Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Jerusalem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Stepped Stone Structure picture vandalism

The photograph of the Stepped Stone Structure identifies it as part of the "City of Jebus," which is pretty blatant vandalism for a protected page (being as it is a reference to "the Simpsons.") Could someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.208 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether "City of Jebus" is appropriate or not I don't know. But it isn't vandalism or a reference to the Simpsons. Read through the first para of this article.--FormerIP (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Abode of Peace

in the lead is, unfortunately, a late folk etymology and thus has no place in the article. Unfortunately we shall probably never know what it meant originally, in the dawn of the 2nd millenium. Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No takers? Look 'Abode of peace' translates Arabic dār al-salām, for goodness' sake. I'm devastated that no one can see the irony in this gloss on the putative Hebrew meaning.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'Abode of peace' is a meaning of the Hebrew name. It long preceded Arabic, which is a linguistic latecomer to the name Yerushalaym. So what it translates to in Arabic is not relevant to the Hebrew meaning that preceded it. If this is devastating to you, then please register a complaint with Sunni politics that glossed the more ancient Hebrew, without any backing in the Qur'an or Hadith. I do hope you feel better and recover from the devastation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's drop the devastating incomprehension of playful collegial irony here. No native Hebrew speaker could every justify the idea that he or she hears 'Yerushalayim' as 'abode of peace'. or think that shalom has anything to do with the arcane plural shalayim. That is a rather wild folk etymology, repeatedly rejected in relevant technical sources, as you may see from the sketch in the etymology section. There are several folk etymologies regarding Jerusalem, and someone has selected this one. Why not, if we are indifferent to modern scholarly imput, edit Philo’s who interpreted it as ‘vision of peace.’ (connecting it with rā’āh’, re'ut shalom = visio pacis, or Josephus's etymology that it was connected with solyma meaning 'security') Frederick Fyvie Bruce The Epistle to the Hebrews Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990 p.159 n.16, or ther equally misguided 'city of peace'. Adam Gregerman, ‘Jerusalem,’ in Judith R. Baskin (ed.) The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, Cambridge University Press 2011 p.319: ‘although Jerusalem sounds like ir-shalom, Hebrew for “city of peace,” this appealing association has no etymological basis.’ Not to speak of Midrashic etymologies and things like 'Yerusha la'am', a legacy to the people. To privilege just one of a dozen is to privilege a POV.

'Abode of peace' is just one of many examples of folklore. Wikipedia does not pass off arbitrary historically late folklore etymologies as state of the art etymologies. The most commonly accepted etymology is foundation of (the god) Shalem.'

Shemaryahu Talmon, ‘Jerusalem,’ in Arthur A.Cohen, Paul Mendes-Flohr (eds.) 20th Century Jewish Religious Thought: Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs, Jewish Publishing Society 2009 pp.405-504, p.495 and overpage.(‘This popular etymology, which, indeed, has clearly discernible roots already in Hebrew Scriptures cannot be considered to have either a philological or a historical basis.’ etc. I'd prefer someone to correct this before I return in January to article editing. Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier incarnations already appear in the Etymology section. The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation. Ancient Hebrew spelling was 'Yeru-shalem', not 'Yerushalaym', which apparently reflected a transition from the earlier names covered in Etymology. It's been translated from Hebrew to mean 'Abode of Peace' for several millennia. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by 'earlier incarnations'? That is meaningless. This is a technical issue, and there is no such thing as the 'Hebrew meaning' of a pre-Hebraic toponym, for God's sake. If you can come up with a policy that allows us to give folk etymologies instead of scientific etymologies, fine, but there are several folk etymologies in Hebrew, not just one. If 'abode of peace', then 'sacred security' (Josephus), 'vision of peace' (Philo), 'city of peace' etc.etc., all vie for entry by the same criterion. This, Michael, is obvious. Please reread the links. This is not a matter of fishing for the Hebrew angle, or politics. It is a matter of supplying encyclopedic knowledge to wikipedia, using RS.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant the earlier incarnations that you cited. The early scientific etymology is already there in its own section. This particular etymology appears in many more sources than others, and is the most widely known. It is not a Hebrew meaning of a "pre-Hebraic toponym" as you say. Honestly, Nishidani, I find your tone unpleasant and combative, as is your visible contempt for Hebrew associations in many discussions. Please find someone else to fight with if you must, I'll not be responding to you anymore. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote:

there is no such thing as the 'Hebrew meaning' of a pre-Hebraic toponym

You reply

It is not a Hebrew meaning of a "pre-Hebraic toponym" as you say.

I.e. you are not reading what you reply to. I nowhere said that (abode of peace) 'is a Hebrew meaning of a "pre-Hebraic toponym". I said that is what your statement implies. You are correct that arguing is pointless if an interlocutor is too busy writing about what he thinks to actually parse what the other (please read Buber) says.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, except once more, for your habit of personalizing disagreements and slapping negative stereotypes on editors you disagree with ('I find your tone unpleasant and combative, as is your visible contempt for Hebrew associations'). I am not fighting anyone. Please note that I have provided up-to-date scholarship on a technical question. You provided your personal opinions about the subject in response. The former must prevail in an encyclopedia, neither your opinion nor my own have any weight in the selection of data. Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani:

First it was a problem of "late folk etymology and thus has no place in the article". That's seems like a problematic start already because even if it was late folk etymology (and it's not so "late" really, and neither only "folk", but I understand it's all relative}, it does have a place in the article if enough reliable sources support it, which are abundant in this case. Other sources may dispute it and indeed it's disputed in the Etymology section, but it has a relevant place in here due to long standing notablity and being widely known as such. This is not an opinion and one only has to do a quick search to see it everywhere.

You've repeated your opinions. I provided scholarly citations, which you don't address. Does semitic philology accept 'city of peace'? No. It remarks that this is a folk etymology, like a dozen others. If I have a plumbing problem I don't call the grocer. If I have an issue of etymology, I go to scholars of semitic languages, and not to popular, or old books which support my personal fondness for one of several folk etymology.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Next it was a problem of "Abode of peace translates Arabic dār al-salām, for goodness' sake." Moved by your exasperation, I tried to politely point out that the Hebrew 'Abode of Peace' preceded the Arabic gloss. I still don't understand your exasperation at the Hebrew translation relative to the Arabic.

Okay, if you refuse to see the fun of that irony, and see only exasperation, I'll leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Then things went downhill and you seemed to become more exasperated by what I said and moved on to another objection about Shalom not being derived from "Yerushalaym" and brought other derivations that are all true and well sourced in the Etymology section that you suggest could replace the "late folk" version in the lead, asserting that "To privilege just one of a dozen is to privilege a POV." But look again. The Hebrew is not "privileged" alone where it appears. It sits alongside the Arabic name in the lead, and seeing how these are the two prevalent cultures of the city in modern times, a fact that no reliable source disputes, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to be in the lead while the other etymologies grace the relevant section itself. I responded that the "earlier incarnations" meaning the earlier incarnations of the name (whether the pre-Hebrew, or early Hebrew appearances) and their etymologies, were covered in the relevant section and pointed out that "Yerushalaym" appeared as "Yerushalem" in the early Hebrew sources, denoting the transition or evolution of the name, and that 'Abode of Peace', even if some scholars dispute its validity, can be cited back to several millennia (at least two}, and more resembles the root of "Shalom" which is "Shalem".
Then you seemed to lose all patience and objected to my choice of words "What on earth do you mean by 'earlier incarnations'? That is meaningless.". Though I really appreciate your courtesy and perception, I couldn't understand the reason for it unless you maybe didn't understand me. If you'd considered what I said, it's not such a bad choice of words. It might not be as scholarly as some of your exquisite vocabulary but I'm just a simple man trying to express myself in the clearest way possible. There didn't seem to be a good reason for you to misunderstand it, though I can understand if you did.

The Arab name does not pretend to be a gloss on the Hebrew term. Arguing that the root of 'shalom' (peace') is 'shalem' (dusk) is meaningless for these purposes. The simple solution is to write: 'foundation of Shalem/popularly 'city or abode of peace', that satisfies philological science (only a bit) and Hebrew tradition. You cannot privilege one of many Hebrew traditions over the others, or those traditions over linguistic realities, without showing a POV leg under your editorial skirt. One cannot gloss 'Lisbon' as '(city of)Ulysses' and ignore Phoenician 'safe harbour'). One cannot say 'Rome' means 'teat' or 'strength' in the lead of that article, though these are popular folk etymologies anyone raised in classical languages encounters regularly. One cannot gloss 'London' as 'city in the grove', or 'land of the tribe of Dan'; or Berlin as 'bear town'; or Moscow as 'bear river'; or Paris from 'boat'; why on earth people get fidgety when the same principle is applied to an article like this is beyond me.

Then you said: "This is a technical issue, and there is no such thing as the 'Hebrew meaning' of a pre-Hebraic toponym, for God's sake." Now, seeing that I never said or intended to imply such a thing, I answered to clarify, to which you responded that it's implied in what I said. But you didn't say you thought it was implied in what I said the first time. How am I to know that's what you thought, especially if I know better than to imply such a thing?. And really looking back, I don't understand from where you derive that implication.
So, really, Nish, and with all due respect, it's easy to find scholarly sources that dispute most anything in this encyclopedia. It seems that our encounters, and other discussions I see around, revolve around your dispute of Hebrew associations, whether it's J&S, City of David or Abode of Peace, it's mostly in the same direction and you always have sources to justify it. I'm not criticizing that anymore, just noting that's how it seems. It makes it hard to discuss things when, like in the other interactions, you seem to jump at every word and often assert I meant something that I didn't. Maybe you and I don't speak the same English or maybe it's something else, but I've not had this type of issue before and most people seem to understand me quite well. So, seeing your passion for this specific area, and our inability to understand each other, I wanted to explain it as nicely as possible and suggest why it might be better that we don't interact much anymore, and hopefully avoid the needless turbulence, so as not to leave things on a sour note. That's all, and best wishes to you. --

MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But editors should exercise some restraint in commenting on technical issues they do not understand. You do not understand the simplest issues of historical linguistics is shown by your remark 'the root of shalom . . is shalem'. One smiles, mentally correcting: 'both 'shalom' and 'shalem' have the same consonantal root, s-l-m.' In linguistics, of two words having a common root, one is not said to derive from the other: both are reflexes of a shared etymon. You do not understand the issues, which have nothing to do with political leverage in the I/P world of POV warriordom, as all too many interlocutors tend mechanically to think. My obligation is the same as everyone else's, to argue a case for an edit, on the best RS, as strongly as I can, when I see what appears to be an error, or oversight, or a partisan slant. This should not be taken as hostility, to the contrary. If Poliocertes comes up with the required quote, I don't fuss. I immediately adopt it, even if I might not share the view. That is what wiki editing is all about. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

While it's true that roots are consonants, it's common (at least where Hebrew is spoken) to identify them by the sound that the consonants make as a word. So when I said the root of 'Shalom' is 'Shalem', I didn't mean the word 'Shalem' which means 'whole', but rather the three consonants (sh-l-m) that together make the sound 'Shalem'. Sometimes it's said in the past tense verb 'Shilem' but the form I used is acceptable everywhere, even among scholarly circles in common speak. I can't recall ever hearing anyone being corrected for identifying a root in this way. But then again, seeing how you've established, and publicly announced, that I "don't understand the simplest thing about historical linguistics", I can only assume that you're either right about that, or that you maybe weren't feeling too well when you made the unfortunate remark. Which is also understandable. No hard feelings. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was one of the disciplines I was trained in, Michael. This does not mean that you ought to defer to my opinion or judgement. It means however that when trying to edit on an area you know little about, you ought simply to defer to the consensus of academic RS, which is not the case here, where I hear only confusion and a misplaced, defensive personal or folksy POV. I personally keep out of many arguments because I am simply not competent to judge before my peers on both sides of the editorial border. I am more than happy to take a rap over the knuckles from anyone who picks up an error I made, and calls me to order. I was told as a boy, 'never take your pride into an argument: it carries a weight that will bend your shoulders, and leave no strength for the facts you have to support.' I still feel inadequate to that advice. Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My two cents - there is a clear academic debate as to whether the word is cognate to Shalim or Shalom. My personal view is that it is cognate to both, because they both have the same root (linguistics) and have a connection in meaning (dusk and peace bear relation to each other). Since no-one will ever know the answer, we should either consistently refer to both, or to neither. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a rough academic consensus (a) that 'foundation of (the god) Shalem' is the strongest contender as an etymology (compare Jeru-el, perhaps 'founded by El' in 2 Chronicles). Semitic scholars who are not convinced of this (b) have other suggestions, but neither group (a) nor group (b) regard 'Abode of Peace' and the many other folk etymologies as relevant to the strict question of the meaning of the city's name. I have, as a compromise, suggested the strongest academic etymology be given, followed by the folk etymology 'abode of peace'. Whatever we agree to, 'abode of peace' cannot stand there on its own, as it has no claim to be an etymology 'stricto sensu', thus false, and against the relevant linguistic RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "shalem" part of the name of Jerusalem predated the Hebrew language by more than half a millennium, so looking to Hebrew for its original meaning is a bit silly. The overwhelming opinion of experts in this subject prefer the name of the god Shalim as the original meaning. Incidentally, for ages there has been "Shalem gives instruction" as an option on this page but I don't think there was ever a source given. If there is still no source we should retire it. Zero^talk 14:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In short, a second principle (I alluded to this obove). You cannot derive an etymology from a word which is attested several centuries earlier than the language from which it is putatively derived. It's a bit like Moses and the tablets of the law, bringing a written text down from the mountain half a millenium before before the invention of the Hebrew script.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The pre-Hebrew etymology is covered well and extensively in the Etymology section. The appearance of Hebrew and Arabic names in the lead is not an etymology. They appear there because of their notability in that they pertain to the prevailing cultures presiding over the city it in modern times. The meanings of both Hebrew and Arabic are furnished in such a context. The Etymology sections covers everything else. Academic RS on etymology apply for the section on etymology but other considerations of notability apply for the lead. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't keep repeating your opinion on a technical issue you are totally unfamiliar with. The Arab word is not etymologized, the Hebrew one is wrongly etymologized. Editing becomes impossible if we indulge in expressing our points of view, instead of adhering strictly to what RS tell us. Thanks, Michael.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than familiar with this issue, thank you. Personal remarks, assessments and insults about my familiarity with it, will only reflect on yourself, Nishidani. If you have no patience to discuss an issue courteously with someone who disagrees with you then you should perhaps find somewhere else to pick fights and lord it over people. Can you explain in what way the appearance of the Hebrew differs from the Arabic in the lead, that you say one is etymologized and the other not? They seem to be appear in the same context and form. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

