Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:33, 26 December 2011

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Vital article

	Jerusalem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 2, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted August 7, 2008 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Archived Talk about Jerusalem as capital of Israel may be found HERE

Template:WP1.0

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2008-05-22 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Culture section: Please add East Jerusalem institutions and history Verify : Please add reliable sources for all of the information

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

What's the problem with this edit?

Discussion copied from User_talk:Sean.hoyland about map edit reverts on this page, and continued here.

What's the problem with this edit? It shows where Jerusalem is in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, Syria doesn't claim to own Jerusalem therefore the Golan Height shouldn't be there so it's the perfect map with NPOV since it shows both israel and the west bank-- Someone35  17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the map can be viewed as claiming the entire area "from the river to the sea" as being one state. It isnt, and Jerusalem is not in Mandate Palestine. nableezy - 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What Nableezy said. However, I do agree that the street map needs replacing...but with a contemporary map. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The map used currently is up to date and properly licensed. However, using a contemporary map of some country would open a can of worms: "we want map of Palestine" from other side "No, we want map of Israel" . In no time we have demonstrations of protestors and Occupy Movement, there are tents all around and the police is using a Pepper Spray... The map claims stuff, like oh my God, people get excited ;) from other hand I am stuffed with Turkey and gravy and got myself a huge TV screen on Black Friday. Still not sure why Thanksgiving article talks about scare quotes "Pilgrims" and not a proper and NPOV compliant "Foreign Invaders". Still, I can not open a Casino, unless I move to Nevada, so probably I am not a "native"... So?... Whatever... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be unnaturally wrong...damn it. Surely it's possible, in principal, to find a map that shows Israel with a nice green line around it and the Palestinian territories and for us to put a big red dot on it vaguely where Jerusalem is ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An interesting idea, have not we tried it? My solution is to call this map "Israel + Occupied territories" instead of just "Israel", so people would not get that excited. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this one calms things down. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not even that, I see. Sheesh. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you were referring to the map that I just reverted. You changed it to "Israel" ... how do you think that would calm things down? -asad (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the previous map didn't have the West Bank, Gaza and Golan marked. This one did and placed Jerusalem on the border where it is. But I see that's not enough because the map name is Israel. Alright. Maybe I'll take Agada's lead and make a version called Israel and Occuppied Palestine. Would that solve the problem? We need a map to show where it's located, not a street map. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sean, I think from your comment you'd agree with the map I used that has all the territories marked, and can revert it again. It's become a little ridiculous and doesn't need so much tension. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that map is that it is showing East Jerusalem as a separate entity than the West Bank. It also is marking administrative districts of Israel and not the West Bank (which I guess that is why the map is called "Israel" to begin with). I know it is not a subject of discussion now, but it also does not show the international border between Syria and Israel in the Golan. It also gives the same color to the Golan Heights as it does to the West Bank and Gaza. -asad (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

All this (or the intelligible parts) belongs on the article talk page. Sean's user talk is not where content in an article is decided. nableezy - 19:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I love your sense of humor, Nab, but you didn't have a problem commenting on it before. As the situation stands today, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The map isn't meant to be a referendum on international agreement to it. It's a map of Israel and that's what it looks like. Everyone recognizes that this is Israel's map regardless of whether they agree with it. We're not here to fight that war, you know. It's current information, that's all. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered a single question about why a single edit was wrong. I have some thoughts on what you think of the situation as it stands today (for example, as it stands today East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being Palestinian territory held under Israeli occupation and illegally annexed (effectively) by Israel, and likewise the declared capital of Palestine), but again this belongs on an article talk page. Not Sean's user talk page. nableezy - 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything you say is true and it says so in the body of the article without any reserve whatsoever. The article also explains Israel's position on it, that you agree is Israel's position, which you also don't agree with. That's all fine. So if the article explains everything and explains why a map of Israel looks this way, why does the map have to do hoolahoops around everybody? It's only a map, for heaven's sake. Please try to be a little more... you know, Nab... a team player. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

Are you not interested in continuing this on the article's talk page? You keep bringing up points that could be addressed, but this is not the right place to do it. -asad (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why an encyclopedia article should present the minority view that Jerusalem is "in Israel" as opposed to having much of it in the Palestinian territories? Is there a reason why a map of Israel should be used instead of, oh, this one? And finally, is there a reason why you are so insistent on not discussing article content at, you know, the article's talk page? nableezy - 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is a very good reason. Because the map isn't about minority or majority views. It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. So a map of a country's capital goes by the country currently presiding over the city. When that changes and we reach an agreement about Jerusalem, we'll change the map. A map is a location, not a political statement. I'm also not insistent on discussing this here but I think that we'd need to also move most of the previous discussion there if we don't want to repeat ourselves. If we're all willing to agree about what parts of this discussion to move, a little better than we're able to agree about other things, that would be nice. But I don't see Sean complaining. Yet. I wouldn't. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense, of course maps are political statements. The boundaries they create are political, and the names they use are political, and the location of both is political. That is why a majority of Israeli teenagers are unable to identify the Green Line, because the makers of their text books have made the conscious political decision to remove it from the map. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some states recognize no Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, and nearly the entire world recognizes no such sovereignty over East Jerusalem. These blanket statements like is in Israel or is Israel's capital in which you present a POV, a minority one at that, as though it were a fact is part of the problem here. You think that Jerusalem is in Israel, the end. And so you think that the map in the Jerusalem article should be one of Israel. However, the view that Jerusalem is in Israel is not a fact, it isnt even a majority POV. Hell, unless you define what is "Jerusalem" it doesn't even mean anything. What "Jerusalem" is in Israel? The area west of the Green Line? Because the United Kingdom still considers that to be part of the corpus seperatum. The Temple Mount? The rest of East Jerusalem? Why is it that you do not see that you are in fact making a political statement by placing a map of Israel in an article on a place where much of what it discusses is not in Israel? East Jerusalem is not in Israel, that is what the overwhelming majority of sources say. Western Jerusalem may be, or it may not be, depending on the source. But claiming that "Jerusalem is in Israel", through text or through the use of a map, is a political statement, and I cannot believe that anybody can honestly claim otherwise. nableezy - 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish you'd be nice and not say things like "what nonsense" and then try to educate me and go off into things that have nothing to do with the map except for being forced into it to make a political statement. I think I'm trying not to do that with you and just talking about the relevance of the map. A map of Ramallah puts it into Palestinian territory because that's the jurisdiction it's under. It's not about how many people agree with that or how many don't. It's the current situation of the city and that's all. Period. This isn't about your beliefs against mine, because frankly, and believe me, I know what I think about it and I know how you feel, and neither one of us is going to change the other, so why bother? The only purpose you serve is to let off steam for yourself. Which is alright with me. But if it interferes with our being able to work together here, and it makes a mess of Misplaced Pages, then maybe you and I should meet somewhere and settle all this over a beer or cup of coffee on a beach somewhere, and we can then come back here without all the extra baggage. I'm here because I like this project and like what it stands for, even though I sometimes have opinions that don't always mesh with it. I'll respect that and I let the project be what it is because it's not about what I think. With you, I feel that your politics are the end all of everything you do here and you make little effort to understand that the project is a lot more collective. So, whatever. I wont't argue politics with you. It's not what I'm here for. And you know, Nab. I think you'd get a lot more done if you let things go and think about the whole package beyond your angst on the situation. I think you'll feel better and won't need to bring the loaded emotions into every edit. And I think we'd all be able to work together and maybe even serve as a model for being able to solve conflicts. Maybe it's too much to ask, but dammit, I know there's a person in you that understands what I'm saying. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My use of the word "nonsense" was limited to the claim that a map is not a political statement. I dont see a response to my comment on that point. If you would like to discuss my supposed angst or what you think you know about my feelings there is a place for that. It isnt here. Using a map of Israel for a place that is largely not in Israel is a political statement. It pushes a minority POV as though it were a fact. That is a violation of WP:NPOV, a core, non-negotiable, policy of this website. Ill respond to one claim you made here, that politics are the end all of everything do here and make little effort to understand that the project is a lot more collective. I dont think I have placed a map of Palestine with alt text that says Jerusalem is in Palestine in the article. I dont think I have attempted to make politics be displayed as though they were facts in the article. It is you who placed a map of Israel with alt text that Jerusalem is in Israel in an article on a place that is largely not in Israel. Kindly look in the mirror when you start pontificating about others attempting to force their politics into articles. Any further comments about me personally here will not be responded to, I have a user talk page that you are welcome to use. This is an article talk page, please remember that. nableezy - 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean. If you would have said "Look Mike, I understand what you're saying about the fact that Jerusalem is currently under Israeli jurisdiction and so that places it currently in Israel for purposes of the map, but a lot of RS sources and myself don't acknowledge Israel's sovereignty over it so we don't want to say that Jerusalem is in Israel, even if it currently is, and certainly not even in a map", then I'd say, "well, at least he understands me". But instead you're not even considering what I'm saying and rather turning it into a POV issue when I'm not stating an opinion. You want me to respond to you and I always do, but you rarely give the impression you even thought about anything I said. Now, if you remember above, I didn't do that with you. I said clearly that I understood what you're saying but the placement in the map isn't about who recognizes Israel and who doesn't. All I'm hoping for here is the same type of understanding in return and not pointed accusations as if you hold some greater fact or truth than I do because you're armed with millions of sources. And for all the RS out there, Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel. Go to East Jerusalem and ask everyone what country their ID cards say they live in and where they get their electricity and water and they'll tell you. Neither my opinion nor yours counts here as much as a reality on the ground. Based on what you're saying none of the maps of Israel are acceptable in Misplaced Pages anyway, which you must agree is stretching things a little. Take a look at other encyclopedias and notice they leave the issue of sovereignty for the text and use proper maps of the current boundaries on the ground to show places. It's not a POV issue at all. It only serves a purpose for recognizable placement. There's a limit to how much we should be splitting hairs like this and making articles look unprofessional. Having a street map of Jerusalem in that spot looking so silly should be a concern for everyone and shouldn't be turned into a political match. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I rarely give the impression that I have thought about what you said? I give that impression when I quote what you say and respond to the points? What does Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel mean? What does in Israel mean? Does it mean in the territory that Israel holds under occupation? Or does it mean the territory recognized as Israeli territory be nearly every country on the planet? This isnt about who recognizes Israel and who doesn't, and the fact that you take my comments as being in any way related makes me, well, that you havent even thought about anything I said. What does it mean for a place to be in Israel? Because much of what this article covers is a place that is outside of the boundary that separates what is in Israel and what is in the Israel-occupied territories. Like it or not, that boundary is real, and this tactic of repeating the same POV as though it were a fact that Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel does not change that. East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories. It is held under occupation by Israel. It is not in Israel, no matter how many times you repeat the line. Unless you define Israel to include the Israeli-occupied territories then East Jerusalem is not in Israel. If you cant understand why it is a political statement, a rather fringe sized one comparatively speaking, to say that Jerusalem is in Israel then I dont know what else to say. nableezy - 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You quote me and then go on to add irrelevant baggage from your political crusade to what I said. Jerusalem is effectively in Israel because it is administered by Israel and it is not yet divided, the way you want the map to show. East Jerusalem is not administered by the PA or a Palestinian government. The geographic placement of Jerusalem in Israel is appropriately relative to its administration because that's how geographic locations of cities are defined, by areas of administration. They are not defined by disputes over borders nor by the excess political explanations you add to what I said. All you say is political information that is already covered in the body of the article itself extensively. You are contaminating Misplaced Pages with your irrelevant political crusades, as you do in this article. You go around Misplaced Pages and contaminate it with excessive disparaging of Israel, armed with countless sources who disagree with its position, and now you've come to contaminate the page on Jerusalem with your comments above, which have nothing to do with the geographical location of Jerusalem relative to its administration, that the map is about.

