakeʃpeare, for his fellow-Stratfordian's monicker, Richard Stonley (1621-, Teller of the Exchequer under Queen Elizabeth who purchased a copy that year on June 12, entered the author's name in his diary as Shakspere. Unlike modern sceptics, this clerkish Shakespeare contemporary could see no existential difference between Shakeʃpeare and Shakspere.
• (12)Richard Barnfield (1574-1620), a poet and Oxford graduate in the 1598 appendix of Poems in divers Humors to his The Encomium of Lady Pecunia (printeed by G.S. for John Jaggard) is to be found the earliest praise of Shakespeare.

And Shakespeare thou, whose hony-flowing Vaine,

(Pleasing the World) thy praises doth obtaine.

Whose Venus and whose Lucrece (sweete, and chaste)

Thy name in fames immortall Booke haue plac't.

Live euer you, at least in Fame liue euer:

Well may the Bodye dye, but Fame dies neuer.

The last two lines, with the repeated Live euer probably account for the otherwise enigmatic dedication to Shakespeare's Sonnets (1609). Certain poems by Barnfield in the 1598 volume were attributed to Shakespeare in the 1599 edition of The Passionate Pilgrim by William Jaggard.</ref>

• (13) The poet Thomas Edwards, in (1593?) 1595 alludes top Shakespeare in referring to Adon.
• (14) William Covell, 1595
• (15) the author of Willobie his Avisa,1594
• (16) Francis Meres (1665-1647), distinguished between Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford in 1598 in his Palladis Tamia. Wits Treasury. Being the Second party of Wits Commonwealth.<Park Honan, ibid.pp.263</ref>
• (17) John Weever, 1599
• (18) the Cambridge author(s) of the Parnassus plays,1599,1601, in the third (The Second Part of the Return from Parnassus), Shakespeare's fellow actor William Kempe is made to say (a):

'Few of the university [men] pen plays well, they smell too much of that writer Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis, and talk too much of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit.'

and (b)

'Let this duncified world esteem of Spencer and Chaucer . .I'll worship sweet Mr.Shakspeare, and to honour him will lay his Venus and Adonis under my pillow,'

• (19) Robert Chester's Loves Martyr (1601) appears, along with some other, short, poems by several theatrical poets, such as Ben Jonson, George Chapman and John Marston. Among these there is one signed by 'William Shakespeare.' The untitled poem is known known as The Phoenix and the Turtle. The volume was printed by Shakespeare's fellow Stratfordian, Richard Field.
• (20)John Manningham, a student at the Middle Temple, and a 'a friend of William Shakespeare's friend and "cousin" Thomas Greene, who was then finishing up his studies at the Middle Temple and would move to Stratford the following year,' wrote down in his diary in March 1602, either having heard it from his room-matye Edward Curle, or from the Inner Temple gossip, William Towse, the anecdote on howthe anecdote on how Shakespeare intercepted Richard Burbage's assignation with a lady, so that William the Conqueror preceded Richard 111, the role Burbage was acting.
• (10) Henry Chettle, who had criticized and apologized for doing so, Shakespeare in 1592 published his England's Mourning Garment in 1603 once more critical of Shakespeare for failing to mourn the Queen's death in verse.
• (21) Anthony Scoloker, in the Epistle to the Reader of his Daiphantus, or the Passions of Loue, 1604, writes that 'It should be . .like Friendly Shakespeare's tragedies . . it should please all, like Prince Hamlet'.'
• (22)John Poulett in a letter to his uncle Sir Francis Vincent from Paris, October 10, 1605, wrote:

'The danger in these sports makes them seem good, men seeme in them as actors in a Tragedye, and my thinkes I could play Shackesbeare in relating."