Michael, if you want to have the last word, reply to this. It is not insulting to note you have made several remarks which, one by one, have been shown to indicate your comprehensive lack of understanding of what is a simple issue in historical linguistics. Just back off from insisting on having your say on a topic you can bring no authoritative technical sources to. It's good manners. Hand it over to any acquaintance who has a degree in linguistics, and shares your worldview. He or she will be able to separate POV from purely formal considerations of linguistics, which is all that interests me here. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a courteous first comment and then asked you a simple question about how the Arabic differs from the Hebrew. That's all that was required for you to respond to. You are not required to assess me, something no one made you an authority over. If you can't answer the question, then kindly keep everything else out of it. Try to follow your own advice on good manners before preaching to others. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you are very artful in asking questions, and protesting when you think they are not unanswered. You haven't throughout this thread replied to any of my substantial points. You have simply wikilawyered around them, and talked past them. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile: Neither you nor anyone else responded to the content of the objection to removing it. There is no consensus on this until someone makes a good case to my response. Nishidani's characterizations did not address the issue I stated. Please wait until the discussion is finished. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, i must have misinterpreted how the discussion had gone. Would you mind summarising your core argument again? In the face of the evidence above, how can you justify showing only "Abode of Peace" without referring to either the scolarly debate or the alternatives? The cleanest way must be to remove it from the lede, and then add more of this debate into the etymology section. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No apologies needed, I certainly don't like reverting someone else's edits either. I've explained this throughout the discussion above. The evidence you cite is misleading because the use in the lead is not an etymology. In the case of the lead, the term "Abode of Peace" is a translation of the name Yerushalaym, also known as Yerushalem, into English. As such, it is balanced by the Arabic name of the city and its translation into English. The reason they both appear in the lead has nothing to do with etymology. If it did, then there would be no justification for the Arabic name to be there because it has no etymology to the original name of the city. They are there due to their notability as the two names by which the city is currently known because the Hebrew and Arabic cultures are the predominant ones presiding over it today. The notion that this translation of the name also references ancient Hebrew, is only natural because it's an ancient language, but it cannot exclude its use as a translation for the purpose of notability in the lead. If we remove the Hebrew translation, one could make a case for removing the Arabic also as having no place unless the pre-Hebrew ones are also mentioned. The Arabic translation is also used as an etymology of the Arabic name but no one is suggesting it needs to be balanced by other etymologies because the mentions in the lead are based on notability of the names, not on etymology.

The concerns raised here about a proper representation of the pre-Hebrew and other etymologies, are all already covered extensively in the Etymology section of the article. Please look at it and see that it covers most everything. The Shalim source you cited, and all the others, precede the Hebrew sources, and everything there looks balanced. So there doesn't seem to be a need to expand on that unless someone produces new sources for etymologies that aren't yet mentioned. This discussion regarding the etymology is being mistakenly applied to the mention in the lead, which is based on notability alone.

The argument made for removing it, is not sound nor relevant to the reason it's there.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the lead, the term "Abode of Peace" is a translation of the name Yerushalaym, also known as Yerushalem, into English.

Wrong. 'Abode of Peace' is not, for the nth time, a translation of Yerushalaym. It is a wild guess, one of dozens, at the meaning of the city's name, based on a spurious etymology. How many times does one have to repeat that the earth revolves round the sun if another editor insists the opposite is true? Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for "Jerusalem" meaning "Abode of Peace" in Hebrew? I don't see any in the article. Why don't standard encyclopedias like The Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica (both old and new editions) mention this "translation"? Zero^talk 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning is found abundantly in scholarly and reliable sources. Here's a quick first look at a Google Books search for Jerusalem Abode of Peace. A few of the examples there: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. The Arabic Al-Quds also doesn't have a source in the article, but it's well enough known, as is the Hebrew. As to the Jewish Encyclopedia, we'd have to ask them. But there's no lack of other sources. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, a few points:

(1) Unless i've missed it, none of these sources support your core point - the evolution and change in meaning from 'Yeru-shalem' to 'Yerushalaym'.

(2) Without support for point 1 above, none of the sources you have linked to are relevant because we have sources earlier in this discussion which established that Abode of Peace is a popular folk etymology and it is therefore assumed that some writers who are not experts in this area will use this incorrectly.

(3) If you are able to support 1 above, then we should show both 'Yeru-shalem' and 'Yerushalaym' in the lede, showing the two different english translations, and explaining the subtlety of point 1 in the etymology section.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile, maybe you didn't understand my point, though I thought I was clear about it. My core point is not about the evolution of the name. It is only about the notability of the meaning 'Adobe of Peace'. That notability is well established with countless reliable sources. Everything you say above affects the etymology but not the use in the lede based on notability. These are two distinct issues. The mention in the lede is well founded and sourced and cannot be removed on the basis of other options in etymology argued here. If the basis for the mention in the lead is only etymology, then we should also remove the Arabic meaning. No one will likely support such an edit because the lede is not about etymology. It's only about notability. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As to your specific points:

(1) That is not my core point (see previous answer directly above this one).

(2) Point 1 has ample support already in the Etymology section which mentions the transition to Yerushalaym as being a later development. 'Abode of Peace' is a notable, widely accepted and well sourced meaning of Jerusalem, and appears in the lede on that basis alone.

(3) No. The mention in the lede is only based on the notability of 'Abode of Peace'. The transition you suggest adding relates to Etymology.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am in two minds as to how to call this strategy of providing putative links to support your POV. Is it throwing sand in editors' eyes?, or just scraping the googled barrel for anything that might vaguely support your systematic embracing of an erroneous idea. Or is it sheer wikilawyering attrition of editors' time to get your view over by exhaustion? Good grief, you don't even appear to read the sources you adduce. Had you, you surely would not have included Egypt's Sadat as RS for the etymology of Jerusalem, esp. when he uses an Arabic term to refer to the Middle East under the Camp David Accords, and never mentions the city. I'll be scrupulous even if the intention here seems to be to waste people's time by fudging. If (The meaning is found abundantly in scholarly and reliable sources) the following is how you interpret WP:RS and the word scholarly, perhaps you should move on to blogging elsewhere. of 14 refs, only 3 have anything to do with scholarship, and none of the three scholarly books addresses the issue under discussion.

Marie Joseph Geramb's Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai, Volume 1 (1840)dated, provincial, amateurish and irrelevant.

Thomas Inman's Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names, Part 1 (1868) Inman was the house surgeon of the Liverpool Royal Infirmary. He gave an etymology which is false: iru+shlam ‘place of prosperity’.

Abdus Sattar Ghawri, Ihsanur Rahman Ghauri The only son offered for sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael, Gyan Publishing House. You give me two Islamic writers who don’t know Hebrew for the etymology? That they are ignorant of Hebrew is shown by their gloss.Jeru-city or place, salem –peace.The publishing venue tells everyone but you it is not RS.

Paul Foster Case's True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, Case is an obscure mystagogue, the founder of the equally obscure Builders of the Adytum (the BOTA)

James Hastings's A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume II: (1898.1904) Volume 2 says the meaning of the name is ‘city of Salem’ or ‘city of peace’ the latter agreeing with Gesenius’s translation of ‘Abode of Peace’. Did you, if you read this, did you note that the writer dismisses the now accepted meaning of Shalem, as a theophoric name, as he basked in the a blissful unawareness of 20th century semtic philology?

Charles Buck, Ebenezer Henderson A theological dictionary, (1833) relies again on Gesenius.

Frank Thompson's Jimmy Carter. Oh come off it! Sadat’s speech to Carter and Sadat using the phrase ‘abode of peace’ with no explicit reference to Jerusalem, but to the Muddle East?

David Austin Randall's The handwriting of God in Egypt, Sinai, and the Holy Land, Volumes 1-2, (1862) a Baptist travelogue, outdated, and amateurish trash

Carl Schwartz (ed) The Scattered nation and Jewish Christian magazine', 1869, dated populist trash.

Charles Knight's 'The English Cyclopaedia: Geography', 1867, dated populist trash.

John Newton Brown was a Baptist teacher, whose immense erudition was garnered at Madison College by the age of 20. He wandered about the US preaching and compiled a derivative Encyclopaedia of religious knowledge 1844

Francis Edward Harrison was a Latinist, and made a traditionalist gloss on Jerusalem in his Millennium: a Latin reader, to reflect medieval perspectives on the city. The text has no bearing on Jerusalem. He like others glosses 'Abode of Peace' because it used to be, since Gesenius (please read the link to understand the state of knowledge of the period G wrote in), this was presumed to be the meaning. Two centuries of research have shown that it does not mean this.

Matthias Henze's The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel: introduction, text, and commentary, is a translation of a Syriac version of Daniel which in Syriac contains the expression ‘abode of peace’ as one of the many epithets attached to the name of the city. ‘Abode of Peace’ and ‘Town of Peace’ (The throne of the Lord, the City of Righteousness, The Faithful City, the City of the Lored,’My Delight Is in Her’, ‘The Lord is there’)she will be called,’ does not mean that Yerushalayim in Hebrew means ’Abode of Peace’.

Citing Clifford Edmund Bosworth's Historic cities of the Islamic world, is frankly impertinent. The page discusses Islamic names for the city one of which is ‘the safe abode’. He mentions ‘abode of peace’ (dār al-salām), as a possible calque on Hebrew īr hash shalōm. The last is not ‘Yerushalayim’.

Courtesy consists in evaluating sources as adequate to RS before googling madly to dredge up the dregs of weirdo or fossiled tomes. You have not, again, shown any respect for wiki's fundamental protocols on sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll kindly ask you again to stop characterizing me and my abilities, Nishidani. I've said before that I don't like reporting other editors, even if they are persistent in violating civility repeatedly towards me as you are doing. But there's a limit even to my patience. As to your point, I have yet to see you or anyone establish that 'Abode of Peace' is not notable enough to appear in the lede. All you are doing is making an argument for etymology, which is not what the lede is about. So, I'll ask you again, how is the mention of the Hebrew different from the mention of the Arabic in the lede? Unless you can address that, without basing it on etymology, then my core point about notability stands, and forbids its removal from the lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, are you able to answer my points above? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And mine. I have had no answer to several points, and Michael's reply is, unless I reply (I have and he fails to notice it) to what he's interested in, his core point (untrue: he mentioned notability as a last resort after other arguments failed) must stand, and forbids its removal from the lede. There are lots of name for that kind of imperial attitude but WP:OWN covers it.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to keep answering issues of Etymology repeatedly when they are irrelevant to the mention in the lede, that you're proposing to remove. I've argued on the basis of the widely accepted meaning (notability) since the beginning and have not changed anything. I beseech you again to stop characterizing my intentions. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I did answer you under your points. But if you'd like specific answers then I've added them under that. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't even understood them. Tell me why for example you qualified the 14 diffs you dug up, mostly to trashy, fossilized, or weirdo, or irrelevant sources, as scholarly and reliable sources?. Only three are RS, and of the three two have nothing to do with the topic, and the third is, being from a Latinist, not reliable for this issue. Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I brought those as a quick sampling to show notability in reliable sources. No one will argue that this is the widely accepted meaning of Jerusalem. You can argue the dispute relative to etymology but it has nothing to do with notability for the use in the lede. Your pejorative characterizations of what I understand and these sources are on record. I have nothing more to say to you until you change your tone and begin discussing this with due civility. I've frankly had enough of your personal attacks. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, pull the other one. Since when has notability in early nineteenth century travelogues, penny cyclopedias, etc (most of your examples) a proof of 'notability' in the 21st century? I repeat, since when is Anwar Sadat speaking in Arabic of the MIddle East as a future 'abode of peace' a source for the meaning of the word Jerusalem? Since when is the house surgeon of the Liverpool Royal Infirmary writing in 1868 a reliable source for the meaning of Yerushalayim? Second question, have you read WP:RS? Are you aware that travelogues, mystagogic brochures, presidential biographies, and penny cyclopedias written a century and a half ago cannot qualify as Reliable Sources for the meaning of Hebrew words? Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