Your irrelevant political crusade is so extremely one sided that it should cast doubt on your ability to remain neutral. You don't consider that the reason Jerusalem is divided is because the Palestinians refuse to end the conflict even though Israel concedes all the territories it captured in 1967, with mutually agreed upon adjustments, as the UN Quartet and most of the world agree to being a fair solution. You don't consider that the official reason East Jerusalem is not yet administered by the Palestinians within an independent state, is the nearly racist Palestinian demand of removing Jews from their homes because there are places in the world where Jews should not be allowed to live. You don't consider the inhumane Palesinian demands for restrictions on, and dismantlement of settlements. You don't consider their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, when they have no problem with Arab countries being recognized as Arab Muslim states by the entire world, is the reason they give for refusing to end the conflict. You don't consider that it is the violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world, prominent everywhere, that is aggravating inevitable Palestinian independence. You never openly considered that Israel is doing everything it can to overcome and correct this self-destructive violent nature in the Arab world and forge a Palestinian state. You never once noted that it is mainly to Israel's credit that the Palestinians are flourishing in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and that they may soon be able to administer an independent state there altogether.

You don't consider any of this and yet you dare come here to contaminate Wikepedia and the page on Jerusalem with your extremely one-sided political crusade against Israel, that's irrelevant to specific encyclopedia content and irrelevant to this map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant baggage? Really? Where did I say that EJ is "administered" by the PNA? And how does it being "administered" by Israel make it in Israel? How do you still not understand this? EJ is not in Israel, it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. Your imagination on Israel doing everything it can to overcome and correct this self-destructive violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world is not what interests me, but I do find it stunningly hilarious that you make that statement and at the same time say that I am on a political crusade, when it is you claiming occupied territory as being in Israel and demanding that the language of the occupier be imposed upon the land of the occupied. The use of the word crusade is also quite charming, as its original use was that of European invaders slaughtering Arab Muslims in Jerusalem. That you then call a demand for the dismantlement of illegal Jewish only colonies in occupied territory nearly racist and inhumane is likewise extremely charming. That you then invent that Israel has agreed to withdraw from the occupied territories with "mutually agreed upon adjustments" is not so much charming as it is a complete fabrication. You have to understand something; I am not interested in the absurd claims of a settler. I am interested in what the sources say, and they say that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory and that it is not in Israel. Kindly leave your ranting for your blog, I have no intention of letting you draw me into an argument over whatever nonsense comes out of your fingers. I dont care what you think about the violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world, or the almost racist and inhumane Palestinian demands, or what you think is a political crusade. Kindly refrain from such comments in the future. This is not a forum or your personal blog, this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article. I thank you in advance. As far as the one thing worth responding to in your comment, the geographical location of Jerusalem is straddling the Green Line, which separates what is in Israel and what is in the Palestinian territories. This really is not that difficult to understand. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What is difficult to understand about a city's geographical location being relative to its administrative area? Why must you wave your select RS sources, crafted to wage a political crusade, on this poor map that has nothing to do with the politics? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, the geographical location is in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. You seem to want to ignore that a large portion of the city is in the occupied Palestinian territories and reduce the issue to it simply being in Israel. That you still cannot understand that this is in fact highly political leaves me baffled. nableezy - 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the word 'political crusade' several times to describe an insistence that the legal situation as delineated in RS be duly represented is a WP:AGF violation, and a form of attack. Editors are neutral in so far as they cleave honesty to what the best RS say of any situation, which is that the status of Jerusalem in international law is as Nableezy says it is. So, lay off the attack language please.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not attack language. It is a proper statement on an edit revert and the reasons an editor gives for it. A million RS's are irrelevant to the revert on the map. In this case, and many others, they are merely weapons for a political crusade. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is, especially given the meaning of the word crusade and how that word is viewed among Arabs, despite our violent culture. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. I drew Batman comics for nearly two decades and had the words "Caped Crusader" in them countless times. I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the term, including Arabs. I use it here in the context of the word itself, not the "Crusades". It is you who insists on twisting everything in these discussions to wage political battles specifically intended to disparage Israel. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. One cannot use that word in these contexts without conjuring up the use of the word endorsed by George Bush in early 2003. This is a matter of linguistic and cultural tact. Words innocent in our youth take on colour as history alters them. You cannot use 'a final solution' for a detective novel of Conan Doyle's without conjuring up Die Endlösung. And, for the nth time, please stop, by your use of provocative caricature of your interlocutors' views, trying to turn arguments you disagree with into badfaith innuendoes about those who make them, which is what your gross, and indeed reportable, negative characterizations of 'Arabs' and 'Palestinians' amount to. It does not work on wikipedia, except if those who read these remarks turn them inside out to look at the attitude projected, as through a glass, darkly.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have thought of all that before you brought "'colonizers', 'thieves', 'under belligerent occupation'. These are the Palestinian POV-equivalents of 'Judea and Samaria'" into the fray. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