• (23) William Camden, the leading historian of his day, 1605, refers to Shakespeare as one of the most 'pregnant wits' of his day.
• (24) John Davies the poet in his The Scourge of Folly, called Shakespeare “our English Terence, . . making Shakespeare out to be a playwright, in 1610.
• (25) John Webster in his The White Devil, mentions ‘the right happy and copious industry of Master Shake-speare in 1612.
• (26) Leonard Digges, raised 'in a village on the outskirts of Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1590s'[27]refers familiarly to Will Shakespeare as England’s Lope de Vega, in sonnet-writing,1613.
• (27)Thomas Freeman wrote an 'epigram' in praise of Shakespeare, 1614.
• (28) Francis Beaumont in a letter to Ben Jonson, 1615 ca.
• (29) Edmund Howes (fl. 1602–1631) in an amended edition of John Stow (ca.1525-1605's Annales (1580), in 1615, published a list of 'Our moderne, and present excellent Poets', where poets are listed 'according to their priorities as neere I could,' Shakespeare figures 13th among the 27 listed "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman." Priorities here means 'social rank'.
• (30) William Basse, poem on Shakespeare 1616-1623
• (31) John Taylor, mentions Shakespeare who ‘did in art excell’, in his The Praise of Hemp-seed, 1620
• (32) Ben Jonson (a)gossiped about him to William Drummond in 1619, (b)wrote a long eulogy of him as the 'Soul of the Age' and 'Swan of Avon', 1623, and (c)mentions him as someone he loved and honoured ‘this side Idolatry’ in his posthumous notes 1641
• (33) Hugh Holland wrote a laudatory poem in the First Folio,1623
• (26) Leonard Digges, stepson of Shakespeare’s Stratford friend Thomas Russell, and a poet, scholar and translator wrote a poem in his honour for the First Folio 1623, and (b) mentions him in a text of 1640.
• (34) James Mabbe, poet and scholar wrote a poem to his memory in the First Folio 1623
• (35) Michael Drayton, Shakespeare’s fellow poet and native of Warwickshire, mentions Shakespeare in his elegy to Henery Reynolds,1627
• (36)An anonymous hand wrote the following verses in the 1620s into a copy of the First Folio, and also transcribed there verses from the Stratford monument, meaning he visited and checked them.

Here Shakespeare lies whom none but Death could Shake,

And here shall lie till judgement all awake,

When the last trumpet doth unclose his eyes,

The wittiest poet in the world shall rise.

• (37) John Milton wrote a sonnet on the 'admirable dramatick poet W.Shakespeare', 1630
• (38) In the The Banquet of Jests, in 1630, a work attributed by some to Archibald Armstrong there is a jest (Jest no. 259) entitled Stratford upon Avon which runs: "One travelling through Stratford upon Avon, a Towne most remarkeable for the birth of famous William Shakespeare, and walking in the Church to doe his devotion, espyed a thing there worthy observation ...."
• (39) (a)A Lieutenant Hammond on tour from Norwich, in his diary 1634 made the following entry after a visit to "Stratford Towne":

‘In that dayes trauell we came by Stratford vpon Auon, where in the Church in that Towne there are some Monuments ... Those worth obseruing and which wee tooke notice of were these...A neat Monument of that famous English Poet, Mr. William Shakespeere; who was borne heere.’

• (40) Thomas Heywood, the most prolific dramatist, in his Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels, 1635 mentions Shakespeare
• (32) Ben Jonson in his Timber or Discoveries Made Upon Men and Matter, ('1641 but written before August 1637) wrote of Shakespeare's defects.
• (41) William D’Avenant’s ode entitled "In Remembrance of Master William Shakespeare," appeared in 1638 in his Madagascar.