One more source that uses the word 'translation': Denise DeGarmo is "a professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. She was recently a faculty fellow of the Palestinian American Research Center, an affiliate of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers." Her remark at the end of this article: "Translated from Hebrew, ‘Jerusalem’ means ‘Abode of Peace’, while in Arabic it means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’". --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please desist. Your professor is so au courant with the issue that she writes that 'Jerusalem . . in Arabic . .means 'The Holy Sanctuary'!!!!! This is getting unconscionably silly. If no one falls of their chairs reading that, then there's something wrong with them. I know what the dear lady was trying to say, i.e., 'Jerusalem is referred to in Arabic as al-Quds, which in that language means 'Holy Sanctuary' (which it doesn't). But when the people you cite cannot write coherent English to mean exactly what they aspired probably to say, but instead say something that is outlandish nonsense, they are obviously not RS. That you fail to even notice how silly this was, is further evidence you should not be commenting on the issue. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the professor is well aware of the difference and did not say what you imply. She did not say "Jerusalem..in Arabic..means". She said, "while in Arabic" clearly intending the Arabic name of Jerusalem. But if you insist on these type of arguments, then how do you expect to be taken seriously when you say "falls of their chairs" instead of "off their chairs", after having corrected the paragraph several times and not noticed your mistake? Should you not be held to the extreme standard you're demanding of others?. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, which is however wrong. My job is construing sentences in languages. Read any book of English grammar. 'While' does not alter the subject of the sentence. One learns this in primary school. (b) A spelling mistake can alter sense, at times, but the example does not alter the grammar. Nice try. In any case, she is still wrong in her statement, and you don't use sources that get things wrong because some parts of it confirm your POV. You still owe me an explanation of what on earth you mean by reliable sources. Nothing you have adduced so far is a reliable source for the tendentious argument being made here. Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Nish. If we are to deconstruct her sentence and forego the obvious meaning as you suggest, then "Translated from Hebrew, ‘Jerusalem’ means ‘Abode of Peace’, while in Arabic it means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’" would not make sense. If Jerusalem means 'Abode of Peace', then in Arabic it would mean 'Dar A- Salam', based on such a deconstruction. How can the Arabic meaning be given in English when it's meant to be in Arabic? This makes it obvious that she meant "the name in Arabic means..." It seems the dear professor simply made her sentence short so her point about Jerusalem not being at peace is less disrupted by superfluous words in the sentence. It doesn't seem a good reason to disqualify such a source.

As to defining Reliable Sources. I would not deviate from the guidelines, which discuss a wide range of applications. For our purpose on notability, even old or quaint sources, if published by reliable institutions, serve to support notability from the past up to the present, when there exists such a range, which in this case, it does. I found many others that didn't seem reliable enough to include, but these are all published by sources considered reliable by any publisher standards to support notability. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of DeGarmo's sentence in plain English, as would be understood by every reader who has no prior knowledge of the subject, is that "Jerusalem" in Arabic means "the holy sanctuary". It is at best sloppy writing, at worst ignorance. Regarding your sources, thanks to Nish for the work I wouldn't have had time for. You disproved your own point by demonstrating that only second-rate sources support you. "Yerushayim" in modern Hebrew means the city and nothing else and I bet you can't find a single usage that is not a reference or allusion to the city. Your attempt to distinguish etymology from meaning failed. Things like "Abode of Peace" are pop-etymologies, not modern translations. Putting them into the intro as if they are accepted translations is deceptive. Zero^talk 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be a rather contrived interpretation to say "'Jerusalem' in Arabic means 'the holy sanctuary'". How can an English word in Arabic mean anything else in English? This source, and the others, show RS acceptance of the meaning. Qualifying these sources as "second rate", when the publishing houses are considered reliable is not consistent for refuting notability. The distinction between etymology and notability has yet to be disproved. A meaning of a word originating nearly 2000 years ago can hardly be called "pop-etymology". Even the Etymology section itself does not use such a flippant qualification, but rather only asserts that other etymologies exist. There is nothing deceptive about such a widely accepted meaning in the lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A Guide to those Perplexed by English Grammar. By the way you don't deconstruct sentences, you construe them. Jacques Derrida is not appropriate here.

"Translated from Hebrew, ‘Jerusalem’ means ‘Abode of Peace’, while in Arabic it means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’"

This is lethally ridiculous, Michael. The construal of grammar is an art, but also a science. You are pushing me to play the kindergarten teacher.

(a)There are two propositions (a) 'Jerusalem means 'Abode of Peace',(b) 'in Arabic it means 'The Holy Sanctuary'.'

the 'it', the subject of the second sentence, is a third person neutral personal pronoun, which requires for its definition a nominal subject from the context, which here is the preceding sentence. A pronoun functions as a substitute for a noun. The noun in the preceding sentence is 'Jerusalem', and therefore 'it' refers to 'Jerusalem', and furnishes us with the sentence:

It(Jerusalem). . in Arabic means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’.

No native speaker of English can take it to mean anything else. All attempts to game this smack of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Please desist from the use of bad sources, and justifications of their incoherence by blogging your personal impressions, esp. where the obvious conflicts with your position. To call the correct and grammatically precise construal of a sentence a 'contrived interpretation' as you do above, is inappropriate. It is the correct and unassailable grammatical analysis of two simple sentences. Wikipedia guidelines do not include protocols for teaching people about elementary grammar. Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the only way that sentence can be construed:

It (Jerusalem). . in Arabic (Al-Quds). . means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’.

To suggest that a Professor of international relations meant anything else is simply erroneous.

Your repeated personal desparagements of myself do not serve your case well, please stop it.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I.e. WP:OR. Your premise is Professors (of international relations) don't make silly statements, so the silly statement does not mean what is means grammatically, but must be assumed to mean something sensible, whose sense you conjure out of a hat to defend professorial credibility. That is WP:OR, aside from a certain naivity about the quality of academics' knowledge or sensitivity to the proper use of their mothertongues. The history of any discipline is strewn with absurd remarks, false facts and ungrammatical misprisions. Our job is to avoid any text which betrays carelessness of any kind.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, a further point. Repeating your beliefs about the English language is just blogging. Another point, there is a distinction in English between 'reply' and 'answer'. You invariably reply, you almost never answer. As above. Zero is not 'backing me'. He is responding to a conflict by adding a third voice. He concurs, on this (he has disagreed with me several times recently, fortunately for the quality of our collaboration here, and was almost invariably right, therefore I regard him as neutral). You cannot persist in the face of the clear meaning, minutely construed, of a simple set of sentences to assert that they do not mean what one interlocutor, and a third party who is neutral, say they mean. To do so looks like wilful obstructionism. I have no disparaged you. I have asked you repeatedly not to persist in bad arguments when the evidence is wholly against you. Above you remark, after I showed, after wasting an hour, how poor your 14 sources were, the following:

As to defining Reliable Sources. I would not deviate from the guidelines, which discuss a wide range of applications. For our purpose on notability, even old or quaint sources, if published by reliable institutions, serve to support notability from the past up to the present, when there exists such a range, which in this case,

Again, this is 'replying', but not 'answering'. By not answering my question, you compel me to waste more time on a closed case.

Paul Foster Case is not reliably published. His thesis was published in a limited edition of 64 copies in 1927 by the Frances Bacon Library in Claremont California. It was published by Red Wheel/Weiser, a useless Californian specialist in esoterica.
John Newton Brown
David Austin Randall
Abdus Sattar Ghawri, (he happens to be a Pakistani highschool teacher
Ihsanur Rahman Ghauri
Gyan Publishing House is, archives tell us, to be treated with scepticism as RS
Marie Joseph Geramb was a lay abbot of the Catholic Church, born in the midlate 18th century, his book a travelogue, not reliably published.
Anwar Sadat was not referring to Jerusalem, and is not RS on the meaning of Hebrew.
Thomas Inman Inman was the house surgeon of a Liverpool hospital and not reliably published, etc.etc..

Could you refrain from the mechanical use of words like 'disparagement', of which there is none. I simply protest your apparent refusal to play by the rules, which means editors who are scrupulous find themselves obliged to waste immense amounts of time 'answering' misleading replies and blogging opinions. To repeat yourself is not a virtue. To keep shifting the goalposts from your original POV declaration, which was, I must remind you:

:: The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation.

I.e. you are supporting a false etymology out of concern for 'the city's current situation'. That is a wholly inappropriate political motivation for supporting bad etymologies and poor sources.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani: I am not questioning your neutrality nor Zero's, though Zero himself said he didn't have time to investigate , so he trusts your opinion. Hardly seems like an acceptable way to give a neutral third opinion for this purpose. I do however find your opinion of the sources unsatisfactory in that you ignore that they serve a purpose of notability, not etymology. All the sources I posted are notable publishers. That alone would be enough to establish verifiable notability of 'Abode of Peace' as the widely accepted meaning of Jerusalem. It is further supported, though also disputed, in the etymology section of the article, but it does not need the etymology to establish notability. From the 13 14 sources I've cited, only four are notable publishing sources that are not academic five of them are publishers of academic scholarly books. Do you seriously place your own opinion, or Zero's, above that of the 9 five other academic sources listed below who've published the meaning of Jerusalem as 'Adobe of Peace"? Do you seriously expect to convince that ~~Harvard Press and~~ Oxford University Press and University Press of the Pacific are second rate publishers?

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai, Volume 1, Originall published by ~~Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Harvard Press~~ Carey & Hart, ~~1923~~ 1840. ~~Republished~~ Reintroduced by Nabu Press in 2011, a ~~reliable publisher of academic books~~ a reliable and notable restorer of copyright free historic books. Nabu Press publishing statement at Amazon: "This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide." To call it dated and amateur is perplexing to say the least.
Historic cities of the Islamic world, published by Koninklijke Brill NV, "Over three centuriess of scholarly Publishing".
The only son offered for sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael, published by Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi 2010. Recognized and reliable scholarly/academic/educational book publisher by highest institutes in India (one example).
Millennium: a Latin reader, A, first published by Oxford University Press, 1968. Republished by Bristol Classical Press, 2001, publisher of scholarly academic books.
The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel, published by Mohr Siebek academic book publisher specializing in theology and law".
Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names, Part 1. Self published but recognized and contributed to the Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton and Americana Collections, by the Princeton Theological Seminary Library.
True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, published by Red Wheel/Weiser/Conari in 1989. "It is America's second-largest publisher of occult and New Age books, behind Llewellyn Worldwide, and is also one of the oldest American publishers to concentrate exclusively on that genre." - Not academic but certainly reliable for notability.
Encyclopaedia of religious knowledge, published by Joseph Steen and Co., 1844. Republished by Baker Publishing Group, 1955. - Not Academic but certainly reliable for notability.
A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume II, re-published by University Press of the Pacific, 2004, from the 3898 edition. Reliable and notable academic book publisher.
Jimmy Carter: Public papers of the Presidents of the United States, published by the U.S. Government Printing Office], 1979. - Not academic, but certainly reliable for notability.
The handwriting of God in Egypt, Sinai, and the Holy Land, published by John E. Potter & Co., 1862, a notable publisher carried by Rice University's digital scholarship archive. - Not academic but certainly reliable for notability with academic support.
The Scattered nation and Jewish Christian magazine, published by Elliot Stock, 1869. Republished by Nabu Press (see first book above) 2011 ~~reliable publisher of academic books~~.
The English Cyclopaedia: Geography, published by Bradbury, Evans & Co., 1867. Republished by Nabu Press (see first book above) 2011 ~~reliable publisher of academic books~~.
Abode of Peace?, published by Center for Conflict Studies, 2011. "The Centre for Conflict Studies (CCS) was founded in May 2011 by Dr. Pushpa Iyer, a scholar and practitioner in the field of conflict studies. She is a faculty member in the Graduate School of Policy and Management at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California."

On a last note: Please review Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability to understand that information in this encyclopedia is not founded upon academic agreement over an issue such as etymology. There are countless other considerations for the accepted meaning of a notable name that are not relevant to the academic dispute you base your case on for removing it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability which governs 'article creation', not the notability of a false datum in books. And cite the appropriate section.
My impression is that Zero doesn't trust anyone's opinion. He is a documentarist. He didn't trust my 'opinion', he looked at my evidence for 14 links, evidence that comes from checking in google the sources you named. I provided the facts. Facts are not opinions, even when those who deliver them may be opinionated.
You raised the 'notability' issue when your etymological and political argument about 'current state of Jerusalem' failed. It's called shifting the goal posts.
I checked again. No answers to my queries (RS sources refer to the authors, not only to the printing presses. It is clear that you simply want to exhaust me. For little of what you say above is correct or pertinent. Nabu press is not a 'reliable publisher of academic books', and only someone unfamiliar with scholarly presses could say this. Nabu Press digitializes and reprints old books which are out of copyright. But that's not the worst of it. I'll give just a couple of examples of mendacious argufying in which the facts are tampered with to prove a point.

(1)*'Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai, Volume 1', Originall published by Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Harvard Press, 1923.

Wrong. It was published as the link shoes, by Carey and Hunt in Philadelphia, 1840. Your link on page two bears the library stamp Andover-Harvard Theological Library, i.e., this is a stamp testifying to where the copy used by Google is located. The date is 1913, marking the year in which this original copy was acquired by that library. You don't even appear to read your own links, since you write:'Nabu Press publishing statement at Amazon: "This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. Having copied and pasted that you then say the original was published in 1923.

What you have done is mistake a library stamp for the publisher, cite a date and then change it to mean what it does not mean: 'before 1923' becomes 1923. This and much else can't be accidental. You are not being serious, while throwing out false reports that require immense time-wasting traces that only reveal your inability to read what you cite.