under belligerent occupation is not a Palestinian POV. nableezy - 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really now, Nableezy. No need to cast aspersions on Nishidani's perceptive judgement based on "reliable source". If he believes that "Judea and Samaria" means 'colonizers' and 'thieves', then what's a pinch of 'under belligerent occupation' between friends? Maybe we should let that one slide. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy is right, and I was wrong. 'Under belligerent occupation' is the technical term in international law. Again, could I ask you to desist from violently distorting what other people say, apparently to create an image of ideological fixation that is not there. I used the terms 'colonizers', 'thieves' to describe the attitudes frequently found among Palestinians, and their supporters. Noting this does not mean I believe. My beliefs have nothing intrinsically to do with the description of one POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You can ask all you want but I will not stop telling the truth about what Nableezy and yourself are doing here. And please don't try to pretend to be. Your lopsided arguments register an extreme bias with every word you write. If you can't be honest with us about how you brought that statement into the conversation, then you're also not being honest with yourself and the credibility of everything you say becomes even more suspect. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And would you like the favor of telling the truth about what you are doing here? The words propaganda, hasbara, distort, and more than a few others come to mind. nableezy - 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats quite enough. Your persistence in engaging in such histrionics as calling a wish for an encyclopedia article to be something other than a propaganda piece by using reliable sources that make clear that EJ is not in Israel and is in the occupied Palestinian territories to be a political crusade is becoming more and more tiring by the minute. This is a talk page for an encyclopedia article, an article that will follow reliable sources. You are not free to disregard those sources in an attempt to wage the political crusade of claiming occupied territory as being in Israel. The sources are clear on this point, and so to will the article. Of the two of us, only one has pushed into the article their personal political view. Of the two of us, only one of us is disregarding the sources. Of the two of us, only one of us is continuing in a political crusade. Ill let you guess which one, but with a hint. It isnt me. nableezy - 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your sources and their purpose are an irrelevant political tool. Their political nature has nothing to do with the geographical location of a city relative to the administrative area it's governed under for purposes of a map. And please do me a favor by not being so presumptuous that you believe I need education from you on encyclopedia content. I'll not get into the cleanups I've had to make after you lately. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You say my sources are a political tool, an irrelevant one even, and then say that geographical location of a city relative to the administrative area it's governed under for purposes of a map as though that sentence is not itself political. You still have not understood the actual issue. Saying that Jerusalem is in Israel and having a map that shows Jerusalem as being in Israel, if Jerusalem includes East Jerusalem, is a political statement. Nearly every competent party on the planet agrees that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. A thousand sources can be brought that says that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. Yet you feel somehow qualified to be so presumptuous as to completely disregard all those sources as an irrelevant political tool when you are performing an overtly political act, an act that reduces an encyclopedia article into a propaganda piece, that aligns this encyclopedia with claims that have been widely condemned as violations of international law. This encyclopedia is not a production of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and you do not get to shove aside sources because they contradict the position you would like the encyclopedia to take. All this effort to twist the language by saying things like relative to the administrative area it's governed under as though that phrase means something betrays the fact that you are unable to respond to the well-established fact that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. It is held under military occupation by Israel. Israel has applied its civil law to that territory, in an act ruled null and void by the UN Security Council and held to be a violation of international law, but it remains occupied Palestinian territory. East Jerusalem is not in Israel, it is in the Israeli-occupied territories. Those are not the same thing, and Misplaced Pages will not be portraying extreme minority claims as though they were fact in its articles. Yes, Israel controls, or administers East Jerusalem. That does not mean East Jerusalem is in Israel. You can continue to feel free to claim that the sources that make this point crystal clear are irrelevant, but on Misplaced Pages that claim is what is irrelevant. The sources are what counts, not your personal wish to see this article take your personal political opinions and portray them as fact. nableezy - 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do I keep hearing a haughtiness in your excuses? "On Misplaced Pages that claim is what is irrelevant." Oh dear. Did someone make you the spokesman for Misplaced Pages and forgot to tell everyone? You've never heard of an RS source that doesn't apply to some cases? And with this you claim to be spokesman for the project? Can we please have a vote on that before you rewrite the whole encyclopedia? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing with your ignoring of the issue. It is really quite charming. I say something backed by thousands of sources, you say it is irrelevant political baggage. And then you make the expansionist claim that Jerusalem is in Israel, and then make the encyclopedia endorse your unsupported claim. My claim to be spokesman for the project? If you want to argue to the wider community that every source that makes clear that your expansionist views that you have attempted to force in to this article have equal footing with countless scholarly sources you can try that. Id very much enjoy seeing how the wider community acts when your extreme minority POV-pushing campaign is contrasted with countless sources. nableezy - 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sort of at a loss as to where to respond, but I mostly agree with what Nableezy said with regards to the reasoning as to why the map as you reverted it to wouldn't work. Here is what I think are the problems with the map you are proposing:

-It shows all the administrative districts of Israel, thus implying we are looking at a map of Israel, not the Occupied Territories.

-It gives a different shade of color to Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem than that of the West Bank. Keep in mind, no country recognizes Israel's annexation of land east of the "green" line.

-It denotes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights with the same color although the West Bank and Gaza Strip are internationally recognized as being an occupied territory different than that of occupied, sovereign, Syrian territory.

-Though without real relation to the subject at hand here, there is no solid-lined border between Israel and the Golan Heights. One could interpret the map as if the Golan Heights do not belong to any country, although it is, nearly without exception, considered to be Occupied-Syrian Territory.

Given the disputed nature of the different political implications of West Jerusalem vs East Jerusalem, I think the map is fine showing the entire region of Israel or historic Palestine. Though I think it would be better if more of the Levant region itself could be displayed. -asad (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That map is the only reasonable map for this use because for all intents and purposes, Jerusalem's physical location is in Israeli jurisdiction. Everything you say above is addressed in the text of the article and doesn't have to be slapped on this map. But I'm not holding out for some common sense anymore. I'm trying to solve the problem with a terrain map File:Dead Sea terrain location map.jpg that I copied from another one and changed the name so it doesn't have Israel in it, for crying out loud. Then everyone will be happy as WP enters a yet higher level of buffoonery. The map isn't yet working with the infobox template. I left a message with the user who created it and hope to get some help soon. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does Jerusalem's physical location is in Israeli jurisdiction mean? Does it mean that Israel controls all of Jerusalem? Because that doesnt mean that it is in Israel. There are any number of solutions for this, the most obvious being one that shows the Green Line and the map alt text and caption say that Jerusalem is in Israel and Palestinian territories. nableezy - 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It means just what it says. It does not need your excessive interpretations that are irrelevant to what I said. It does not need your political crusade to explain it, because it explains itself perfectly by itself. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that wasnt an answer. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people just love to play "Uh no, not in Israel" game, by Jupiter's cock. I think this is not important, Jerusalem is somewhere there between the Dead Sea and Mediterranean Sea in Southern Levant. We have coordinates up there on the article page. Click and use your favorite map provider. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have coordinates and of course they say Jerusalem is in Israel via the ISO 3166-2 region code being set to IL. Funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it would make sense either: (a) to use both "IL" and "PS" ISO 3166-2 region codes or (b) to use none, if other editors do not object. If anyone could craft IL/PS common map, it would be also welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So do everyone agree about Michael's map? I guess that now Nableezy and asad won't have any excuses left against making this article better...-- Someone35  15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You would be well-advised to refrain from making such mendacious attacks on others. nableezy - 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It is silly that we have to resort to the "my way or the highway" bit. No compelling arguments have been made to my suggestions for map. We are talking about Jerusalem, the political entity, not the geographic entity. What we need is something like this, but with the colors changed to reflect both Israel and the West Bank as being highlighted. -asad (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote for no ISO region code. I wonder if there is a large scale map of the ME we could use that would just show roughly where it is on this planet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A map with of Israel and the Palestinian territories with the Green Line prominently displayed and Jerusalem shown as straddling that boundary would be, in my opinion, the best option. I can work on creating such a map if I cant find one (probably modeled on this). Who would object to that and why? nableezy - 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you planning on including with it? The wall route? The Palestinian Authority controlled areas? -asad (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither, a map of Israel and oPt with the Green Line, and just the Green Line. nableezy - 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe closer to this with the Golan removed and much of the map wiped. nableezy - 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with this one? Or the borderless one? You don't need to create new maps, there are already existing maps that are OK.-- Someone35  17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is too much unnecessary detail in that map for our purposes here, and for somebody not aware of all the issues here it may be difficult to locate Jerusalem, which is the point of the map. nableezy - 17:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you can circle it in red color so it will be notable or paint the name "Jerusalem" in red or another prominent color, I guess you have better things to do than making maps of the Middle East-- Someone35  18:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think an obvious problem with that map is that bits of the West Bank are coloured the same colour as Israel, which is misleading. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot put any map we agree on into that infobox because we specifically need a "location map" with the proper coordinate data that will allow it to place the word "Jerusalem" with red dot in the exact place. That's how this template works, it only accepts "location maps". I'm in a discussion with the editor who creates some of them and hope to have a solution from him soon. We also need to separate some issues. The coordinates ISO are a function of the template but have nothing to do with the map. It's an issue that needs to be taken care of separately. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

That isnt true. We can use whatever image we want for a map, it does not need to be a pushpin map. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I saw that afterwards. But not all images work there. The map maker said some sizes don't work. I don't know about that but not all maps I tried showed up without errors. I'm suggesting the one I've just placed. I think the page looks good like this and avoids the problem altogether. If someone want to know about borders, they can take the coordinates to any other map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You took a unilateral decision to put the map you thought was best despite fierce objection and current discussion here with no consensus. You sure are not making friends here with your bull-headed approach to editing and your political ranting and raving. -asad (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fierce objection to this map? Look Asad. I'm not here to rant but I'll try to stop the politicization being pushed here. What's your problem with the map? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