• (37) John Milton, in his L'Allegro (1632-1638) writes of: 'Sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy's child.'
• (42) James Mervyn writes of 'Beaumont, Fletcher, Shakespeare, and a train of glorious poets'
• (43) Thomas Bancroft’s two poems mention Shakespeare, 1639
• (44)Benson's re-edition of the Poems, in 1640 contains an anonymous "An Elegie on the death of that famous Writer and Actor, M. William Shakespeare."
• (45))Benson's 1640 edition also contains a poem by John Warren on 'lofty Shakespeare'
• (26)Benson's edition also contains a longer poem on Shakespeare by Leonard Digges,'"Upon Master William Shakespeare, the Deceased Authour, and his Poems", dated to between 1630 and 1634.
• (46)Richard Hunt, a Stratford district vicar who identified the Stratford man with the great London actor William Shakespeare.
• (47)Sir John Suckling,(1609-1642) in his posthumous Fragmenta Aurea (1646) completed some lines of a draft he found of Lucrece, perhaps coming into his hands from his friend William Davenant, 1606-1668, Shakespeare's godson, completed them, and attributed them to Shakespeare, as is clear from the title 'A Supplement of an imperfect Copy of Verses of Mr.Wil.Shakespeare'
• (48) Sir Richard Baker in his Chronicle of the Kings of England, in 1643 under ‘“The Raign of Queen Elizabeth,” refers to Shakespeare in a concluding of “Men of note in her time”,
• (49)John Hales,(1584 - 1656) before 1656 is reported by John Dryden to have said,'that there was no subject of which any poet ever writ, but he would produce it much better treated of in Shakespeare'

Group C. Fellow actors

• (4) Edward Alleyn, (1566-1626), Shakespeare’s fellow action, wrote in a list of books his own, that he possessed, ‘a book shaksper sonnetts 5d’
• (50) Henry Condell (1576?-1627)
• (51) John Heminges (1556-1630)
• (52) Augustine Phillips in his will, executed 5 May 1605, bequeathed, "to my Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould,' as well as similar sums to other actors in the King's Men.

Group D. Fellow Stratfordians who knew him in London

• (11) Richard Field, London printer and Shakespeare's fellow Stratfordian. Shakespeare makes a patent allusion to him in Cymbeline, Act IV.Sc.2,l.375, in the name Richard du Champ.
• (53) Middle Temple attorney and Shakespeare's 'cousin',Thomas Greene, Shakespeare's Stratford houseguest for at least a year, wrote in his diary of having visited Shakespeare and his son-in-law John Hall (himself a Queens' College, Cambridge graduate in medicine), after the latter two had riddene down to the city, a day after himself, on 16th of Nov.1614. Stratford Shakespeare, against, is the London Shakespeare, and did not retire to the idiocy of rural life permanently, but kept travelling there.

Group E. Noblemen.('Licensed players who enjoyed royal or noble patronage were categorised as high-ranking household servants'

• (54) Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton was addressed by Shakespeare in two prefatory letters in the dedications appended to his two narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece to 1593,1594. In the second volume, Lucrece, Shakespeare writes of 'the warrant of your honourable disposition' which has been interpreted as suggesting payment.
• (55)Queen Elizabeth 1 'rewarded' Shakespeare, along with his fellow actors, all servants of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, with a payment of £13.6s.8p and £6.13s.4d from the Exchequer from the Royal Chamber Accounts for performing before her in 1594,, at Greenwich Palace on the 26th and 28 Dec. of that year, payment being made on March 15, 1595..
• (57)Francis Manners, the 6th. Earl of Rutland, and a former friend of Southampton's, hired Shakespeare to devise for the royal tournament at Belvoir an impresa (emblem with motto), along with Richard Burbage to paint it, in 1613. Shakespeare would not have been engaged to write the motto unless his abilities as a creative writer were acknowledged by such men of the nobility.
• (58/59)William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke and his brother Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke were hailed as patrons in the preface to the First Folio (1623). In the preface to the 1647 folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's works, reference is made to the Pembroke brothers as 'patrons to the flowing compositions of the then expired sweet swan of Avon, Shakespeare'.

sandbox refs

Is there a particular reason you are combining multiple references into one on that page? nableezy - 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the format you suggested, and indeed am in your debt for creating it. It makes a neat distinction aesthetically between source and commentary that appeals to me, but it doubles up footnoting. This last point is problematical because we are under constraints to keep the article within reasonable limits. The text is relatively short, the templates have leavened it out to 120k, the division of end and footnotes adds to the appearance of padding and finally, I thought it the proper move to prepare before my co-editor, Tom Reedy, who apparently would like the notes to follow the source citation, starts his review (in the Elizabethan sense of that word). His argument is, I imagine, that those who eventually will examine this version, and compare it to the other, will appreciate the sources quoted in extenso directly in the footnote they click onto, rather than having to double click to see the source in the footnote, and then the content of that source in the endnote.