(2)*Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names, Part 1. Self published but recognized and contributed to the Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton and Americana Collections, by the Princeton Theological Seminary Library.

Wow. Inclusion of a self-published book into a Theological Library at Princeton means Princeton recognizes its arguments are 'notable'. Pull the other one, Michael. Nowhere in any wiki protocol will you find support for this antic fantasy.

(3)*True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, published by Red Wheel/Weiser/Conari in 1989. "It is America's second-largest publisher of occult and New Age books, behind Llewellyn Worldwide, and is also one of the oldest American publishers to concentrate exclusively on that genre." - Not academic but certainly reliable for notability.

Read WP:RS. Occult books by a mystagogue with not even a secondary degree, self-published, almost a century ago, and then picked up for reproduction when copyright lapsed to push it for an esoteric readership, which gets its facts wrong, is a reliable source for notability. I don't even believe you believe this, but if you do go to RS, and the replies will be instantaneous and automatic.

Notability. What is notable a thousand years ago, one hundred years ago etc., is not notable necessarily for this encyclopedia esp on an article on a complex historical subject.

I don't think I need reply further. I don't think you should be editing this section, since you can't get elementary facts right, tamper with the evidence, shift the goalposts, reframe assertions that are shown to be wrong in order to justify them, rewrite what scholars say on the assumption you know they mean something different from what they write; change the subject from etymology (disproven) to meaning (disproven) to 'notability', to notability old and new when your examples are shown to be old; etc, etc, etc. This is offensive laziness to put it mildly and is not worth the dignity of the detailed reply I have earlier.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani:

I have not changed my position from the beginning. Your misunderstand or misrepresent what I said about "current state of Jerusalem". It was said in the context of your focusing on the use of 'Abode of Peace' as a "late folk etymology" and citing the previous ones to Hebrew in order to refute it and thus remove it from the lede. I began addressing this point that 'Abode of Peace' is the widely known and notable meaning (in English) of the name Jerusalem going back about 2000 years. I've said it is used in the lede due to the current state of the city, because of the Hebrew and Arabic cultures that preside over it. That's why the Lede has the Hebrew and Arabic names and their meanings. This is the issue of notability that I've argued from the beginning and the record shows it. I've never argued for its use in the lede as an etymology. I've discussed the etymology as a separate issue with you but not in relation to the lede. Your claim that I've changed my position is wrong and misleading because I've been consistent about this point from the start.

In chronological order.

'Abode of peace' is a meaning of the Hebrew name. (disproven)
The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation.(political importance of using the false etymology)
It's been translated from Hebrew to mean 'Abode of Peace' for several millennia.(unproven, and even poorly phrased. You meant to say in late passages of the Bible it is punned on in that sense, (and in many other ways as well) )
This particular etymology appears in many more sources than others, and is the most widely known.(You've been informed consistently it is not an etymology)
it has a relevant place in here due to long standing notability.(doesn't hold. It's especial notability compared to the dozen other folk etymologies doesn't stand)Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your characterization of publishers as being "printers" is so grossly wrong that it reveals your effort to dismiss reliable publishers as mere technicians of print, while everyone knows a publisher is not at all a printer. A publisher takes responsibility for their books and stands behind them. A reliable publisher would not publish a book by an unreliable writer, otherwise they would no longer be considered a reliable publisher themselves.

Absolute nonsense.I showed above that you donpt even trouble to read the links you provide diffs to, which almost never mean what you assert they mean. Reply? You have none, you just blog on with more opinionizing. NABU is not RS. Gyan is not RS. Pakistani high school teachers are not RS for Hebrew etymologies etc. Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources in this case are not attesting to the etymology that you continue to contest. They are verifying that 'Abode of Peace' is the common accepted meaning of the word Jerusalem. I've established this incontrovertibly with the sources above and further shown you have no sound case for removing the meaning from the lede.

Nothing was verified. You googled the phrase got one modern source from a Latinist writing on a Latin text, two other quotes are from RS that do not deal with the Hebrew etymology, while the remaining 11 show that in popular and dated scholarship circa 1830-1896, this 'meaning' was often mentioned. No relevance to 'the current situation of the city.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the sheer volume of research needed to answer your repeated and lengthy misrepresentations of the issue, I make mistakes like any human being. But I also admit to them, and the mistake I made with the first book has been corrected above. This does not change the overall picture one bit. The reliable publishers remain reliable as the sources indicate. I challenge anyone to contest these sources for what they represent about the notability of the meaning of Jerusalem they mention. The volume of other reliable sources available would overwhelm this page so I'll not tire you with more.

There is not a skerrick of evidence you have ever researched the topic, as opposed to keying in the term in a search machine and copying and pasting phrases without examining the sources, the publishers, the dates, the context.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is odd that you say I'm trying to tire you out when I feel that's what you've done with me since we started interacting. Since the Alon Shvut discussions, the record shows that for every comment I made you replied with considerably longer comments and have repeated yourself frequently. If I did the same, then it was generally in response to you, but I should know better by now. It's also odd that you allow yourself to drive to exhaustion another editor on the 'City of David' because you want to get things right, yet you cannot tolerate the same process towards yourself. You are committing a grave error by turning the appearance of the phrase in the lede into an issue of etymology, and demanding to remove it. I will not spare any effort to show how mistaken you are.

On the 'City of David' I asked for an RS for a statement which had no citation to support it. A false RS was given. Finally in under 3 days the editor came up with the right source phrasing. And, though the source was a POV one, it passed RS, so approved. This took several posts over a few days. This is normal procedure in wikipedia. You have maintained with a tenacious vigour that would be admirable on a battlefield redoubt, but less so in a simple matter of establishing the meaning of words against commonsense, were it not an idiosyncratic and wholly subjective position against sources for 9 days, without garnering any support. Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have suffered repeated insults and character assaults by you since we began interacting. You've called me a biased "settler" and have not stopped saying that I don't understand anything about academics and should not be editing here, and you've continued saying this till your most recent comment. I have not answered you in kind though it is not at all easy to remain patient with such a tone of discourse. Maybe you know in your heart that I'm right about this, but I can't otherwise understand your unwarranted frustration at me. I'm trying to do the right thing with this encyclopedia as you say you are. I expect a little more courtesy and respect from you. If you can't be so kind, then please refrain from addressing me or responding to me at all.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're all here shorn of POVs, there's just this chap Nishidani who is an intolerant editwarrior, frustrated, bitter, and relentless in his assaults on decent chaps, etc.

I'll be more than happy if you accept these simple truths and stop responding unnecessarily (though I must admit that I appreciate your bringing that mistake to my attention). Please let's leave 'Abode of Peace' in its rightful place and get back to improving the encyclopedia.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My obligations are to the encyclopedia. You are alone in your position. Three other editors disagree with you. Sources prevail over personal views. Nothing you have asserted has any grounding in evidence, logic, or reasoned and impartial argument. So, faute de mieux. .As you know from my emails, real life can be amicable, but one is obliged to adhere to stringent standards when addressing a public readership which is looking, not for 'truth' but for the relevant facts to form, each in his own way, their own impressions or knowledge on a topic.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, sorry but I am still confused at to your point. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Abode of Peace is a notable name for the city, among others.

In the infobox, the article says "Nickname(s): Ir ha-Kodesh (Holy City), Bayt al-Maqdis (House of the Holiness)"
The linked article Names of Jerusalem shows Salem, Moriah, Zion, City of David, Adonai-jireh, Neveh Tzedek, Ir Ha-Kodesh, The City of the Great King, Al-Quds, Bayt al-Maqdis, al-Balat, Aelya, Cadytis and Aelia Capitolina

Do you believe Abode of Peace any more notable than any of these names? In the lede we should show only the names which are commonly used, and there are only two of them (1) Jerusalem (or cognates); and (2) Al-Quds. Abode of Peace can be added under nicknames in the infobox and also added to the Names of Jerusalem article Oncenawhile (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you can still be confused, Oncenawhile, but I've made a special effort to say it clearly from the beginning. I am NOT SAYING 'Abode of Peace' is a "notable name" for the city, as you misunderstand. I've said repeatedly that it is the notable English MEANING of the Hebrew name 'Jerusalem'. Thus it has no place as a nickname or another name of Jerusalem, as you suggest, because it is only an English meaning of a Hebrew name. Please pay attention while I try to illustrate this more clearly. Here are the components as they presently appear in the lede:

Name (en): Jerusalem

Name (he): יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎‎

Tranliteration: Yerushaláyim, Yrušalaym

Meaning: "Abode of Peace"

Name (en): No English name appears because there isn't one for [Al Quds].

Name (ar): القُدس

Tranliteration: al-Quds [al-Sharif]

Meaning: "The Holy Sanctuary"

My sources above stand in support of the notable and widely known English meaning of Jerusalem, ratified by fourteen reliable sources, five of which are publishers of academic books. Until someone can refute this clear and plain RS supported fact, there is no reason to consider removing 'Abode of Peace' from the lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, thanks for the helpful clarification. If you don't mind bearing with me while I try to help find a way through, can you explain (1) what you believe to be the difference between the "meaning" of a word and its "etymology"; and (2) based on the discussion of the above, whether you believe "Abode of Peace" qualifies as a "Folk etymology" as defined in the folk etymology wikipedia article? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright sir Once (if I may guess you're a sir}. I'll try to answer the second question first.
Based on evidence we have today, it's not clear that even Salim/Shalem can be considered the original name of the city that became known as Jerusalem. The reason being that we don't have evidence that the Jebusites who inhabited the city prior to the Israelite conquest were its original founders who first named it. There are other examples, such as Babel/Babylon, that was founded prior to the conquest of the people who became the Babylonians. It wasn't uncommon for a tribe or people in ancient times to retain the name of a place they conquered and sometimes even adopt it unto themselves. Or alternately to apply their folklore to the name it held prior to their conquest. So, to the best of my understanding, and based on evidence I've studied, I'd say that all the presently known etymologies of the name Jerusalem might be considered folk etymologies to some degree, including the Hebrew one.
As to the difference between a meaning and an etymology, I think that's somewhat self explanatory, though I understand in this case it's complicated because there's a long history behind it and the name has been through several transformations. The name, Jerusalem, signifies a city that has relevance to modern times because it's inhabited today by a people who've been associated with it for about 3,000 years. It's also shared by another people who call it by another name, for the most part. The Hebrew name has a meaning that goes back about 2000 years, give or take a few decades. In both its Hebrew forms, Yerushalem/Yerushalaym, its most widely held meaning has become 'Abode of Peace'. It's true that this might not have been the original meaning of the name when the Israelites first settled in the land and conquered the city. We have archaeological evidence for its history and we have Biblical evidence also. I understand scholars are in a dispute over the veracity of the Biblical evidence. I won't argue that because I understand academia looks for solid evidence of such a history. I also understand that when it's not abundant, it casts doubt on it. So, for example, scholars doubt that the ancient kingdom of David, by which the city gained greater renown, that it was a magnificent kingdom as the Bible suggests. I won't argue that. If it was, however, a smaller city and kingdom in the time of David, we still have evidence for a later time, around the second temple, when it became much larger and gained a more prominent place in history. It was all, however under the Israelite/Jewish periods, enduring several conquests themselves, that this section of history took place, and by which the city eventually grew to become known as what it is today by the name Jerusalem. It was also to this background that it eventually became dear to many other nations as well as the three monotheistic faiths, each bonding to its own piece of the city's history. This is part of the continuous thread throughout the article on Jerusalem on WP. The name Jerusalem/Yerushalaym being given to the city by the Israelites. So, when we try to reference that name, we need to reference what it means from that standpoint. I know it's not clear what the name really meant in Hebrew before 'Abode of Peace' became the widely held meaning to the Jews and recognized by much of the world. But seeing how this became the most widely held meaning, I think it's safe to say that this is the most notable meaning of the Hebrew name Jerusalem/Yerushalaym. Some rabbinical and biblical commentary suggest 'Abode of Peace' dates back to the time of Abraham. That might seem like a stretch but some linguistic scholars do affirm that the city Shalem, mentioned in Genesis, could indeed refer to an early Jerusalem. Or a settlement in the same place. Whether the Abraham in that story, considering he might have existed, could have passed on the meaning he construed or applied to Shalem as Shalom, which was subsequently passed on in folklore till second temple days...well, who am I to say, really? I feel like you do, that we might never truly know. But I think that a couple of thousand years of the name and meaning going hand in hand into modern times, by a people who are an integral part of giving the city its prominence in history, by which the name of he city has become known today, and the abundance of supporting sources in academia and folklore to this meaning, are enough to say that it's the most notable meaning for the Hebrew name Jerusalem, of the city that this article is about.
I hope this clarifies things a little more - and thanks for the nice and courteous way. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it clarifies your error. While it is true that meaning and etymology can diverge, as when a word changes meaning over a period of time, you have not given any evidence that the word "Yerushalayim" changed meaning. It has only one meaning today, namely the city. If that wasn't true, you would be able to show us examples of its use to mean "Abode of Peace" in a context that is not a reference or allusion to the city. You can't do that, because such usage does not exist. What does exist is a popular belief that "Abode/City of Peace" is the etymology of "Yerushalayim", and that is what people mean when they say that "Yerushalayim" means "Abode of Peace". If you convince them that it comes from the name of a god, they will admit it doesn't mean "Abode of Peace" as they thought. Your idea of an actual meaning change is quite idiosyncratic and you have not brought a single source in support of it. (You have to bring a source that says it used to mean something else but now means Abode of Peace.) As such, it is Original Research and inadmissible. Zero^talk 08:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no error here. Enough reliable sources say the meaning of Jerusalem/Yerushalaym is 'Abode of Peace' and not enough sources support any other broadly well known or notable enough meaning to place in the lede. Establishing the evolution of the various meanings belongs in Etymology, but not for the generally known meaning used in the introduction. If we try to pin down an exact translation of the word or parts of it, then why hasn't this been suggested for "Al-Quds Al-Sharif"? Why this selective drive to remove one meaning on these grounds when the other one suffers a similar discrepancy? Properly translated, "Al-Quds Al-Sharif" is more correctly represented as "The Honorable Holiness" and not "The Holy Sanctuary". It's clear the reason this meaning is given for the Arabic is because it's the most popular and notable meaning used in the English language, regardless of the evolutionary Etymology of the name. There is no ground or reason whatsoever to remove either. But if the push continues to selectively remove one, then I'll insist that the other be removed also. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael. Could I remind you that repeating your views is not an answer let alone an argument. Esp when you are a consensus of one. It was comprehensively shown that your 'reliable sources' do not in anyway support your assertions about (a) etymology (b) meaning and (c) notability. Yerushalayim has no meaning in Hebrew, nor any etymology. Al Quds means 'the Holy'. If you are worried about what you see as POV weighting. Just give the Hebrew name and the Arabic name 'Al Quds' and allow us to apply to Jerusalem the rule at Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Nazareth, Hebron, Haifa Acre etc.etc., where the leads all conform, i.e. they don't discuss the ostensible meaning of the name, but relegate that to the first section Etymology. Might I remind you also that the city is of three faiths, and a Christian would be quite entitled to charge in and add 'vision of peace' as the way Jerusalem/Yerushalayim was traditional understood in that faith. It happens to be a Jewish etymology adopted by early Christians, and is as valid for Yerushalayim as the folksy 'Abode of peace'.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing on (a) etymology (b) meaning and (c) notability has been shown either comprehensively or vaguely, Nishidani. You've made repeated assertions that I've refuted repeatedly. One technical mistake from 14 sources, that's been corrected, does not change anything I've said nor constitute a comprehensive showing of anything on your part. I also don't agree that Jerusalem is like the other cities you mention that we need to apply such a naming standard to it. Unlike those cities, the meaning of the names in Hebrew and Arabic are integral to its how the city is widely known. There is no Christian political presence nor territorial issue such as with the Arabic to warrant introducing such a Christian meaning there. But it seems you're suggesting to also remove "The Holy Sanctuary", at which I would ask if you believe the article is made better by the removal of both meanings, or is it made worse? It seems like is a willingness to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. I'll answer more below in your suggestion for dispute resolution. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no Christian political presence nor territorial issue such as with the Arabic to warrant introducing such a Christian meaning there.