-asad (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was in relation to this map. But alright. In less than 20 minutes I'll replace it with a version of the one you like after modifications based on your request. I'm easy when you get to know me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a version of that map that I modified by your comments and for a little nicer aesthetics, the first one seemed too loud: File:Central-IL WB Gaza map.png

Because you're the only one who objected to the other one and wanted this one, I'll wait for you to approve it before replacing what's there. If there's anything you want changed, let me know. I'll do it immediately and upload another version. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine, except there is a weird black line close to where it says "Tul Karem". There are a lot of Israeli costal cities that are missing. Is there a reason for that? -asad (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the cities but that's how the other map was. I can add them in and remove the black line that was also there. Hang on. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why use a map with so much information that's not relevant to this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive said what I think should be the map, Just a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories with Jerusalem shown straddling the Green Line. I havent seen a real objection to that. Ill not count the but, but, but it is in Israel as a real objection. nableezy - 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You are purposely misrepresenting and lying about what I said, which was only in context of administration that a city is defined by. If you had another idea, then go work it out with Asad who said he agrees with you and now you say you don't agree with the map he wanted. It would be nice if you guys could get your story together considering you're never the ones to improve anything here. All you do is remove, destroy, disparage and cause commotion. And now you say my comments are hypocritical and asinine. I see you want to escalate an already impossible chaos that you are causing. I don't think that's what we're here for but if these are the terms of your participation in this project, then I think WP has ways to deal with editors like you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt true, and any person can examine this talk page and see for themselves. You said above that It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. And I am escalating? I am the one filling the talk page with irrelevant ranting about the self-destructive violent nature of the Arabs, I am the one calling all those that oppose the POV push of claiming occupied territory as Israel's disrupting Misplaced Pages with their political battles, I am the one who could care less about the encyclopedia? Because I am the one who, shock and horror, actually wishes to have an encyclopedia article reflect reliable sources and not the expansionist goals of a few editors? Yes, hypocritical and asinine. And if you keep it up you may well see how Misplaced Pages deals with editors like you. nableezy - 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of hell freezing over, I agree with Nableezy. Use one of those yellowish maps that shows Jerusalem straddling the green line without all the unnecessary information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I figured you would agree with me. Not sure if that is more surprising than you actually doing so. nableezy - 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Maps of locations of municipalities refer to administrative area not territorial claims or disputes. This is not intended to be a map about the territory, rather a map showing the location of the city of Jerusalem as an administered municipality, which is what cities are. It shouldn't look like it's divided into two parts to suggest E Jerusalem is administered by an entity in the West Bank. There are no reliable sources to support such a map that Nableezy wants. The map that's there now is wrong. We had a good one but Nableezy and friends are all in a huff about the territory. That's not what this map is about. If he wants to add a special map in the body of the article that tells the territorial division, fine. But it shouldn't be in the infobox. There are no such maps anyway, btw, because most maps for such use rely on administrative areas. You can find a special map about the 49 armistice line, and can add it into the body of the article to tell the story, but it's not appropriate for this infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no. nableezy - 22:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So, does anyone have an objection to this map? --MichaelNetzer (talk 23:42, 1 December 2011‎ (UTC)

A dot or star or something on the left map would be good I think, but otherwise this looks like the correct map to use for this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I object. There are several problems with that map. For one, it places a border between Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Jordan, but no border between Israel and Syria (red is a border in that map) and instead places a border between Syria and the Golan. It also separates Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. nableezy - 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How does it separate Jerusalem from WB? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The most prominent boundary on the map in the area of Jerusalem is the barrier route, not the Green Line, and with the coloring and the inclusion of the barrier route it appears that all of Jerusalem, in fact Greater Jerusalem is within Israel. I'll try to work on a map tonight, it will be relatively close to the one had been in the article but with most of the rest of the map blanked. Maybe keep a few cities for reference, Im thinking Nablus, Hebron, Bethlehem, Tel Aviv and maybe Beersheba. But could you please stop unilaterally changing the map? I have restrained myself from reverting you, but you dont have any consensus for your change. Stop doing this. nableezy - 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the map on the page helps everyone understand the visualization. And it's only a map that's easily changed. I don't think it should bother anyone and if it does they can revert, it's not a big deal. I'll try to refrain if it bothers you, but really... --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No it doesnt, you can link to a map here. In fact, that is what everybody except for you has been doing. So, please self-revert until we can establish a consensus on what map to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 December 2011

It's not just about seeing the map in its image file. In this case the infobox is so loaded with detail that seeing the map in it helps discern its suitability. Two other editors have approved it and your objection is not based on anything relevant to the map. This map is supported by the best RSs regarding the administrative areas it represents. Your demand for old borders, regardless of how many RSs you wave on it, is misplaced with regards to what this map needs to show. Unless you make a more relevant case for changing it, we will not allow you to continue strong-arming the map to push a political view that doesn't belong on it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You dont get to force your own views into the article. Since you refuse to revert I will, since I dont accept your attempt to strong-arm in your views into this article. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to self-revert. The new map is an improvement. More concise, without unneeded details. Thank you for investing your time into it, Mike. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then Ill revert. Thank you Agada for providing us, once again, with your usual quality of commentary. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead reads:-

Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it. Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital". The international community has rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation

Any map should reflect the fact that a line runs through the city, reflecting distinct legal POVs concerning its disputed status to the East. The box is an info box, not a disinfo box. That map-making cannot avoid the politicisation of the way a territory is perceived is an acquired truism of the speciialized discipline of cartography. See generally Denis Wood, with John Fels, John and John Krygier, Rethinking the power of maps, Guilford Press, 2010. There's a considerable literature on precisely this, which anyone unbowed by the weight of prejudice can google and access. There shouldn't be any fuss over this. It is obvious that maps are not 'neutral'. This is true the world over. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Golan territory is identified by the yellow color as not being the same as the white. The red border is the effective present border. It doesn't mean it's legal or recognized. It's just the present border. When someone tours the area, they don't find a border between Israel and the Golan but they come to the border between Golan and Syria. The line around Jerusalem is an administrative demarcation. The city is under civilian admin while WB is under a military one. This is the relevant information of the reality on the ground and that's what the map shows. I understand what you're saying but I don't see how you can deny this information. It's more important for the sake of the map than the territorial dispute which is a separate issue, and covered extensively in the article. There are no RS sources that would say this map shows something incorrect. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. The Purple Line is not the "effective present border", it is what separates Syrian controlled territory and Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. Im not getting into this with you here, it isnt relevant and I dont feel like pounding my head against a wall for the next few hours. And as a matter of fact several sources will say that display is incorrect. Among them the United Nations, the United States and any number of other sources. nableezy - 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's compromise and call it "the border that separates Syrian controlled territory from Israeli-occupied Syrian territory". But there is no reliable source on Earth that will say what this map represents is incorrect. It might not represent something else, but what it represents is correct. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Purple Line is not a border, and the issue remains that what appears to be an international border is placed within Syrian territory but not between Syria and Israel. The "border" between Israel and Syria is the 1923 border agreed to by Britain and France. The map you are using shows Syrian territory as being Israeli territory. That isnt much better than showing Palestinian territory as being Israeli territory, and I cant believe I have to repeat this but for a different occupied territory. nableezy - 04:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion is irrelevant to the article in that some editors want to turn this map into a referendum on the entire IP conflict. But saying the political issues are covered in body of the article and don't need to be in the map, goes in one ear and out the other. They are not listening to anyone and they certainly don't seem interested in collaboration. They're here to fight a war on the pages of Misplaced Pages and this map is a perfect example of it. Asad thought it was more important to load the map with irrelevant politics than it is to just show where it is on the terrain. This is the problem with editors coming for the expressed purpose of disrupting Misplaced Pages with their political battles. They don't listen, they don't discuss with any concern, and they could care less about the encyclopedia. They 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. That's why we're using a map with so much irrelevant information. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Says the person claiming occupied Palestinian territory is in Israel, and doing so in an article no less. Political battles may ass, look in the mirror. Ill put my record, or Nishidani's, up against your any day and we can see who is building and who is disrupting. But once again, this is an article talk page. Kindly stop making these hypocritical and truly asinine comments. nableezy - 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said any territory is in Israel, if you didn't notice. Of course, you wouldn't notice that I only talked about the administration of a city, because you're too busy fighting a war for Palestine instead of improving the encyclopedia. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. You used a map that placed the city in Israel, that had alt text that said Jerusalem is located in Israel, and said on this talk page that It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. You really should reconsider your proclivity for making things up, especially if you are going to contradict yourself in the future. It is much wiser to ensure that you are being truthful to begin with, that way it is not as hard to keep your story straight. nableezy - 13:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A municipality is defined by its area of administration. Jerusalem is a municipality, a city. Thus Jerusalem's placement on the map reflects its area of administration, not a border dispute that has no consequence on the administration of the city. Israel takes responsibility for all of the residents of Jerusalem and administers their needs. When that changes and the municipality is divided into two administrative areas, then we can discuss a suitable geographical representation of Jerusalem. You never once responded to my saying this as if nothing I say counts except your passionate war filter about occupied territories. This is not what collaboration is about. It's not what discussion and exchange of ideas are about. You are expected to be considerate of another editors argument, but you know no such thing. You should try to learn from me what it is to be considerate and attentive. I'm the one who spent hours making that map look presentable in order to appease Asad's political hunger that you also crave. When the day comes that you start showing some respect and collaborative spirit, then we can put these disputes behind us. Until then, if you choose war, then you'll have it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You still do not get it. You made an encyclopedia article say that occupied Palestinian territory is in Israel. The geographic location of Jerusalem is in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If you would like me to be considerate, you might want to reconsider the ridiculous rants you have filled this talk page with. I am not the one discussing an Israeli compulsion for dominance over the natives and their land, a colonial enterprise that seeks to subjugate and control, or any other POV that I may or may not hold. You are the one doing this. I have responded to you several times, and each times you brush aside that response and say something like RSs are an irrelevant political tool or the geographic location is in Israel without once considering that your overtly political campaign compromises the integrity of the article by allowing minority claims to be presented as objective truth and trampling over well-established facts. Again, this is an article talk page. I dont want to discuss your personal views, they dont interest me. I dont edit Misplaced Pages to read the views of some settler, if I wanted to do that I would ask you to start a blog. This is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. And those sources say, very clearly, that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. That Israel controls (occupies is the correct word) East Jerusalem does not make East Jerusalem in Israel. You are the one performing overtly political actions in article space, and then you accuse those of us who call you on your expansionist hasbara campaign to be engaged in a political battle. Yeah, right. Kindly desist with these charges. If you do not I will do what I have to to ensure that we no longer have to read such hypocrisy. nableezy - 14:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you accuse me falsely. Its placement in Israel is not one of territorial dispute. The map I used is with Israel's administration is the best one because the administration of a city is what defines it. Not disputes over its territory. That is a majority RS view about municipalities. The territorial disputes are covered in the article. Your sources about territory are irrelevant to the map. Your distorting what I say, as if to mean that I don't recognize the territorial dispute is disingenuous and misleading, and insidious. You can keep talking as if you only know how to talk to yourself. I will take every opportunity to show how you're misrepresenting my statements to mean something they don't intend, in order to continue waging your war here armed with irrelevant sources to this map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your own words are clear, and these attempts to change those clear words into something else is a familiar tactic but not an effective one. I dont care about what you recognize, and I have made no comment on what you recognize, only what you have put into an encyclopedia article. You still dont get the point. No matter who controls or occupies East Jerusalem, its location is in the oPt, and claiming that it is in Israel because Israel administers the city is about a rank a POV push as I have seen in some time. nableezy - 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like in the 30s people said that Jerusalem was in Great Britain and in the 19th century people said it was in the Ottoman Empire because they ruled it, it is now in Israel since the Israeli taxpayer's money goes to social security for Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem as well as to Jews in Western Jerusalem and since all the residents of Eastern Jerusalem have Israeli passports-- Someone35  19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that Jerusalem was in Great Britain, and Jerusalem was in the Ottoman Empire. It was not "Ottoman-occupied" or whatever term you want to claim would be equivalent to the current status. And no, residents of East Jerusalem do not have Israeli passports, they have the status of permanent resident, not citizens. But that is irrelevant, East Jerusalem is considered to be, by nearly the entire world, in the occupied Palestinian territories, not in Israel. Your belief does not trump the sources, and the sources are clear on this point. nableezy - 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say the Ottoman Empire wasn't an occupier of Jerusalem? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The term belligerent occupation has a specific meaning, and the transformation from the idea of a right of conquest to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force as a principle of international law took place around WW I. If you are actually interested in this, I suggest a reading of The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by Susan Korman. nableezy - 04:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No one said Belligerent occupation or attempted to draw a distinction. All that was said was: "it was in the Ottoman Empire because they ruled it" and you extrapolated a distinction between types of conquest (by right or by belligerence) automatically to isolate Israel's "belligerence", when Jerusalem was for all intents and purposes occupied by the Ottoman Empire. The terms don't change the reality. This is the concern I've raised about every dispute with you being dragged into this area when it's not relevant to specific issues. BTW, The Ottoman conquest would have been considered belligerent had it occurred after WW1. The only reason for inventing the distinction was to diminish from the severity of Arab conquest of another Arab country. Hardly a good case for the distinction you make. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about now? I said that it was in the Ottoman Empire too, but there isnt an equivalence between being in the Ottoman Empire and being in Israel, because sources say that Palestine was in the Ottoman Empire. And the Turks arent exactly Arab, so your rather silly attempt at inventing a reason for this distinction fails. The occupation has a specific meaning, dont blame me if you dont understand that. It doesnt apply to the Ottomans, sorry to burst your bubble. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy do you like your pizza with olives or with mushrooms?-- Someone35  06:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? nableezy - 06:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Map options

Does anybody object to this map and if so why? The base for that map is the CIA World Factbook map of Israel. I made some modifications, namely removing a number of cities, modifying the color of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and added Nablus and Hebron. I also changed the color of the dot for Jerusalem from black to red. nableezy - 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like giving Israel a white color and the West Bank more of a color similar to Jordan and Egypt seems to imply it is a map of Israel. I think Israel and the PTs should be more of a similar color that differs from that of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. -asad (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What colors did you have in mind? Personally I think this scheme is pretty good, it shows Israel as one, the oPt as another, and the surrounding states as another, with that one being duller. nableezy - 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If Israel is white, I think it might be better if the PTs are a greyish color, therefore to associate the lighter colors with content at hand (the location of Jerusalem), and the yellowish colors being foreign countries. -asad (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with this one is that you erased Tel Aviv and kept Ashkelon on the map, yet Tel Aviv is a much bigger and more important city than Ashkelon so if you can replace Ashkelon's location with Tel Aviv's location that'll be good, but I still prefer this one because it shows Jerusalem's location near important places such as Ben Gurion airport and the expansion of the settlements in the west bank and the route of the separation barrier which can be useful for readers-- Someone35  17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please dont modify your comment after it has been responded to. As far as what you wrote here, most of that is not relevant to this article. We dont need to include all the settlements, or the wall, or most anything else. nableezy - 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, Ill do that. nableezy - 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Gaza City would be good to add as well, considering how big it is. -asad (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this map is fine. I liked that the other map had a blowup of the city and nearby area though. Tel Aviv rather than Ashkelon makes sense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I uploaded a new version of the map. Tel Aviv has replaced Ashkelon, I also remove Eilat and added Gaza. I also lightened the color for the Palestinian territories to give it more of a contrast with the other countries on the map. Objections to the new one? For reference, the first version is this and the new one (for now this link will work) this nableezy - 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The urge to nitpick is strong, but frankly I don't care enough. Looks fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The latest one looks great. Thanks for doing that Nableezy. No objections here. -asad (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel now looks like other countries, maybe you can highlight it as well? I mean make it in light blue or something so there will be contrast between it and the west bank-- Someone35  07:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean, the color of Israel did not change in the new map. nableezy - 17:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean that it now looks like the west bank is highlighted and Israel looks more like the countries around it, so if you painted the west bank with yellow and you want to make a contrast between the two maps then paint Israel with the opposite color which is blue-- Someone35  18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so. The difference between Israel and the surronding countries is about the same as the difference between Palestinian territories and the surrounding countries. Making Israel a shade of blue will look bad in my opinion. nableezy - 18:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with Nableezy's latest map version. --Dailycare (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to this map:

• This is not a location map for Jerusalem. It's a map of Israel and vicinity, which is an overkill for what's needed here.
• Its a vertical map which means it will take up a major portion of the infobox and push important information further down. Horizontal location maps, such as the one that was there before Nableezy removed it, are devised to solve this problem on these infoboxes.
• The map is loaded with political innuendo. It's alright to use a map like this to clarify a territorial political dispute but general location maps are not meant to serve such a purpose. The map does not represent the reality on the ground in the region relative to continuous administrative areas. The coloring of the Golan Heights makes it appear there is a border between them and Israel (the small text explaining "Israeli occupation" is lost in the first impression it makes). There is no representation of all of Jerusalem being currently in one administrative area.