Of course I did this in deference to the other editor's needs to have an integrated text before him, and ease the process of editorial review. When we have both completed a final revision, this important distinction can be reconsidered for re-inclusion. Thanks however for the templates, which are on the record if it is decided to split the text into footnotes and endnotes (technically of course, endnotes should contain only material that elaborates on what is unclear in the text, whereas footnotes should just provide the material backing the text as it is.) I'm glad you're keeping those lynx-eyes out on our activities. We need'em.Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Im talking about you having some refs that look like <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}:{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> instead of <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}</ref><ref>{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> There a particular reason for that? nableezy - 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a pretext for that, and pretexts are not good reasons. Basically. I put refs saying more or less the same thing in the same line space, to ratchet down the escalating ref ladder at page bottom. A fucking dopey lurk I admit to create a false impression that we're thinking light rather than weighed down by referential ballast. It's a hang over from the academic pleistocene or plasticene, i.e. mean them days back in the 60s when one page bottom reference gave several sources in succession. I'll see what Tom reedy does, but it should be raised at the end of his review. I imagine he'll go to this in Johnny Weissmuller fashion, with machete hacking away at the huggermugger jungle of bloats and quotes and notes. Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, old boy, with combining refs like that - I hate seeing a long string of ref superscripts, which apart from its ugliness, screams out that someone is trying to justify a highly dubious point. There is good precedent on Wikipedia for doing this - just take a look at some of the articles Avi specializes in, and you'll see plenty of examples of refs being consolidated. --NSH001 (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. now back from my silent protest at outrageous lying. (It would be just too much of a dereliction of duty to neglect Chrissie, who as well as a few more world titles, is, I'm sure, eventually going to get her own Featured Article on Wikipedia's front page.) --NSH001 (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if Avi does it, that relieves me somewhat since it furnishes a good precedent. But, in my book, Nab is the master of the aesthetic template. Look at that wonderful way he pulled the Franz Baermann Steiner into exquisite formal shape, with endnotes and footnotes neatly separated, from the rudis et indigestaque moles I lumbered it up as. It works wonders for short pages: perhaps the longer article requires a different format. But personally I like the blue-runged ladder effect - it reminds me of Wittgenstein's advice.

Yep. It's depressing. One looks forward to the World Athletic championship kermesse coming up with rather less anticipative brio, when one is reminded of what is going on, unreported or spun to giddy mendacity, in that nook of disgrace we all worry about. I only hope Erdogan has the sense to break the gulag's grip by a personal visit. Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

You had previously contributed to discussion regarding this subject. There is currently a concern, primarily on my part, whether this article takes a stand which seems to indicate that the name was used to refer to a single, specific group, which I believe the evidence of sources does not support. You appear to be rather knowledgable in the field, and I believe any input you might have on the article talk page could be very valuable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, other Price-war (Diana Price wrote an absurd book on the only subject I feel obliged to finish off before retiring)!