Thank you. Just as you wrote

The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation.

You now admit a second time that your POV on this issue is influenced by 'political' concerns. You want the false voice 'abode of peace' because it is appropriate to 'the city's current situation'. That is a clear assertion of editorial judgement ignoring WP:NPOV in order to place a statement with an undisguised nuance of partisan political interest. By the way, thanks also for not reading what I wrote while replying to it. The 'Christian' etymology is actually, like Al-Quds, a calque derived from a folk etymology current in Hebraic usage. It was, to my knowledge, first proposed by Philo of Alexandria, and Judeo-Christians and then Christians deferred to his authority. In variations it is also current in Hebrew religious texts. Despite their 2,000 years presence in, and profound attachment to the city of Jerusalem, notable Christian folk etymologies are to be excluded because in the territorial conflict, Christians have no political weight. Lovely confession of what lies behind the jejune game being played here. Perhaps I should open a wik article on Michael Netzer's misprisions, but it would probably exceed the word limit for pages here.:)Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The simplest way to resolve this failure to achieve absolute unanimity, is to vet the options.

I believe that, as with most city articles, there's no need to give an etymology. The simplest solution is to relegate 'foundation of Shalem/popularly 'city or abode of peace', to the etymology section, (which requires a succinct rewrite by the way, as do the linked pages with details).

The problem Michael might have with eliding a gloss on 'Yerushalayim' is that it might appear to some to create an imbalance, since 'Al Quds' is translated.

But if, as in my early proposal (about which I was and remain uneasy because it is misleading), one glossed 'abode of peace' along with the probable etymology, this creates an issue since, if you put in 'Abode of peace', it is only one of a dozen popular glosses that tradition assigns as the meaning of 'Yerushalayim'.

I suspect that ulterior motives are detected in anyone wishing for the elision of 'abode of peace' (Damn it! Nishidani is trying to deHebraicize our emphasis on our perduring links with the city since its foundation!). I can't answer this, because, if such suspicions exist, any protest I might make in defence of the principle:'Plato's a friend, but truth is the greater friend' would be dismissed as 'he protesteth too much'.

On the other hand, insisting on 'Abode of Peace' arbitrarily, when Hebrew has a dozen folk etymologies, smacks of a POV. That is why, to cut the Gordian knot, the sensible thing is to follow the example of many pages on cities by expunging the controversy. From a 'Jewish' POV, that at least gets rid of the unseemly pre-Judaic resonance of 'foundation of Shalem', and excludes a pagan deity from prominence in the lead. Thoughts?Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What smacks of POV is this unfortunate push to remove only one of two instances while both the Hebrew and Arabic suffer similar etymology and translation issues. It's especially disconcerting coming from an editor who knows about the English meaning of "Al-Quds Al-Sharif". They appear in the lede, and rightly so, not on the basis of etymology, but only on the basis that they are the most widely known English meanings of the names. Let's please not make such POV insinuations because the push seems to be coming from the other side in this case. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just an after thought about excluding the pagan diety from the lede. Are you seriously saying this is what bothers you here? Is this about reviving a long past pagan deity so it can stand along side other faiths that thrive today as if to make it equal in some social way with them? I fail to see any sense in such an argument concerning the lede introduction to the article. That part of Jerusalem's history is no longer relevant today, and not by the presence of Judaism. It has passed from the world by its own merit or lack of it. It has an honorable expanded mention in Etymology and History but to suggest to put it in the lede next to the Arabic and Hebrew meanings of the name seems absurd for encyclopedic form. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2011(UTC)

Okay you hold out against three people, and have twice refused to accommodate your intransigence to a compromise I have ventured to suggest. Point me to the dispute resolution medium of your choice. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I only see two people right now. I don't think either of us know if Oncenawhile hasn't changed their position after our last exchange. Be that as it may, any Dispute Resolution medium you choose will be alright with me. Your compromises aren't at all a compromise. The lede should not be changed in the way you suggest. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Onceinawhile suggested a compromise I myself accept. Zero appears to think the pseudo-facts you are pushing cannot stand. That means 3 people see merit in altering the lead here, and you won't budge. Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Three. Two of us have provided solutions and a compromise, both of which elide the false information you are pushing, while satisfying most of your stated 'concerns'. The other editor agrees that your position is mistaken. I had to teach you elementary English grammar. I hope I won't be obliged to teach you the rudiments of the abacus.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"both the Hebrew and Arabic suffer similar etymology and translation issues" – but this is another of your assertions made without evidence and contrary to the facts. The Arabic word quds is not of disputed origin. It is a common word related to holiness and has verb and noun forms used independently of the city name. In other words it satisfies the criterion for a word with a general meaning that "Yerushalayim" does not satisfy. All the evidence suggests (and I have never seen any dissent over it) that "quds" comes from the same semitic root as "kodesh" (קדש). Zero^talk 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the facts about the Arabic words. The name in the lede is "Al-Quds [Al-Sharif]" translated there as "The Holy Sanctuary". "Al-Quds" in that form is not an adjective, as it's translated. It's a noun, "The Holy" or "The Holiness". To be an adjective, it would need to be "Al-Muqaddas". "Al-Sharif" is not a "sanctuary". It means "The honorable" or "The honored". The root, (Sh-r-f), means "honor" and nothing else. So, the proper translation of "Al-Quds [Al-Sharif] is "The Honorable Holiness" or "The Honored Holy" - not "The Holy Sanctuary", which is a popular folk meaning widely recognized in the English language. It is not an etymology or a translation just like "Abode of Peace" is not an etymology or translation. They are both popular widely recognized meanings but not linguistic translations of the word or etymologies. That's why they appear in the lede, because of their notability and recognizability. Look it up in any Arabic/Emglish dictionary and you'll see. Nish will also corroborate, he's pretty much said so already. I grew up in Lebanon ages 1-12 and studied Arabic rigorously as a child. I freshened up while being there again ages 26-27, and wrote stories in Arabic for a women's magazine in Beirut. It's like a mother tongue to me. I'm not a reliable source but I'm perfectly right about this, Zero. What I've been arguing for is fair. The lede should stay as it is. There is no pretense of the appearance in the lede being a linguistic etymology. Both instances are simply the most popular and recognized meanings in English. The article will be made less, and it will be damaged by removing them. Please try to understand. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out, you seem incapable of addressing the points that anyone else makes. I stand by what I wrote about the name "al-Quds", which is the canonical Arabic name of the city. I didn't mention the word Sharif and don't care if disappears from the lede. The fact is that there is no dispute about the meaning of "al-Quds", which is the opposite of the situation for "Yerushalayim". In the case of "Yerushalayim" you want to insert one position in preference to others, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The fact that the majority scholarly opinion is opposed to yours makes your case worse. Zero^talk 09:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What I said was in reference to the appearance of "Al-Quds [Al-Sharif]" in the lede. It is perfectly correct and the most relevant issue with regards to 'Abode of Peace' because they both appear in the lede. Your misrepresentation, misplaced antagonism and failure to relate to what I said will remain on record here.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the 6th or 7th turn in your obstructionism. You now shift the goalposts to a specious attempt to confuse the issue of Yerushalayim with that of Al-Quds. With every other point you have raised disproven (a) etymology (b) meaning (c) notability (d) source quality (all your sources fail the claims you make for them, not just one, as you seem to think by the strike out you did from just one example of mystification and slipshod citation I illustrated) etc., etc. It is, again, a translation, despite your assurances to the contrary, unlike Yerushalayim. It translates one of the biblical Hebrew terms for 'Jerusalem' (עירהקודש) as at Nehemiah 11:1,18, Isaiah 48:2 52:1, 62:12, (Judith Romney Wegner, 'Islam and Judaism,' in Judith R. Baskin (ed.) The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, pp.281-285, p.284).

To recap in a futile attempt to get past this WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT gambit you are fiddling with. You are being captiously tendentious, when other editors are suggesting very simply remedies (just write Yerushalayim and al-Quds, as per wiki normative usage on leads for towns and cities) for an erroneous gloss you personally like. Yerushalayim means 'Jerusalem' in Hebrew, and has no etymology or 'meaning' in that language, unlike the several dozen metaphorical names employed in Hebrew to denote that city. Al-Quds means 'the Holy' in Arabic, i.e., it bears a meaning and has an etymology in semitic languages, unlike the case of Jerusalem in Hebrew, whose ostensible meanings in that language are simply folksy or rabbinical guesses in lieu of any strict philological analysis. The 'holy' refers to the 'holy (kodesh) city' of Hebraic idiom.

I'd remind you that editors are under no obligation to waste their time dealing beyond reasonable limits with a hold-out position or bunker-mentality, or required to refrain from a commonsensical edit to correct an error, if just one editor in their midst recalcitrantly holds out against both them and sources. You have replied, but make no answer to why Jerusalem deserves (a) a false note in the lead which (b) does not conform to wiki leads for cities, let alone wiki leads for Israeli and Arab cities. Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Nazareth, Hebron, Haifa Acre, Mecca, Damascus, Aleppo, Beirut, Baghdad etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, can I suggest the following for a compromise proposal for the lede:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (audio), Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس (audio), al-Quds)

The changes are removing the disputed translation for both and removing "[al-sharif]", which although correct is not used in the wp:commonname. With respect to the discussion of the development of the parallel etymologies (i.e. the summary of this whole debate):

This should then be appropriately added to the Etymology section. We'll need to add a scholarly source which supports the existence of two (or more) parallel etymologies, which I haven't seen yet (sorry if i missed it).

As a way forward, please could the involved editors: (1) Comment on the proposal for the amendment to the lede; and (2) Suggest amendments to the etymology section Thanks all. Hope this is helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort Oncenawhile, but as I just explained to Zero above your comment:

(1) The article lead is compromised by excluding these two well sourced notable meanings of the names for such a historically, culturally and spiritually loaded city. These meanings convey something very significant about the place and they really should stay. The basis for the objection to one of them missed the point of why it's there and it's not a good reason for removal. I'd like to wait and see if Zero or Nish will reconsider at this point. If not, then I'll withdraw from this specific proposal you make because I don't want to support a misguided and erroneous removal that damages the article and has no valid basis for the objection raised about it.

(2) I agree the Etymology section should be expanded to elaborate on them. There are plenty of scholarly sources that support the significance of these "folk" meanings and how they've taken root in the language. I'll try to propose something here soon. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree to Oncenawhile's proposal, on the grounds that it is better to not give any meanings in the lede than to give a pretend meaning. I'll help with the etymology section. Zero^talk 12:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I support your proposal (1). I have been suggesting it for some time.