It's not proper to use this map to push a political statement. It is meant to be a location map for a municipality and it should serve that purpose alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is general agreement that this map is fine. You are now edit-warring over the map. If you continue doing so I will ask that you be restricted from continuing your disruptive actions. As there is an apparent consensus for this new map I am replacing the one in the article with this one. As far as your last comment, the map you reverted to in the article is pushing a political statement, namely that the Golan and that EJ is in Israel. They arent, and your repeated attempts to push this fringe POV as fact in the article violates several policies, most notably WP:NPOV. nableezy - 20:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This location map should not be the biggest object on the info box. There is no reason for such a large map of Israel to show Jerusalem's location, which disrupts the information in the box. That's why horizontal maps were made. This is not an issue of consensus, it's a matter of encyclopedic style. If anyone is being disruptive here it's yourself, who's trying to push a political statement into the map and disrupting the information. These location maps are used extensively in Misplaced Pages. They do not make a political statement but rather denote administrative areas on the ground, which are not fringe POVs. Your map belongs somewhere else, maybe. Like in a section about land disputes. But it is not a location map and it's unsuitable for use in the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is one unsupported assertion after another. You are in fact trying to push a political statement into the infobox, the problem with that is that the political statement you wish to push in is a fringe minority one. But to satisfy the one concern of your that might have some merit, I have uploaded a new version of the map. This map is cropped to alleviate your concern about the map being to large. The new one is this (the old one this). A byproduct of this is that the cities of Nazareth and Haifa no longer appear, nor do the Golan Heights or the border with Lebanon. I think that should do it. Unless of course you want to continue arguing that claiming occupied Palestinian or Syrian territory is Israeli territory is not a political statement. But you are not the final arbiter of what map should be used. There is general agreement that the map should show Jerusalem straddling the Green Line, and there is general agreement that this map is fine for the infobox. You can continue arguing to your hearts content, but you cannot filibuster any progress and you cannot continue edit-warring over the map. nableezy - 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A few editors agreement over the weekend cannot override a misrepresentation of the location of Jerusalem as an administrative municipality. Your map is wrong because it gives the impression that a border cuts through Jerusalem and that E Jerusalem is under West Bank administration. This is not the case and there are no reliable sources to support it. It is also still too large for the infobox and carries too much irrelevant information. It introduces an irrelevant a political statement that is already covered in the text and should be stated elsewhere, not in a location map. This map remains the best map for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense. There is no misrepresentation, Jerusalem is in fact cut in half by a boundary, and that boundary is what separates Israel and the Palestinian territories. Thousands of reliable sources support that, and you cannot continue claiming that your fringe POV that Jerusalem is "in Israel" override those sources. And yes, consensus does override your fringe POV. Yjere is no irrelevant information in the map, none at all. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, what's the problem with this map? IMO it is the best map possible. Also notice that the current map looks like Jerusalem is in the West Bank (yellow is more prominent than white) and it's not. -- Someone35  14:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A number of people agree that this map has too much unnecessary detail. The map you removed did not show that Jerusalem is in the West Bank, it showed it split, right down the middle in both the dot and the word Jerusalem, between Israel and the West Bank by the Green Line. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That map is a little better as far as clarifying the municipal administrative location, but it's too large and carries too much unnecessary information for what this infobox needs. This map remains the best map for this use. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on what is best remains unsupported. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 5 people that have agreed that this map should be used in the infobox. Two apparently disagree, with one of those making absurd claims that a map that shows Jerusalem and the Golan as being in Israel is not a political statement and the other claiming that the map shows Jerusalem as being in the West Bank, which it does not do. Can somebody explain to me why two editors are allowed to disregard that there is in fact a general agreement on using this map in the infobox? nableezy - 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone35, that map has three major issues that I can see at a glance, namely: first, it presents bits of the WB with the same colour as Israel, which creates an impression those areas would be Israeli. Second, it presents the apartheid wall as a border-line entity, and finally it contains too much detail overall. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Then what the problem with Michael's map? It doesn't have any of the problems you mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 December 2011‎ (UTC)

No, it has many more problems, problems that have been discussed rather extensively above. nableezy - 06:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I object. There are several problems with that map. For one, it places a border between Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Jordan, but no border between Israel and Syria (red is a border in that map) and instead places a border between Syria and the Golan. It also separates Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.

— nableezy - 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC) copied by AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC), for clarity

Comment: The main problem with Nableezy's map as I see it is that it doesn't actually show Jerusalem's location, and the location chosen for the dot is arbitrary. In other words, the map is not accurate. In addition, it does not include the borders of Jerusalem which are included in our location maps, and are especially relevant for the city of Jerusalem. The fact that it's a vertical map also doesn't help. Since I made the alternative map being proposed (more or less), if Nableezy can list a series of issues in points, I will try to address them. —Ynhockey 09:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand, the position of the dot is arbitrary? It is the same position used in the CIA World Fact Book map. Most pushpin maps used do not include city borders, so I dont see how that is a valid complaint. If you want a list of problems with the maps you made, sure. 1. The Green Line is much less prominent than other boundaries such as the barrier route. 2. There is an international border drawn within Syrian territory but not one between Israel and Syria. 3. Gaza and the West Bank are different colors. 4. An international border is placed between Israel and Gaza but not between Israel and the West Bank. 5. The Golan and the West Bank are the same color where their status is different. 6. The difference in color between Israel and the West Bank is too small. 7. There are areas east of the Green Line with the same color as Israel, presumably because they are west of the barrier route. nableezy - 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been saying this all along. The map maybe represents a political territorial dispute but not the location of the municipality of Jerusalem, nor does it reflect the continuous administrative area it covers. There is no border dividing Jerusalem between two districts as the map shows. It's also painfully large for use in the infobx and has too many unnecessary details. But notice after countless efforts to explain this, Nableezy responds as if nothing of substance was said and continues with his territorial political arguments. There's a serious problem of attitude here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You actually have not been saying that at all. You still have not said what unnecessary details are in the map, besides the rather funny belief that including the fact that EJ is in the Palestinian territories is an unnecessary detail. nableezy - 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not been reading attentively nor listening, and you're still being evasive and disruptive. I've said exactly that throughout the discussion. In file:Jerusalem1map.png, East Jerusalem is marked in Palestinian territory by the line running through the city, your sarcasm about it being funny is more of your evasive and disruptive attitude. Your map shows unnecessary details such as the entire West Bank, Jordan, and other towns which make it a map of central Israel and not a location map of Jerusalem. It is also a map about the territorial political dispute and belongs somewhere else. Not in a map showing the location of a municipality. Until you become a little more collaborative and show that you consider what's being said, so as to make speaking with you worthwhile, I'll not be wasting my time explaining myself again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you really should reconsider your proclivity for making things up. You, nor anybody else, has, prior to Yn's comment, said that the location of the Jerusalem as shown on that map is inaccurate. That is the lone issue that Yn raises that has any validity, and I will be asking others to see if they agree with him. nableezy - 15:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

So far number of maps were considered:

• Where is Jerusalem?
• Dead Sea terrain location map
• Ashdod Israel map
• West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements)
• Central-IL WB Gaza map
• Jerusalem map Green Line
• An improved version of that map
• Jerusalem1map
• Jerusalem terrain location map
• Jerusalem location with amended border and color issues
• Jerusalem location monotone1
• Jerusalem location monotone2
• Jerusalem location monotone3
• Jerusalem location new color