At a glance, the article needs to be edited by someone who understands English. I'll keep an eye on it, John. In brief though, I agree that, given the thin, circumstantial evidence, the idea that the Ebionim were a single discrete sect strikes me as necessarily hypothetical. As in the earlier discussion some years ago, I think the problem is with pop-professors drum-beating a personal fantasy which, as in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, has no ground in evidence, but a huge ballast of argument in conjecture. It is always tedious having to deal with editors who cannot distinguish wishful thinking from the austerities of scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. In this case, I think there is a very strong possibility of bias toward neo-Ebionitism, which, not having won itself a separate article, has had its proponents try to add the perspectives of same to this article. But thanks for the added attention. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki quote of the day

'At a young age, Dobson's family moved from North Carolina to Germany; his father had spent the latter part of World War II in a POW camp and had grown adjusted to German hospitality.' Michael Dobson Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of pages created by deVereans or where they are active in promoting their fringe beliefs

Assistance would be appreciated in helping me keep track of the metastases.

• Shakespeare authorship doubters
• Shakespeare Fellowship
• De Vere Society
• Derek Jacobi
• The Ashbourne portrait
• Anonymous (film)
• Roland Emmerich
• Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship
• Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian
• Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
• List of Oxfordian theory supporters
• Shakespeare authorship question
• Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft
• Talk:Shakspeare authorship question/sandbox 3

Ashbourne

I didn't upload the original image, so the original uploader created the title. I assume he/she copied the image from the Oxfordian 'shakespeare fellowship' website. I changed the image to the cleaned version, a process that retains the original image-file name. There's really no doubt that it's Hamersley. But Oxfordian editor Softlavender kept trying to add the wholly discredited claims of Bissel. There is an article written by an amateur in the Oxfordian newsletter Shakespeare Matters. Softlavender used it as a source. It attempts to prove that the painting must date from before 1612. To my horror, when I raised the matter on reliable sources noticeboard this newsletter [1] was deemed reliable, mainly because of the usual smokescreen created by Smatprt, who asserted that various notable scholars are on the editorial board. The author knows nothing about the history of art. At that point I gave up in disgust. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think if you want to change the image title you have to re-upoad it under the new title. Paul B (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can ask for Sir Les Patterson to be brought in to adjudicate. Paul B (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked Les and, pissed as a Pantagruelian fart as he was, he said he was always happy as as pig in excrement to assist the Yartz, and slurped an email my way saying that the Folger page image on their US page is in the public domain, according to what one can deduce from the details here.

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law.

So I'll cast around, fishing eventually in Cairene waters outside Saul Bellow's town for technical assistance to get it re-uploaded according to the neutral Folger description (The Ashbourne portrait of Shakespeare/Sir Hugh Hamersley:1612) when I get round to sorting this out. Thanks in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad Sir Les was so helpful. I'll slip him a case of four-X and one of the fag-butts that fall regularly from Jackson Pollock's paintings. Jackson's mastery of the long slow dribble was rivalled only by the power of his fag-butt flip, which produced those necessary moments of repose in his works: subtle muted tones amid the vivid slashes of pigment.

However, despite my gratitude to Sir Les, I take the view that the title of the file doesn't matter much. Even File:OXFORDWASSHAKESPEAREREALLYIMNOTKIDDING.jpg would not distress me too much. After all its not normally visible to the reader. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave the antipodean lair a tingle on the blower to convey that, and all I caught was an emphysemic wheeze and something that sounded like Yabby Warberk before the line cut. It took me donkey's ages to figure out that must be how they pronounce downunder (or is that, downchunder?) the name of the bloke who stored all them books in that library in Woe-burn Square, the chap who always harped on about Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail, as Carlo Ginsburg reminds us in his study of Giovanni Morelli, reading which got Umberto Eco to write Il Nome della Rosa and which in turn means that I take it you are alluding to the suggestion to return to the beginning (as T.S. Eliot told us in Little Gidding), namely le point de dépardew, which is Shakespeare, i.e., 'a rose, or a jpg, by any other name would smell as sweet'. Which, deconstructed, means I suppose, that the subtext is 'let sleeping dawgs lie' through their teeth and not unleash, by the skittish provocations of truth-sleuthing, the hounds of wikiwarring.