As for etymology, amendments will be made to the etymology section and related pages in due course. That section is uncontroversial and just needs work, since the argument is comprehensively covered in academic sources. I'll help as well, when I am off my self-ban, since I have extensive notes on this. The only problematical thing here is getting Michael to accept one of several proposed changes to the 'Yerusalem/Al Quds' wording in the lead sentence. Fingers crossed.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion shows that I've remained respectful in the face of repeated personal attacks and disparagement by Nishidani and Zero. My points have been repeatedly taken out of context and answered with diatribes and filibustering intended to wrongly discredit a sound argument. The aggression displayed here towards me by Nishidani and Zero are unconscionable and violate the most basic tents of behavior in Wikipedia guidelines. They have been employed to silence an editor based on a blatant POV push and disdain for the most recognized English meaning of the Hebrew name of the city. I will not support this move to remove the meanings of both the Hebrew and Arabic names because they are both significant representations of the city and they are both well rooted in scholarly sources as widely recognized notable meanings. But the futility of trying to discuss this courteously and respectfully in the face of the rudeness both these editors display has convinced me to withdraw from this issue. Do what you will. Your prejudice, distortion of the issues, and personal attacks are on record for everyone to see. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't speak for myself, but I strongly advise you to withdraw your accusation that Zero has indulged in 'repeated personal attacks and disparagement' against you. As for the rest, the point of talk pages is to convince others, not persuade oneself one is always right, whatever one's interlocutors may say. A completely neutral compromise was offered. You refused what other parties have given the nod to. A 3-1 verdict in favour of the proposal concludes this farce. If no one else cares to procede with Onceinawhile's compromise edit, I'll do it on the 10th of January. I take the issue as resolved. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Zero's tone towards me in this discussion has been consistently to not assume good faith and wage a personal attack under the guise of wrong and unfounded technical assertions. His behavior has been aggressive, distortive, condescending and sometimes downright rude, as has been yours. I will retract nothing I've said. The discussion speaks for itself. I'm done with you and with Zero as I find no virtue can be had for improving an encyclopedia by interacting with either of you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

'wage a personal attack under the guise of wrong and unfounded technical assertions.'

Just in case you are not aware of what this implies or signals. That statement suggests that you read technical arguments you disagree with as subterfuges to attack you personally. With that kind of assumption, all disagreement lends itself to 'deconstruction' as fueled by animus, and directed at you personally. The world, society ourselves are a congeries of conflicting interests, and the first step there as here is to understand that one's own take on things is always perspectival and partisan and the best remedy for this is to simply limit one's contributions to what the strongest academic sources say. There is often disagreement there, but the method is universal, the results peer-reviewed, and save us from the angst of trying to shape things according to our personal beliefs. Use that method and you will find no-one here making a fuss over your edits.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And all of this in 10 days?! If I got paid 1 pound for each word the two of you write here, I'd be a millionaire next week! Enough is enough! Now, seriously - Nishidani, stop complaining. It is indeed well known that one POSSIBLE meaning of "Yerushalayim" is "Ir (city) [of] Shalom (peace)". Maybe instead of Shalom it's Shalem which means 'whole' as in wholeness, meaning "city of wholeness" - ie, city of perfection; the perfect city. In any case, Yerushalayim meaning "city of peace" is one possible and very well known translation. Nobody knows if it's correct, but it is one of the possibles. I'd have to check my books to be sure what Jewish theology says about it. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

ein solches Gutachten existiert auch im Schlaraffenland? I'll fork out a euro for each word you read. That way your ambition to hobnob with the rich will be satisfied, while at the same time you will have the collateral advantage of actually understanding the issues. By the way, 'complain' in English means neither 'work hard' nor 'muster evidence' nor 'reason to the facts'. Or is the game, to sit round, paring one's fingernails, while the hoi polloi box the living daylights out of each other for fifteen rounds, until the referee gives a verdict on points, at which point you feel emboldened to step in and overturn the verdict by saying the loser was the better boxer, and the jury rigged? Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For editors interested, I've submitted a dispute resolution request on this disagreement. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an apparent consensus on removing the folk etymology from the lead of the article at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jerusalem: Abode of Peace. One editor cannot hold the article hostage, and if he insists on ignoring consensus he can do that and we can watch to see what happens. In the meantime though I suggest the needed edit be made and this be considered resolved. nableezy - 15:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing apparent about the supposed non-existent consensus and no one's holding the article hostage. If you or anyone wants to remove basic information in the lead the Hebrew and Arabic meanings of Jerusalem sourced to reputable scholarly publishers, you have to have a better reason than "folk etymology". The lead is not intended to be a dictionary definition or linguistic thesis. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Says you. Every other person disagrees with that unsupported assertion, both here and at DR/N. You do not get to determine that your views are the only thing that counts. You asked for outside comments, got them and now are refusing to allow that consensus to be implemented. That is disruptive. nableezy - 16:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Says the record of the discussion and academic sources. Only two people have given this incorrect opinion in disregard of the facts. The others were arbitrators who tried to work out 'compromises'. Try to get your facts straight. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are free to continue thinking whatever you think, the discussion is clear on this point. Anybody should feel entitled to make the needed edit, and editors who edit-war against consensus should be aware of this case and this page. nableezy - 17:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No WP:Consensus was achieved for a change, and certainly not for the change you made. Claims for inaccuracy are incorrect and sources appear in the Etymology section for it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are now edit-warring against consensus. If you refuse to self-revert your disruptive edit, I will report you. nableezy - 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Recap

MichaleNetzer has reverted an edit that has consensus. There have been an abundance of sources showing the the Hebrew term Yerushalayim does not mean Abode of Peace. That has been agreed to by 3 users on this page (Zero0000, Nishidani, Oncenawhile) and by several others at DR/N (Jayen466 agreed that a folk etymology should not be placed as though it were fact, FCSundae agreed that the material should simply be removed from the lead and discussed in the body, I also agreed that the folk etymology should not be included as though it were a factually accurate statement). As it stands there are 6 users in agreement on removing this meaning from the lead, and just Michael insisting that his position is what is "consensus", a rather peculiar definition of consensus if you ask me. His view that his argument is stronger does not entitle him to revert against a consensus. nableezy - 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus and no agreement, Nableezy. You are the one who made a change in violation of the long standing community consensus, and are being disruptive. I've explained myself extensively already and will not self-revert. I'm willing to discuss it until a consensus is hammered out. Your attempt, and others, to remove well sourced material from the lede by force violates all WP content policy. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not require your agreement. Edit-warring to restore factually incorrect material to the lead of an article, material that a consensus of editors says should be removed, violates all WP content and conduct policy. nableezy - 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus requires that all concerns in a dispute be taken into consideration. Consensus is not achieved by a majority. Quality of arguments counts for more. There are enough scholarly sources that affirm 'Abode of Peace' is the meaning of the name. You and a few editors are trying to overturn a long-standing community consensus for a balanced lead. Now you've removed the Hebrew meaning and kept the Arabic. Even by your description of what others said in the discussion, there was never an agreement for what you've done. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your belief that you argument is of a higher quality is both unsurprising and unimportant. I have kept the Arabic because there is no dispute that al-Quds means The Holy. Your belief that "scholars" who have 0 expertise in Semitic languages or etymology trump the several actual scholars who have impeccable credentials on this specific topic is likewise unsurprising and unimportant. What is important is that an overwhelming majority, at least by WP standards, found your argument to be of a lower quality than those opposed to your view. You do not get to determine that your view alone is the highest quality, that you alone determine what is consensus, and that your consent is required ahead of all others. I will report you for disruptively editing against consensus if you insist. In case you have not noticed, Im not exactly timid in that regard. nableezy - 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You're not timid in any regard, so what are you waiting for? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No Michael. You are inviting Nableezy to jump at another complaint, which though warranted, should be resolved in other ways. So far over 3 pages, 12 people have commented, several only to remonstrate with the way you spin what your interlocutors write to make everything appear like a personal attack or ganging up. Since no one has thought your variegated arguments worthy of sustained support, since third parties have told you to rethink your attitude, and moderate your slanging language, and since both at the Jerusalem talk page and here, outsiders have suggested compromises which a consistent majority has approved, but you consistently knock back, the onus is on your, if you think it's unfair, either to go the WP:RS or another board to restate your case before third parties for further consideration, something you have mulled, or simply accept the consensus. You plainly cannot revert the change agreed on, while doing nothing to clarify why you alone are correct and everyone else is wrong. That would be a behavioural problem of obstructionism, not to speak of a WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT habit taken to extreme lengths, and would, if persisted in, lead to a complaint and a probable sanction, a risk I would prefer you not to run, given your clean slate record.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy does not seem to need an invitation to jump at complaints. I simply wish him to know that his threats do not intimidate me, that I am not required to bow down to his masterly demeanor and that no one made him supreme ruler of Wikipedia. I am in the process of preparing a questionnaire for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but I also do other things in my life. Nableezy jumped the gun with his edit. I've repeatedly said that I'd adhere to a consensus that took all concerns into consideration, which I haven't yet seen. If everyone will kindly be patient for another day, we'll clarify the issue of sources and hopefully get closer to resolving the dispute. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you failed to gain support for your argument and the very clear consensus is against you. The fact that you continue to think you are right is not what matters here. Zero^talk 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What matters here, Zero is adhering to WP:Consensus, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for the purposes of this dispute. Please be patient while I prepare a questionnaire to clarify the sources. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Save us. You've said everything you have to say over and over and it is not more convincing than the first time you said it. Do you have the ability to stop, or is this going to be a never ending saga? Zero^talk 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Zero, your revert constitutes an edit war. This dispute is still in clarification and a consensus has not been achieved to override the long-standing community consensus on the lede. When the process runs its course, everyone is invited to change the lede according to the results. Until then, the lede must remain as it was before the disupte. Please self-revert or you will be on record for edit-warring and disregard for WP:Consensus guidelines. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Zero has consensus for his edit, as did I. The only person disregarding consensus here is you. nableezy - 01:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus carefully to see that consensus does not mean a majority and that a few editors cannot overturn long-standing community consensus. An attempt must be made to address all concerns. None of my concerns have even been given the benefit of the doubt as everything I've said has been dismissed without the slightest consideration as the discussions show. As such, you have violated consensus with your edit, and Zero0000 has edit-warred. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus carefully to see that consensus does not require unanimity and that no one editor can hold an article hostage. You concerns have been addressed. That you dont recognize that or that you think that your argument is of a higher quality does not change that every single person that commented disagrees with you. nableezy - 02:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You incorrectly assume I am holding an article or anything hostage. We are in the midst of a process and I've said I'd adhere to a properly achieved consensus. You stepped in without previous involvement in the discussion, combative and lacking any patience to see the process through. Nishidani was far more gracious and agreed the sources should go to DR-RS. Your impulsive battleground behavior is what caused you to violate the process. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You cant make these comments and then claim that others are attacking you. You do not get to demand that while you search from venue to venue vainly searching for someone to agree to your position that something that is not the translation of the Hebrew name be presented as though it were the translation of the Hebrew name that the process demands that you can forcefully retain material that several editors, in multiple places, say should not be included. nableezy - 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Listen well please, Nableezy. You have not been appointed anyone's master to speak to me in this tone. My statements stand and the discussions between us are over until you learn to settle down and show some civility. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. In a discussion where you repeatedly accuse others of a prejudice against Hebrew associations, in which you accuse me of impulsive battleground behavior, where you also make wholesale fabrications about what another user has said, I need to settle down and show some civility. Again, you cant make these comments about others and then cry about supposed incivility. You can say whatever you please, in whatever tone you wish, it will not change that there is a consensus for this edit. nableezy - 05:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, by "a few editors", you do seem to me to mean, AFAICT, all editors who've expressed a view apart from one. You're entitled to withdraw from DRN rather than defend your position if that's what you chose to do, but I don't think you're entitled to do that and then return to the talkpage and declare a "no consensus" victory. --FormerIP (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN is not a binding arbitration. It is known to fail to achieve consensus. There's nothing improper about continuing the process after DRN fails, and going to higher hierarchies or more specific venues such as for DRN-RS. Achieving consensus is not a 'wham bam' deal. It necessitates patience, consideration of objections and a collaborative willingness to address all issues in good will. None of these have been achieved in the combative tones the discussions were conducted. Look at the exchanges from the beginning to see who was discussing things civilly and in good faith and who was dismissing everything the other side said with personal remarks that left no door open for mutual understanding. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to deal with editors who habitually twist others words in order to make baseless accusations of racism such as prejudice against Hebrew associations and an editor so motivated by their personal biases that they should be forbidden to even open an editing box in Wikipedia. nableezy - 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please take this to heart, Nableezy. Your distortions of the situation are not constructive. There is a lot more to this discussion and what led to it than these statements which are put together out of context entirely. You have not been appointed judge and jury over me or anyone to speak to me in this tone. My statements stand and the discussion between us is over until you learn to settle down and show a little more civility. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My distortions?!?! Ive added the diffs. You can keep up this act that everybody is just being mean to you, but it is simply untrue. nableezy - 05:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw above where Zero asked two weeks ago about this translation not being mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia old or new and decided to check. The site for the Jewish Encyclopedia, apparently covering the 1906 edition, includes the following quote:

Several etymologies for the word have been suggested; e.g., = "possession of peace" or "of Salem"; "foundation of peace" or "of Shalem [God of peace]"; according to the Midrash it is made up of "Shalem," the name given to the city by Shem, and "Yir'eh," that given to it by Abraham (Gen. R. lvi. 10; Midr. Teh. to Ps. lxxvi. 3). A more plausible derivation makes it the equivalent of "Uru-shalim" (="City of [the god] Shalim";