It appears that the hell refuses to freeze over and no new common ground was found. Consensus is not synonymous with unanimous decision and we could start banning editors who disagree, but in meanwhile, I'm going to implement WP:BRD guideline and revert to long standing version. And to avoid a pepper spray contamination I suggest establishing consensus first - editing later approach. And for people interested in infobox image discussions, see Talk:Pregnancy#RfC:_Which_photo_should_we_use_in_the_lead.3F recently closed by User:Jimbo Wales... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You didnt revert a bold edit, you reverted an edit that had consensus. Considering your past I would have hoped you would not do that anymore. nableezy - 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view the root of the problem was that editing started before consensus was established, with several bold changes, each change objected by some of discussing editors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats so nice for your view. What I see is that you reverted an edit that have 5 people supporting and 2 opposing. nableezy - 15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're starting from scratch, my unreserved vote goes to File:Jerusalem1map.png. The only map from the gallery that serves the purpose of this infobox appropriately and correctly. The longstanding map is fine for another use but it does not show the location of Jerusalem, which this map should. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, Nicosia. It's easy. The complexity isn't in the infobox. Detailed maps can go in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia is a barren map with only Nicosia in it. It's also a horizontal thin map suitable for the infobox. It much more resembles File:Jerusalem1map.png than Nableezy's more detailed map that can go in the article, as you suggest. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you not realize how flawed your map is even you want to consider the "reality of the situation?" All the Area "A"'s in the West Bank are administered by the Palestinian Security, both in civil and security affairs. So we ought to draw a line around those areas in the map you are proposing to reflect the "reality" of the situation, right? -asad (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It only looks flawed in the eyes of someone trying to add extraneous political/territorial details that the map doesn't need for a location of Jerusalem's administrative municipality. Look at Nicosia Cyprus location map again. It doesn't even distinguish color between Greek and Turkish administrations. When someone tried such a map here it was refused because it doesn't show territorial disputes. This map is not intended to be about WB administration that it needs all that detail. There are other places to make such a statement. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Asad, then let's use this map, which shows the areas owned by the Palestinian authority... Although Michael's map is the best option if you want a simple map that shows the accurate location of Jerusalem in Israel and the West Bank... I don't get why you oppose to that map-- Someone35  16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you dont get that you simply are not paying attention. The reasons Michael's favored map is unacceptable have been repeated several times. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of accepting expansionist propaganda as fact in its articles. nableezy - 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to make things more complicated with such a map. The arguments for all that detail are not relevant to what the infobox needs. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you are either being disingenuous or dishonest, I cant figure which, when you claim that your favored map doesn't show territorial disputes. On the contrary, your map takes a position, a minority position at that, in the territorial dispute, claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel. Your repeated posturing over others supposed political motives when you are the user who is attempting to force a fringe political viewpoint into the article as though it were fact is more than a bit hypocritical and not at all endearing. nableezy - 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're distorting what I say about administrative area again and turning it into an issue of territorial claim. These are two distinct issues and you apparently do not understand the difference between them. I've tried to be more than endearing to you in the face of your repeated antagonism, lording it over everyone and personal insults here (hypocritical), while pushing a political issue into a location map. If you'd like to understand my endearment, then please start showing some of it yourself, and you'll see that I've been very patient and nice with you considering your hostility. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, it must be my self-destructive and violent Arab nature that keeps getting in the way. You, again, miss the point. By claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel you are pushing a political POV, an extreme minority one. It doesnt magically disappear because you say so, and your repeated attempts to claim all those who reject your blatant POV push are in fact the ones politicizing the issue is, again, incredibly hypocritical. nableezy - 16:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said that about you so don't try to distort my words with inflammatory accusations. No one claimed "Palestinian territory as being in Israel". Jerusalem is administered by Israel which is what a location map of the Jerusalem municipality should convey. But even so, the proper map shows the line dividing the territories, which is apparently not enough for you. I'm not keeping track of your personal insults but try to be more careful because someone else might be. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please have a look at File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg for a reality check, both in terms of the detailed map and the small overview map in the lower right. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean, please don't insinuate that I need a reality check. And I'm not sure what you're saying anymore. First you said everything was simple with the Nicosia map. Now you're introducing a much more complicated map. I don't know why you've changed your position so you might want to help me understand. I've said repeatedly that there's a place for such a map but it doesn't belong in this infobox. Go ahead and insert the CIA map into the article where it talks about the current territorial issues. That's where such a map belongs. This dispute is about what's proper for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the tiny map in the right hand corner of the CIA map as an example. -asad (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what Sean was talking about. But my answer remains that the CIA map is not a location map of the Jerusalem municipality. It's a territorial dispute map. Period. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