So be it. Back to the vegie patch, with Voltaire, mumbling those lines about 'dahlias sleeping in the empty silence'. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(I think by the way, that the offer of 4-x might get up Sir Les's conker. His taste in suds use to run strictly to Fosters, as you can see here which, as he once burped, was the only Lager that keep a self-respecting Aussie POW anchored on enemy turf.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC) )

Shame on us all

Strange that should have been your sentence I altered. I arrived that the page by way of the P.N. Oak article, which is on my watchlist. IPs regularly pop up to promote the fantasies of the utterly shameless Oak. I noticed that the most recent 'contributor' had also altered the Wendy Doniger article, so I had a look at it.

While I appreciate that shame cultures do differ significantly, I think the phrase "Hindu shame" may be confusing, especially when used in the phrase "Hinduism was being demonized to create Hindu shame amongst Indian youth". This might be read to imply that "Hindu shame" was also created in non-Hindu Indians. If we can meaningfully use the concept of "shame" for both Hindus and non-Hindus, then I'd suggest that it is unnecessary to speak of specifically "Hindu shame". We might find soon find ourselves writing of "French shame". Paul B (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the New Testament

Hi Nishidani,

As I've mentioned before, I'd very much appreciate it if you wouldn't follow me to articles to oppose my edits there. I'm sure you understand. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you to articles, and if you repeat this ridiculous furphy again, I'll get really pissed off. I have a 4 decades long scholarly interest in the origins of Christianity and in Judaism, as anyone can see from the Ebonism page work I did, and know the literature well. You just don't figure on my radar of interest. I have had that bookmarked for I don't know how long, have often been tempted to actually write the page because it is just a piece of polemical trash trashing another religion, but haven't the time. You know almost nothing of the subject, I gather, otherwise you would actually pull that page out of the slough of meretricious polemical and fatuous despond in which it languishes.

If you do want to rid the page of its absurd caricatures of Judeo-Christianity, then lay off the internet and googling and read the following books:-

• (1) Douglas R. A. Hare The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew, Cambridge University Press, (1967) 2005
• (2) Marvin R. Wilson Our father Abraham: Jewish roots of the Christian faith, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1989
• (3) Miriam S. Taylor Anti-Judaism and early Christian identity: a critique of the scholarly consensus, BRILL 1995
• (4) Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: a Christian defense of Jews and Judaism, Doubleday, 2008
• (5)Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, Uni of Chicago Press 1994,

instead of just sitting on articles that cry shame on whoever wrote them or monitors them without touching the cancerous disinformation they are seeded with. Take your complaint elsewhere, and stop annoying this page.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It does at least appear odd, though, that you've never edited the article at all, until I'd made my recent edits. It's the kind of thing that even someone assuming the best of faith would have trouble explaining, given our history. If you regularly followed me to articles to support me, or even to sometimes support and sometimes oppose, then I suppose I wouldn't feel quite so harassed by it; but our history has been one of your almost exclusively opposing me whenever you interact with me. Also, your comment on the Talk: page of the article, "Well here we go again, wikilawyering to a purpose, i.e. to keep the prejudices of the page intact.", is a comment about contributors, not content, and thus violates policy. If you really wanted to show good faith, would it not make sense for you to remove or strike that? Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You love policy, I love content that reflects quality, I don't need to show good faith, I don't practice psychoanalysis professionally, as opposed to informally, and therefore I will politely overlook your confession that you feel harassed by the fact we have crossed paths twice in a year, and ignore the regal implications of your admitting that you think there is something improper in another editor 'opposing you' and, fourthly, civil editing is as much about being neutral to the topic, as it is about being courteous to one's peers. You have a long history of using the rules to maintain badly sourced smear material on pages, such as this and Shahak. So in turn I suggest you grow up, and remove your original remarks from this page. The effect of your original innuendo is that, whereas you may edit any page dealing with Christianity and Judaism, I mustn't, because you happen to be there. A patent absurdity, apart from the sense of exclusive privilege it breathes.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Nishidani, I think it would be helpful if you would review the straw man article. I have neither "confessed" that I "feel harassed by the fact we have crossed paths twice in a year", nor did I "admit" that I "think there is something improper in another editor 'opposing you'". Please review my previous comments for their actual meaning; it's both unfair and rather rude to deliberately misrepresent what I've written. The issue here is not that an editor opposes me on any particular matter, but that specific editors only oppose me, and show up at pages they've never edited before, just after I've edited them, for that express purpose. These are quite different, and it's pretty disingenuous to pretend otherwise. There are 3 million pages on Wikipedia; please don't regularly edit ones that I've just edited a few minutes earlier, and that you've never edited before, solely for the purpose of opposing me. In addition, Wikipedia has content rules for a reason; more specifically, to restrain editors from using Wikipedia to promote their personal POV. It would be better for Wikipedia if you respected and abided by those rules, rather than insisting that they are only there for the purpose of "Wikilawyering". Original research really isn't allowed, even if you insist it's in a good cause. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just penciled out your remarks, for the simple reason that you repeat, as you have over the years, silly charges based on baseless suspicions. I regard the explicit accusations that I am soapboxing, promoting my POV on wiki, and engaging (most laughable of all) in violations of WP:NOR, as what the thin-skinned in here call 'personal attacks', esp. since all I did was provide a needed source for a statement on a page you have edited for the last 6 months, but have never challenged, never even put in a marker, though the sentence has been there for a year. What's your problem, son. Do you dislike the fact that I provide scholarly references for pages that lack them?