All of these do appear to suggest the term has been considered to literally mean something, possibly city, "of peace" by reliable sources. This does not appear to have been considered the most likely meaning even at that time, but it does appear to have been considered a possible meaning. "Abode of Peace" does not appear to be directly backed by this source. While the use of Shalem to refer to a god does go back quite a ways, this does not rule out that it originally meant peace given the word is closely related with one commonly connected to peace. Of course, it also does not rule out that it originally meant something else entirely.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I should have written that the source does not support the etymology. The same is true of Encyclopedia Judaica. These both mention various "peace" options and indicate that they don't consider them likely. (I'll bring the exact wording from EJ soon, it needs a trip to the library.) My case has consistently been that the"peace" etymology is popular but is not accepted by the most relevant experts. Zero^talk 08:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That source and your evaluation underscore the foundation upon which the name is translated, or construed. As you say, we have no absolute knowledge of the very origin of the name and as such all the meanings we have are derived, adopted or propagated by the presiding cultures of their times. This is natural for such an ancient artifact. For our purposes, the verifiability of 'Abode of Peace' as the most common meaning that has been associated with the name for nearly 2000 years is incontrovertible. There are no serious sources that deny this fact. Some might argue another meaning or uncertainty, but none that I've seen deny its significance. As such it is perfectly correct to include it in the lede next to the Arabic name and meaning, which is considerably younger, being that Arabic and Hebrew are the languages pertaining to the two prevalent cultures presiding over the city in modern times. There are more sources and explanations here. I appreciate your objectivity and perception. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you have provided no text to allow anyone to verify in a source the generalization I have bolded above. It is your inference from a few scattered sources of poor quality, a WP:OR construction. It's absolutely basic here. If you have a generalization, and it is queried, provide a strong source to justify it. You haven't done this over three weeks.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy: I may only have contributed to this discussion once, but as I recall, when I spoke, while critizing both sides for their behavior, I did state that Michael's position seemed correct to me. So please change the count. I believe this conflict is going much too far. I would propose leaving the entire subject out of the title and discussing it in the body, as you (Nableezy) proposed, I believe. Then I propose Michael should agree to this and we can all continue editing in a constructive manner instead of trying to imitate the US primaries here... --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

'While criticizing both sides for their behaviour.'
Actually, you didn't, you singled me out and told me to stop complaining.

'I did state that Michael's position seemed correct to me.'
Actually, you didn't. You said: ‘It is indeed well known that one POSSIBLE meaning of "Yerushalayim" is "Ir (city) [of] Shalom (peace)". . . Yerushalayim meaning "city of peace" is one possible and very well known translation. Nobody knows if it's correct, but it is one of the possibles.’ This is not Michael's position, which has nothing to do with possible meanings, but the standard meaning, not 'city of peace' but 'abode of peace' for 2 millenia, which he failed to prove.

Since you said you had a relevant text on Biblical issues available, please check Psalm 122.6-7), and the text it was playing off, and responding to, namely Jeremiah 29:7. Once you do so, you will grasp that ir-shalom is a pun on Yerushalayim used to controvert a jeremiad that asserted that Babylon was the city where peace would be found, not a paraphrase of its meaning, or an etymology. It contests by alliterative wordmagic Jeramiah's association of the city of Babylon with peace.

Nableezy didn't propose leaving the subject out of the 'title' (English =lead/lede). I did. Three independent observers concurred. Michael refused.

I accept that the reasons you now give for siding with Michael's view are based on a faulty recall of what you originally wrote, and of the subject. But that in no way invalidates your vote. Two with a shaky grasp of the subject oppose the majority. Fine. I hope this correction doesn't wake the divadame.Nishidani (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, we are still in the process of discussion and procedure on this. I've posted sources and explanations at an uninvolved admin's talk page, in a thread started by an editor now participating here and another such editor has also responded there. I've asked the admin for advice before turning to DRN-RS and they've said they'll respond soon. In that we haven't yet achieved a consensus and many concerns here haven't yet been addressed, I'm returning the article to the state it was in before the dispute began, as the changes were premature and should not have been done until we achieve a consensus. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we had a lengthy discussion that demonstrated you have minimal support for your case. It is ages since you wrote anything new about it. The "discussion" is now just a filibuster on your part. It is unacceptable. Zero^talk 01:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has written far more words than I in these discussions, so let's be careful who we accuse of filibustering. The case is being reviewed by an uninvolved admin, and we should wait. If your position is proven right then three won't be a problem. There's no rush to change something that's still under review. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That editor has not written those words with the express intent of stalling or otherwise disrupting the editing of this article, whereas you have, and continue to do so. You are edit-warring against consensus. You are well aware of this fact. nableezy - 02:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor I have been appointed judges of anyone's intent. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP: While the case is under review and NO WP:Consensus has been achieved, you are engaging in an edit war. Please self-revert because it looks like this case will escalate for review in higher hierarchies and your actions will be on record. "I think" is not a good reason for edit warring. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the case under review? It seems to me that everyone except your good self supports this change. It also makes good common sense and conforms with policy (WP:DUE). --FormerIP (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy turned to uninvolved admin WGFinley for advice. He is reviewing the case and everyone should be patient until we have some direction. You have apparently not noticed this was said above and that 2 other editors support my position. Please, FormerIP, self-revert for your own sake in case this should this escalate. It's not good for you to engage in an edit war without having read the talk page discussion with this information. You've known about the discussion here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not. I asked an admin for advice on what to do about a user disruptively edit-warring against consensus besides going to AE. Please do not misrepresent my actions. nableezy - 03:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. I didn't misrepresent you and I've answered you on the WGF's talk page. You're misconstruing what I said. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly did misrepresent my actions, but that is, I suppose, par for the course. nableezy - 05:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember when you said I was being hypocritical 6 times on this page? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do. I remember it followed you repeatedly calling all those that opposed your blatantly political POV push of claiming occupied territory as being in Israel never build or improve anything, all they do is disrupt everyone's work by removing it and causing large irrelevant disputes. They come armed with the magic "RS" word as if the project has been taken hostage by their select sources. I dont understand the relevance to your edit-warring against consensus though. nableezy - 07:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. I should have realized you wouldn't understand. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is what the 2nd edition of Encyclopedia Judaica (2007) says on the subject. This section of the article on Jerusalem (vol 11, p144) was written by Israeli archaeologists Samual Abramsky and Shimon Gibson.

It seems that the original name was Irusalem, and the meaning of the two words composing it is "to found" ("yarah") and the name of the West Semitic god Shulmanu, or Shalim. The god may have been considered the patron of the city, which had contained a sanctuary in his honor. The popular later midrashic explanation of the name Jerusalem as "foundation of peace (shalom)" is associated with the poetic appellations given to the city. ... Jerusalem has many names of admiration and reverence given by the Prophets and later Hebrew poets: "The City," "God's City," the "Holy City," the "City of Justice," the "Faithful City," the "City of Peace," the "Beautiful City," etc.

Zero^talk 08:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In the technical commentaries on the relevant Biblical texts that generated the later midrashic speculations, the association of Yerushalayim with 'peace' is not in itself a meaning for the term. It is consistently explained as word-play, or punning in Hebrew. A pun on another word does not constitute its meaning, of course. I might also add that shalom in the original texts means rather 'well-being', in nuanced contrast in the relevant Sprachfeld to shalvah, which is closer to 'peace' in English.If these extenuating clarifications have had a purpose, it will be shown by the improvements we can now make to the technical page here on meanings of Jerusalem. CheersNishidani (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Shalom in the original texts means 'peace'. The form for 'well-being' is "shlom" where the vowel '(nikud)' differs. A few examples where the form "Shalom" appears in original texts in the clear context of 'peace':

And I will give peace in the land" ונתתי שלום בארץ
And there was peace between Israel and the Emorite. והיה שלום בין ישראל והאמורי
And there will be peace between Khiram and Solomon. ויהי שלום בין חירם ובין שלמה

I hope I misunderstood something because I'm not certain that "improvements" which don't take these nuances into consideration, and would wipe out vast uses and meanings of words, are desired for this, or any article.

Wilhelm Gesenius who is said to have "freed Semitic philology from the trammels of theological and religious prepossession, and for inaugurating the strictly scientific (and comparative) method which has since been so fruitful" is referenced in this book as deconstructing 'Yerushalem' to mean 'abode of peace'. James Hastings who references Genesius, explains that the suggestion of Archibald Sayce, that Salim is the name of a deity, is unsupported because "the sign of a deity is not used as a prefix to the name and the word 'Sa-lim' is elsewhere found in the Tel al-Amarna letters with the meaning of 'peace'". I know it's old hat but the source of these disputes is sometimes informative.

There are disputes over the Etymology of Jerusalem. If the text posted above from Encyclopedia Judaica is the only etymology it gives, then it would seem to be a tilted misrepresentation. There is substantial linguistic support for 'Salem' meaning 'peace' though it's certainly not the only view. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! As I said, no diva-dame games for me!Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Consulting Gesenius in the original, I find that he wasn't aware of any history of the name other than the Hebrew and Greek. This is of historical interest only. Zero^talk 06:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record I tried to nudge MN to look at that 2 weeks ago, but since Genesio is a common name in my neighbourhood metathesis got the better of me, and I wrote Genesius. Sorry about that, folks. ps. MN, re your observations on Hebrew, look up 'absolute' vs 'construct form' in any technical grammar. It'll help you avoid the error you make above. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not now change the subject to technical grammar. You originally said: "I might also add that shalom in the original texts means rather 'well-being', in nuanced contrast in the relevant Sprachfeld to shalvah, which is closer to 'peace' in English." I responded with examples from original texts that demonstrate what you said isn't true, and should not be a basis for "improving" an article. Technical grammar does not change the appearances in original texts that intend 'peace' in the context you say doesn't exist. Happy Holidays. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Michael. It would be best to stay out of fields you don't understand, like (historical) linguistics. You just keep adding WP:OR, which is easy to confute, but pointless to do so, since you will only come back and add to the mess of words that confuses third parties. You made another gross error not following up my hint, and expand it here. Study, man.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions about me and what I understand out of this discussion. Only reply to the content of my edit. Continued evaluations of my abilities and my character such as "diva-dame" violate WP policy. Telling me to stay out of a discussion because you think I don't "understand it" violates WP policy. No one appointed you judge nor master over me or over any content on Wikipedia. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! I didn't evaluate your character as a diva-dame. As to the rest the talk has a large number of clear demonstrations you make elementary errors in matters of linguistics. To note that is fair, and to suggest you avoid occasions where such misapprehensions about technical issues might emerge is appropriate. Nothing persona. You are welcome to turn to some other board to see if your minority view gains the comprehension it failed to gain here.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning to Nishidani: You are edit warring and being disruptive. You have also violated your self-block until Jan 10. If you wish to comment on specific content I posted, then comment only on that. Do not make any more comments on what I "understand", allude to me as "diva-dame", nor say that I should stay out of any topic or field on WP. These are personal remarks and not about content. You have not gained a new WP:Consensus to override the long-standing community one. You're being advised that you are now edit-warring and trying to force a change to the article that has not gained new consensus. Please revert your edit while the process to achieve consensus is still ongoing. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. You might not have noticed, but this page's discussion has been effectively closed. The next discussion on another board ended with a warning not to use intemperate language. The discussion on my page also ended several days ago, with a warning to temper your twisted interpretation of my words. The fourth discussion on Wgfinley's page ended, when he said he'd get back in a day, then justly complained of the excessive verbosity, and no longer engaged. You have been advised that you could question the achieved consensus to further forums, shop around to see if the general impression most observers have had so far is wrong. I didn't again, allude to you as a diva-dame, and your thinking so is evidence of a certain insensitivity to what other people write. So just stop misreading your fellow-editors, and find another page to protest on, if you think you have been misunderstood. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

This page's discussion is still open, as your own participation shows. DRN discussion yielded no agreement so the discussion returned here. Further clarifications are being sought and made while no WP:Consensus has been achieved. You have engaged in much more excessive verbosity and personal remarks that I've repeatedly asked you not to make. You responded to my comment with: "Sigh! As I said, no diva-dame games for me!" You cannot now deny what you've said. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I deny nothing. I simply reminded you to not twist my words. There is no personal allusion to you in diva-dame. As with much else, this should be construed in the way any sentence is construed. Bye Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus status

Broad claims of 12-16 editors in support of the change that's been implemented by edit-warring seem highly exaggerated and unfounded. The current tally of consensus is as follows.

Support for removing 'Abode of Peace' from lede:

Nishidani, Zero, Onecenawhile, FormerIP, FCSundae, Nableezy, Peter cohen - Total: 7 supporters.

Support for the 'Abode of Peace' based on RS, as the common meaning of Jerusalem:

MichaelNetzer, JN466, The Devil's Advocate, Piz d'Es-Cha - Total: 4 supporters.

Neutral

AgadaUrbanit Total: 1 supporter.

None of the discussions supported the change by edit-warring where the Hebrew meaning is removed and the Arabic remains.

The appearance of the Hebrew meaning in the lead is not a dictionary entry. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary requires broad considerations of meaning and not only linguistic or etymology. Discussions that disregard the broad common meaning violate the spirit and word of this guideline.