'Promoting my POV on wiki'. Sure. Great laugh, wry thoughts of the pot calling the kettle black etc. In any case, the Argentinian-Mexico game has just finished and I must follow the analysis of the game here. I'll revert your wikilawyering abuse of the page tomorrow. In the meantime, could you study the subject? What you call 'Original Search' is a commonplace of Biblical criticism. It's like asking for a source for the statement 'A is followed by B' in the alphabet.'Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in the New Testament

Wow. That conversation is worthy of the Twilight Zone. — goethean ॐ 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And you wuz thinken them hindutva ethnonationalists were some tuff cookies! In these areas, the wiki machinery breaks down completely. Lobbies, muscle and pettifogging win the day by a war of attrition, till one gasps hopeless in one's death throes, with your namesake 'Mehr Licht!", only to get Hobbes' black light'. Unfortunately, That article is there purely as a screed for taking cheap pot shots. Don't waste your time even reading any more. A decision has been made, and it will be enforced. I really don't give a fuck either way, since I don't unlike many editors rely on wikipedia as my sauce of information. Gott gibt die Nüsse, aber er knackt sie nicht auf. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{adminhelp}} So far I can get no technical clarification about what seems to be to be a new interpretation being applied to WP:NOR.

The subject type is where two themes are dealt with Antisemitism in the New Testament (A (Antisemitism)+B (the New Testament)

I have summed up that interpretation in propositional form.

A+B articles must have every edit sourced to A+B RS, and every edit of the type A must be taken from a page in the vicinity of one also mentioning B, or vice-versa.

The discussion is taking place on the WP:NOR page here, recapitulating an earlier conflict on a related issue here and here. Everything has been discussed there but this. Informed input on this specific interpretation would be appreciated. Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea (and seems to make sense to me). However, I think you may get better response to placing an {{rfctag|policy}} tag on the NOR noticeboard page where you are discussing it. I would suggest you add a section break to the current discussion and clearly state your proposed policy change and add the rfc tag. After all, you don't just want admin help - you want to establish consensus. Admin shouldn't have any stronger voice in establishing consensus than any other user, and admin certainly shouldn't be the only ones involved. I'll leave your adminhelp template active here so you get at least another pair of eyes in case I am missing something.  7  08:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Request for Comment has begun, so I'll cancel out the {{adminhelp}} - I agree with 7 that RFC is a good way to proceed with this discussion. And please do note that We need outside input from neutral admins is not correct; you need input from any and all Wikipedians; admins have no special authority in forming a consensus. Chzz  ►  12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about present policy, where consensus already exists. I ask for informed administrative input for a simple reason. Administrators know policy, and this is not about forming a new policy by consensus, but simply of clarifying what policy is. But thanks.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The case was closed as ‘Resolved’ by Professor marginalia.