In that clarifications are still being sought on sources and that a WP:Consensus has not yet been achieved, the long-standing community consensus for the lede stands. Any change should only be made when a clear consensus is arrived at. Reverting an edit that restores to long-standing community consensus constitutes edit-warring because it is tendentious edit attempting to force a premature change that has not gained a new consensus. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Status of RS for "Abode of Peace":

A long standing RS in the article, used for "Foundation of Shalem" and has never been contested, also states immediately after: "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness."
Other sources in the article (sources #34-37) showing "City of Peace" and "Abode of Peace" as synonymous, and support popular meaning of the name, have not been contested on the article since 18 December when they were added.
Based on its appearance in the article, scholarly sources for recognized meaning, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, 'Abode of Peace' has been in the lede, next to the Arabic meaning, signifying the popular meanings in the two major cultures presiding over the city, for purposes of the lede.
This has been the long-standing community consensus that cannot be overturned without due process for new consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
The following sources are supportive for recognized popular meaning (not for etymology or linguistics which is not necessary for the lede) [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]' [23], [24], [25], [26] dismissal of these sources on the basis of Etymology or linguistics is not relevant to their support of popular meaning for the lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable distortion of opinions. Zero^talk 10:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there's a distortion, then please state what it is. Otherwise the statement is unsupported. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael appears to want a replay, and is stacking the deck in his count. So there's no other alternative but to take this to AE, for disruptive behaviour. I've never done this before, so it may take some time. There's no point in arguing here again, since all the evidence has been thoroughly analysed. The wikilawyering on WP:CONSENSUS fails to mention that the sentence Michael quotes is in the context of a small consensus trying to change policy. not re content.'participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.' This is not Alon Shvut, where Michael and Gilabrand tried to effect edits that challenged an effective consensus and subverted precisely the unmistakable guidline. I would warn AgadaUrbanit that, under the influence of a hangover which made me forget my resolution not to edit pages, I reverted Michael as per talk and votes, against a self-imposed ban for an inadvertent IR infraction. That is not an excuse to interfere with a process in which he or she has never participated, but is rather a rather patent example of pretextual gaming. By the way, Jayen in no way counts among Michael's votes, and AgadaUrbanit cannot be counted in this late rush to swing the numbers.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayen explicitly said "I'd have no problem with mentioning the popular meaning, even in the lead sentence, if it's marked as such ("often/popularly translated/interpreted as 'abode of peace'")" The marking of popular meaning he requests is stated clearly in Etymology, upon which inclusion in the lede is based.

As discussion is continuing, evidenced by everyone's participation in DRN and again here, new comments/support such as by AU are properly considered as adding to consensus tally.

I missed FCSundae's later opinion because he had not stated it in the beginning when he sought a clarification. I've now added it to the tally. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Peter cohen: Your edit summary "(Having the lede claim something which is undermined by the first section is a bad idea whatever the politics)" is not a sensible reason, as the first section supports inclusion in the lede. You undermine the discussion for consensus, and a long-standing community consensus, by your edit-war revert. Please explain here how the phrase undermines the lede and self-revert until a consensus is reached. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter Cohen's argument is the one made a couple of times throughout the discussion, and is as valid as Agada Urbanit's, whose reversion and edit summmary you accepted, and then added him to your fabricated list of assent. By the way, unless I am mistaken, Johnuniq did not support the majority position on the lede. He did not cast a vote, and simply suggested you desist from misinterpreting my remarks in another context.

I say fabricated because Jayen should not be there, and you have dumped his name in despite the unambiguous evidence that he accommodated his opinion to the developing arguments, and eventually agreed to a compromise, on two possible solutions I had suggested, which you rejected. See here, where he writes “So you could say 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace'", or something of that ilk.” and then approved of my suggestions for compromise, saying in his edit summary ‘sounds good’ and here.

You are now doing with the discussion what you did with sources, i.e. misreport them, and expecting others to carry on with a fifth recap of what has all of the appearances of a stubborn exercise in attritional and obstructive wikilawyering. It's called deceptive and selective use of diffs to rig a vote, and I will be using it in my AE report.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right about Johnuniq. Corrected. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate and Piz d'Es-Cha don't support MichaelNetzer's position either. This is the last straw. I'll be cooperating in bringing this to an end via AE enforcement. Zero^talk 20:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So the hell boils again? Maybe editors participating could consider using following userbox. It is the time of peper spray I guess.

For clarity, I would support status quo, despite the fact that I've sourced Foundation of Shalim into etymology section. After all, both Peace as a concept and the Canaanite twin-brother of dawn deity's name derive from the same root - S-L-M. Etymology discourse usually revolves around linguistic roots.

What is really important here is balance. An alternative to status-quo would be to discuss all etymology matters in the etymology subsection, following User:Oncenawhile suggestion:

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (audio), Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس (audio), al-Quds)

So we have two options here really: (a) status quo or (b) Oncenawhile style. The current wording is favoring Ba'al and does not preserve balance, so I don't think it would stick. I would try to implement option (b), in following days, before the year counter flips, if there are no objections here. A reader interested in meaning could dig into Etymology section as far as I am concerned. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Like Oncenawhile, I support option (a) in that it's (1) well sourced in Etymology,(2) the lede should be concerned with a good definition above liguistic disputes and (3)"abode..." is the most commonly referenced meaning in sources posted. But I defer to objections, even though it seems they haven't sufficiently considered these points. If no consensus can be achieved for status quo, then option (b) is preferable to present state as AU correctly says, at least until or if there's wider agreement in the future. Unless there are more objections, seems alright to change to option (b) now, and discuss if there are still objections to return to option (a). --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no option for the status quo ante, as per extensive discussions. The elision of all etymology to be relegated to the 'Etymology subsection' is the best solution, with 'Al Quds' not translated. (Sorry, distracted by invitation to coffee, by people who protest when I am late) Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm alright with this for the time being but would give a little more time before changing in case there are objections. In that I've said I don't think discussions sufficiently covered the points raised for maintaining status quo, and I'm perfectly willing to blame myself for that as well, maybe discussion can continue in a more collaborative framework to try to clarify the disagreement. Meaning that I'm willing to say "Maybe, but..." and hope Nishidani would also bend a little on "No option" (after the coffee, naturally). --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Michael, I think that 3 weeks and several pages have indicated that the status quo ante has no backing. By all readings of WP:Consensus, we have a large majority (7 vs I, perhaps 2) on this. (b)The status quo is unchallengeably neutral for Yerushalayim. You dislike the gloss on 'Al Quds' standing alone, as creating what you perceive to be a lack of parity (which it isn't since Yerushalayim has a gloss sending the reader to the sub-section). (c) Any attempt to summarize the subsection in a gloss on Yerusalem will lead to a sentence involving several popular etymologies, plus the probable scholarly meaning, which would be distractive as well as going against wikipedia's normative treatment of this for city names. That is why just relegating the whole issue to the subsection efficiently resolves the differences. I don't think policy allows people to assent to a majority consensus on the provisio it is temporary. You either say 'I disagree' or accept the consensus. To pose further pro-tempore conditions would only mean as a premise that no solution isd acceptable unless unanimously agreed to.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There have been disputes that lasted months before consensus was achieved, so I'm not sure 3 weeks can be considered too long for such a sensitive article and issue. I raise my concerns not on the basis of unanimity alone, but other guidelines for consensus as well, such as addressing all concerns and quality of argument. As I just said in DR, (1) there are sources already in Etymology that isolate "Abode of Peace" as a meaning, in addition to a dozen or so supportive sources (for popular recognition and not linguistic etymology) that do the same. If a like amount of sources can be shown to isolate another popularly recognized meaning, then that would certainly cause me to reconsider my position. Barring that, and (2) citing that the lede is primarily intended for a good definition over linguistic concerns, in addition to (3) the relevance of the Arabic and Hebrew meanings being the most prominent definitions by way of the two predominent cultures presiding over the city for the majority of recorded historical time (I'm pretty sure that's true but it bears checking), then I believe these three concerns need be addressed, and constitute a quality of argument that warrants consideration. If we can focus on these 3 points, then who knows, you might actually convince me... or maybe even, Heavens to Betsy, vice-versa. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you are alone in your opinions, and there is no room to question an achieved consensus. Due process was observed, and the consensus achieved. Please don't repeat arguments no one found worthy of note, or which were comprehensively shown to be wrong.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that doesn't seem to answer what I said above. I may be alone but I am an involved party and my concerns warrant consideration. Your leave no room for discussion and ignore that according to the word and spirit of WP:Consensus, it has not yet been achieved. At least based on concerns that I raised above and throughout the discussions, that have not been addressed. If you feel that I missed something and you've addressed them, then by all means summarize it here briefly. In that you are the one who initiated the desire to change a long-standing consensus, I believe you're required to do so. I don't think it's helpful for you to insist on stopping discussion on them at this point. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is required to suffer through endless discussions on a settled issue. There is a consensus on the issue, and if Netzer reverts again against that consensus just take him back to AE. nableezy - 14:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Netzer, the meaning "Abode of Peace" does not appear to have any significant support among linguists, which is what we should consider when presenting the term as the meaning of the name "Jerusalem" in the lede. There is some significant dispute among linguists about the exact meaning of the name, but it does not include your proposed meaning. To insist on putting a meaning in the lede that has, at best, fringe support in the linguistic community is giving the view undue weight in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong on some counts TDA. There exists linguistic support for it, maybe not in the sources you found but look at the sources in etymology and you will find some linguists who hold this view. You also state nothing new that hasn't been said extensively by editors who pushed to remove it. Perhaps if you answer my concerns, that others refuse to discuss, you might shed some new light on this. First a reminder about ledes.

"Good definitions: Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns."

As such, the scholarly sources in the article affirm 'Abode of Peace' as a common meaning of the name. These supportive sources that isolate this one meaning are extensive for common recognition (not necessarily linguistic etymology): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]' [35], [36], [37], [38].

The best way to advance the discussion is to reply to my three points:

The lede is more concerned with a good definition (encyclopedic knowledge that these sources show) than linguistic concerns.
There are 4 academic scholarly sources already in Etymology that isolate "Abode of Peace" as a common meaning. There are a dozen or so supportive sources (for popular recognition and not linguistic etymology) that do the same (above). If a similar, or greater, amount of sources can be shown to isolate another popularly recognized meaning, then that would certainly cause me to reconsider my position.
Both the Arabic and Hebrew meanings in the lede are important because they are the most prominent definitions, by way of the two predominant cultures presiding over the city for the majority of recorded historical time (I'm pretty sure that's true but it bears checking).

The encyclopedia is concerned with knowledge of facts. These are facts. One cannot demand from everyone else to adhere to facts, and at the same time ignore these.

If you would like to help, within your appreciated effort to mediate, as you've tried before in this case, then please reply to these points first that others refuse to. It would be the most helpful way to help. Otherwise we will remain at an impasse because we would continue arguing in circles. Thank you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked over all the sources mentioned and not one appears to mention anyone who is a linguist backing up this meaning. As for your points, the first point is not really legitimate. The lede is concerned with an accurate portrayal of the facts giving due weight to mainstream scholarly opinion, which your desired change would not respect. On the second point, none of the scholarly sources refer to linguists or anyone who would otherwise be considered a reliable source for the purpose of determining a word's etymology. As to your last point, fair inclusion of Arabic and Hebrew meanings is a legitimate point of contention, but that again requires that we go with what is generally agreed to be the meaning within mainstream modern scholarly debate within the relevant field. Some 19th century Biblical scholars should not be used as a source for a linguistic issue. There is, from what I understand, no generally agreed meaning save "Foundation of Shalim" with the meaning "Shalim" being the only major point of contention. It could mean "peace" or a god named Shalim or "wholeness" as several have noted. Given that there is no definitively agreed meaning we should not be favoring one meaning over another in the lede and we certainly shouldn't be inserting those for which there is little or no support in mainstream linguistic scholarly debate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered why linguistic priority should be given over a broad meaning in disregard of guidelines for the lead. Nor have you shown any comparable number of sources that isolate any other meaning for popular recognition. You simply repeated the same evasive argument made since the beginning. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what it says in WP:LEAD:

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources

For the purposes of an etymological meaning of the name "Jerusalem" the sources you have provided are not reliable and do not support putting your preferred meaning into the lede.

As for priority see WP:PLACE

If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted. . . . When considering a source in determining English usage, remember the purpose of the source.

Your proposed meaning does not meet that test as the sources presenting this as a translation do not have, as their primary purpose, offering a literal translation of the name. Sources that do have such a purpose clearly offer no support for your position.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The topic of the article is not the meaning of the word "Jerusalem" in any language, the topic of the article is the city of Jerusalem, and that is the topic that requires a definition. The "academic scholarly sources" are not scholars in the field of linguistics of ancient Semitic languages. They do not trump the actual experts that say that Abode of Peace is not the meaning of the Hebrew word. The fact is that Abode of Peace is rejected as the meaning of the word by the most qualified sources. That is the fact. We will not remain at an impasse because we are not required to get unanimous agreement. I say we consider this settled until some argument that has not already been raised is brought. nableezy - 18:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If the topic of the article was not the meaning of the word, then the meanings wouldn't be in the lede. The article would start with "Jerusalem is a city..." and leave the translations and meaning for Etymology. The reason all that information is there is because the common recognition of the meaning of the word is primary to the basic information and definition of the city. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the thread is closed, since for the fourth time, Michael has represented 'evidence' whose unreliability has been comprehensively demonstrated three times. Finis.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have assiduously been avoiding this talk page, but you guys have been making so much noise that I could hear you all the way over in my corner by Obscure 19th Century Violinists. So, in hope of strengthening Nishidani's decisive declaration, let me add my voice to the seven naysayers. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)