The case wasn’t resolved, since the question, as formulated here has yet to be answered.

So my technical request is, where does one go from here? A new WP:NOR policy has been developed, in my view, and serious administrative oversight should review that policy.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re. Thanks

Hiya.

In reply to your kind message of thanks; please remember that there is no deadline. I see that discussions are ongoing, and I advise keeping calm. Tea helps.

It's clear that this is not resolved, but eventually it will be. Administrators, however, cannot magically solve it; the only answer in the long-term comes from discussion, and reaching consensus. If the 'request for comment' does not resolve things, there are other options, such as the mediation cabal - but please do allow a reasonable time (at the very least, a week) for the RfC to attract further comments.

After all, it's only a wiki; it's not a matter of life and death :-)

I hope you were supporting Holland?

Best of luck with it all,  Chzz  ►  01:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source in Ebionites

Please see Talk:Ebionites#Misrepresentation of Tabor regarding the use of Tabor's book in that article, and offer whatever opinions you would like. Of course, I would also more than welcome your actually checking the book itself to verify that my assertions are accurate. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymological fun....

Working on Betelgeuse...the etymology is quite fun. Any comments or input would be just fine :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks

And are you done with Elkana? The interesting bits await, though I did not want to add anything that may make it off-limits prior to you finishing any work on it. nableezy - 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointless really, though I'd hardly really begun on it. After the recent travesty of interpretation of WP:NOR regarding Antisemitism in the New Testament, which passed unnoticed, it means technically that anything I, or anyone else a group of editors thinks unwelcome on this encyclopedia, edits in can potentially be challenged as a violation of the new WP:SYNTH protocol established there. Increasingly, mustering the numbers is trouncing serious content editing, and there seems to be no way this can be reversed. Sorry. I will limit myself to janitorial work, reverting what I consider to be vexatious, on one or two pages. On yours too, if you don't mind, since it is one of the few pages I still read, since it seems to attract an extraordinary number of similar minds intent of querying your presence here. By all means revert me if my judgement errs. Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I figure if most of those people dont want me banned I aint doing what I should be. It has long been a rule of mine not to revert you, so no worries there. nableezy - 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You have not been blocked from editing for being civil at User talk:Nableezy. Once the non-block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. Don't bother appealing the block, because it's a joke. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This ranks as the nicest thing that's happened on this page for a long time, perhaps since its inception. I hope Nableezy is not watching, or he'll forumshop me to another less rahmanic admin for using the word 'nice'! Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That should be "an admin with less rahma". nableezy - 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rahmah
Good grief, lad! What d’ya mean by ‘rahma’?
Correct my adjectival neologism by all means sir.
But your suggestion adds to this wiki-drama:
For, not transcribing that final-h, you err.

For Rahma only makes your reader think
Along the lines a heretic would ponder
It rhymes with Brahma, (just follow this wiki link),
And makes the Arabic start to wander

Further east, by Marvell ’s Ganges, where
ramā-āśrayaḥ to the native ear
Means ‘Personality of Godhead’ in prayer.
I’m sure this ain’t what you yourself would hear.

Or perhaps, again, it’s just I who err. East and West,
Faiths differ, but the faithful, everywhere,are blessed.

Felafel

I did feel there was something peculiar about it as you may have seen from my first talk page edit. And my mouton and mutton chops analogy did indicate that I thought the whole thing was overcooked. I'll have a think about what if anything I want to do. At least ther aren't also the Turkish v Greek edit wars along too as happens at hummus.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hebron

I don't know why the sea is boiling hot, but Hebron has a new footnote. Thank you.

Also, please try not to dance so close to the edge of your topic ban. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)