reality check in wiki-world=how RS do it, what are the features they regard as important enough to include. Michael, I don't insinuate. If I want to tell you something I will tell you straight and I know you won't cry about it. Let's try to stick to the matter at hand. And yes, I mostly meant the tiny map (because above all else we need a map that shows where the city is) but also to illustrate that of course RS include the green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would hesitate to equate reality with RS and I'd like to see where any WP policy makes such "wiki-world" assertion. Even WP:RS doesn't make such a broad claim. Such a map as in the small CIA version denotes Jerusalem's position relative to the territorial dispute. It is not an applicable RS for showing the administrative area of a municipality in its infobox. But the municipal administration map in File:Jerusalem1map.png already shows the green line. Why that's not enough for you is beyond me. So I'm left with feeling that some editors are arguing for removing the appropriate municipality's administrative area in favor of asserting a territorial issue that belongs elsewhere. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I'm sure you don't really think that drawing the "separation fence" as some kind of border between Israel and the WB wouldn't be an extreme claim with regard to a territorial dispute? Not even the Israeli government claims that those areas are in Israel. The Israeli government does claim that the Golan Heights would be in Israel, but that's a minority viewpoint internationally, so again pushing it is an extreme claim with regard to a territorial dispute. Likewise File:Jerusalem1map.png shows no red line between Israel and the WB, and the left-hand side gives the impression that Jerusalem would fall entirely within Israel. Now since I don't believe you think so, why are you pushing this? Do you know that filibustering on a talkpage can get you banned? --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are again speaking about a territorial dispute. Do I have to repeat myself every time about what a municipal administrative area map for an infobox is? If you're going to threaten me with getting banned then I suggest you report me or don't say anything about it altogether. I'm not impressed with hot air. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I see an example of someone getting banned for "filibustering on a talkpage"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, if you want a borderless map that is simple then why did you refuse to this map?-- Someone35  12:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, according to Template:Infobox settlement the pushpin map in this infobox (which is what we're discussing) is a "location map", not a "municipal administrative map". NMMNG, WP:IDHT is included in WP:DE. The latter begins by saying: "This page in a nutshell: Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare, I'm going to explain this one more time because you seem to have not read the discussions here, or you haven't paid attention. A location map of Jerusalem is a location map of a municipality. A municipality is defined by its administrative area which in this case is one continuous area on the ground in reality. Which means that using a map that only shows Jerusalem straddling the green line is incorrect and misleading because it gives the impression that there is a border dividing Jerusalem's municipality into two administrations, which is not the case. The border of the green line can be there but it should not override the fact that Jerusalem is located in one continuous administrative area. The other thing you didn't pay attention to or read is WP:IDHT and WP:DE, because if you had read it or paid attention then you would have realized that it talks about disruptive editing on the article page itself and not discussions in the talk page. Pleas read it again before making inflammatory threats and accusations about banning people you disagree with, which is highly frowned upon in WP. This talk page is intended exactly for this type of discussion and no one is "filibustering". We are trying to clarify the disagreement and come to some consensus on how to solve the problem of the map. That's what this talk page is for. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a few points: 1) the location is that of Jerusalem, not a "municipality". Israel's definitions of what's in Jerusalem's "municipality", you will recall, are null and void and have no legal effect. 2) There is very much an administrative border that runs right through Jerusalem, namely the Green Line, and this is present also on the ground. This can be seen in the level of funding to schools, garbage collection, building permits, etc. etc. 3) No-one gives a damn what Israel thinks is it's "administration" of Jerusalem since no-one accepts Israel has any jurisdiction there. Therefore arguing based on it concerning what we draw on maps in the real world doesn't make sense, IMHO. 4) I cite from WP:DE: "Disruptive editors sometimes attempt to evade disciplinary action (...) Their edits are largely confined to talk-pages". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean we should be putting borders around neighborhoods that have complaints to the municipality or neighborhoods that are less affluent than others? I don't think you'll find a reliable source that says "no one" agrees with Israel's position, or that "no one" cares, nor any source that says E Jerusalem is in a separate administrative area from the rest of the city. About WP:DE, if you read the entire sentence it continues: "such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article." If anything, I seem to be the one trying hardest to help get an agreement here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I suggest you re-read the post you're replying to here. The aim on talkpages isn't to produce a maximal amount of text, it's to agree on content for the related article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone35, In what way is that map borderless (as there are several borders in it)? For the record, I'm also OK with the "Dead Sea terrain location map", if this is furnished with a red dot at roughly the right place. --Dailycare (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made and uploaded a new map and placed it in the gallery of this section that Agada compiled, File:Jerusalem2map.jpg. It's a borderless terrain map in the style of the small horizontal location maps that are more suitable for these infoboxes, and the Nicosia map that Sean suggested. If there are no objections, we can replace the present map and consider the problem solved. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I object to that map because it is effectively whitewashing the the POV of the overwhelming majority because a minority POV can't seem to get its way. -asad (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Objecting on the basis of not assuming good faith, when this proposal is neutral and eliminates POV, might not qualify as a reasonable objection. Our prerogative is to try to compromise and collaborate for the benefit of the encyclopedia. If you have a specific problem with the map then please say so, otherwise the objection is questionable. BTW, there's already a map of Jerusalem in the article which represents the territorial issue and EJ. This map is not for that purpose. Unless there's a specific objection, we should use it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you need specifics, the map is a NPOV violation because it is being used to please those with a particular POV as it is giving a map of a random geographic point in the world with no names of countries or boundaries or anything to help a reader determine where the hell Jerusalem is. -asad (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume why it's being used because you're wrong. All the information on Jerusalem's administrative area and border issues is already covered extensively in the article and maps within it. Anyone can see the information you ask for by clicking through the coordinates link. Every attempt at specifying this information in the map is met with objections. This version is not meant to appease one POV over the other, as you mistakenly say, but rather to neutralize POV completely so the location of Jerusalem can be shown in its vicinity. You're not even agreeing to this neutrality because now you seem to be saying it's either your way or no way. That's no way to work collaboratively. Let's wait and see if there are any more objections. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing to use a geographical relief map of the area to show where Jerusalem is because you don't accept the most commonly shown map of Israel and the oPTs (with Jerusalem straddling the green line) because it doesn't show the boundaries of annexed East Jerusalem (a move not recognized by anyone outside of a country the size of New Jersey). Did I get that right? -asad (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I've been saying. I already suggested a map File:Jerusalem1map.png that showed the boundry of the green line running through the city. The problem is with doing it in a way that implies two separate administration areas. But look below or in the gallery for another suggestion.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I likewise oppose a map that has no borders or names of countries or territories as being essentially useless. nableezy - 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy and asad, you wanted a neutral map, so here it is. Stop objecting to every map Michael proposes, this map is borderless and NPOV, if you really care about the neutrality of the map then you should have no problem with this map... If you want people to know where it is then change its name to "Israel and the West Bank/Palestinian authority/Palestine".-- Someone35  19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you dont decide what is neutral and what is POV. Your personal views dont concern me much. A number of maps have been proposed, and one has gotten a ranhe of people approving with you and Michael being the lone holdouts. So far we have had to accept your basesless objections. And now you demand that we accede to your favored map? Sorry, but no. nableezy - 19:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded one more revision to try to satisfy everyone based on previous objections, File:Jerusalem3map.jpg, also in the gallery above. There's no more red border on the small section, the Golan is more distinct as not in the white area, and no more border separating EJ from WB. We could use a caption "Jerusalem in Israel and West Bank". Let me know, Nableezy and Asad. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That still has several problems from the original. Off the top of my head, I still see issues with territory east of the Green Line but west of the barrier being the same color as Israel, the Gaza Strip is a different color than the West Bank, and now there is no border between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon or Syria and Lebanon. Also, the closeup side shows Israeli district borders but not Palestinian governate borders, and includes Beit Shemesh but not Palestinian cities (for example Bethlehem). nableezy - 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need all that detail on the small part of the map? It seems enough to let us know where everything is that the map refers to. Look at Nicosia that Sean suggested. The color of Gaza is different because it's not in the same administration as WB but I can make them the same if you'd like. Would that be enough or do you insist on everything else? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like the borders with the surrounding counties to remain. I also would like the Palestinian territories to be a uniform color. And I would insist on any territory east of the Green Line to be shown as Palestinian territory, not as part of Israel. Not even Israel claims that the area east of the Green Line but west of the barrier is in Israel. If you would rather not include other Palestinian cities and the boundaries of the governates fine, but in that case remove the Israeli district borders and Beit Shemesh. nableezy - 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess User:Dailycare is correct in Template:Infobox settlement interpretation, this image should be about "location". I'm still on the fence but would not object Jerusalem terrain location map. Are those coordinates correct? Mediterranean and Dead seas provide decent orientations points and match in body text location description. Thinking on improvement, maybe we could add also "World location", in left-top corner, see Location Falkland Islands, right-bottom, corner, for example. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The placement of the red dot on File:Jerusalem2map.jpg is correct. I also think it's a good map but there are too many objections against it. Let's see if the new one below is alright. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this new version would have no objections based on Nab's last comment. File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg, also in the gallery. It's small enough in the info box so the monotone color isn't boringly big, and avoids unnecessary color issues. Are you alright with this Nableezy? Asad? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to assume then that there are no current objections to File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg in the infobox? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I dislike having all the territory be a single color as that also distorts the status, for the same reason that Someone's initial use of the Mandatory Palestine map was inappropriate. The land from the river to the sea is not one state, and representations that it is are inappropriate. nableezy - 17:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The map is monochrome, so all of it is the same color. I do not think it appears as if Egypt , Gaza, WB, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan are the same country. WB status appear exactly as its neighbors color and boundary styling wise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand what monochrome is, thank you very much. nableezy - 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably was not clear, I'll try to clarify. Of cause you understand what monochrome means. Nab you have said: " ... all the territory be a single color as that also distorts the status... The land from the river to the sea is not one state, and representations that it is are inappropriate." If we follow that line of thought, since the map is monochrome, it might appear that the map represents all of the land we see as one state, which includes territories of Egypt, Gaza, WB, Israel, Jordan an so on. I don't understand how The land from the river to the sea follows form the specific representation of File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg map? How that map could be fixed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel and the West Bank areas are given a title with the same size and weight, signifying that they are distinct areas. The monochrome does not denote it is all one state because a border runs through the area and they're labeled, in the same way a line map would also have the same background color and be appropriate. A matter of personal dislike should not override the efforts put into this issue to resolve it with due considerations for all the objections stated until now. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple boundaries (not borders) that are shown between Israel and the West Bank, including the rather irrelevant barrier route, and by keeping everything the same color and not signifying what boundary separates each entity you make, essentially, a useless map. The File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png map still has the most support here, and it should be restored to the article. Given Agada's earlier recommendation to you that your non-consensus map need not be reverted, his revert of what did have consensus appears to be rather self-serving and hypocritical. nableezy - 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand, Nableezy. Is there anything else you're concerned about in this map, File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, stop complaining about any map that Michael makes, we both know that if one of your friends would have made exactly the same map then you would support it so stop complaining. That map has no neutrality issues and contains only the details it should. What else do you want Michael to put in that map?-- Someone35  19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We both know? Really? Let's turn this around to see if you cant notice the issue with your repeated directives to others. Stop complaining about every map I offer. We both know that if one of your friends had made exactly this map you would support it so stop complaining. That map has no neutrality issues and contains only the details it should. What else you you want me to put in the map? nableezy - 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, let's try to agree on something... For my part, I'm OK with, in this order of preference, firstly this, secondly this (but modified so that the line between the Golan and the rest of Syria isn't there, and lastly this if we can't agree on anything else. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already stated concerns about your first choice. Your second choice is the closest one that everyone can agree on. It can be revised to solve outstanding objections, so let's wait for Nableezy's response about whether there's anything else aside from what he's already said. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. I take it that aside from Nableezy's concern for 1) barrier route boundary, and 2) uniform color of Israel and West Bank, there are no other objections to File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg. If there is anything else, please let me know before making a revised version that can have everyone's agreement. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, regarding point (1) I see no "barrier route boundary" on File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg. See Latrun: In the 1949 ceasefire agreement, the fort remained a salient under Jordanian control, which was in turn surrounded by a perimeter of no man's land. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the no man's land is a civilian administration area, while the CIA places it within WB, yet retains the buffer zone border. I've used that source for the tone separations between IL and WB on this version, File:JerusalemWBIL1.jpg, that I'd think addresses all voiced concerns. If everyone's agreed, we can change the map soon. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you addressed the issue with the right side of the map but not the left. Make Israel one color, the Palestinian territories another, and the surrounding countries another. I dont know why this is so hard. nableezy - 14:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The left side is not a map in that sense of the word. It's only there to show the relative place of the cutout for the right side. It's the way many location maps are done and it's not reasonable to demand more detail there. It's clear enough because there are borders for everything. Getting into detailed separations there is unnecessary, distracting, and brings into play disputable issues that are not relevant to Jerusalem's location in the region. There are other places to show such details, this need not be one. All details relative to Jerusalem are designated on the right side. I've done everything possible to answer all your issues but what you're asking for now has no bearing on the needs of this map, nor is it necessary in this case. Let's not overextend its function beyond the specific need here. Please. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cmon now, of course it is a map. I have also done everything I can to satisfy the objections to this map and it includes all details relative to Jerusalem and yet you insist it is unusable. It in fact is not clear the Gaza and the West Bank are both Palestinian territory in your map. And it is not clear because Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Israel are all one color in that map. If you dont want to correct that fine, but as it stands the map that still has garnered the most support, from multiple "sides" is File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png. Barring an acceptable alternative that map should be restored to the article. nableezy - 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, didn't you ask before for a uniform color for Israel and the West Bank?-- Someone35  17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I did not. nableezy - 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then that means you think there should be a contrast between Israel, the West Bank and other countries. I helped you doing that with my last edit to the map, hope you like it since it helps improving the contrast between Israel and the West Bank.-- Someone35  17:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. nableezy - 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You took it upon yourself to write over another person's work on commons. Kindly dont do that. If you want to upload a different map you are free to do so. But dont overwrite one created by somebody else (me). nableezy - 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It still seems to be true that Nableezy's map has most support. Concerning Michael's map, there is also the concern of mine that there is an extra line between the Golan and the rest of Syria. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an extra line at all, Dailycare. It shows the area under the evil Israeli occupation and oppression. Surely you support showing that, instead of no border which would place it under the benevolent and merciful administration of Syria that's all over the headlines these days. BTW, You're on record for supporting an earlier version of this map which had a similar color demarcation for the area. Also see below that Nableezy's map does not have a majority as he and you seem to believe. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the show of support for maps proposed here and whether this map has majority support as Nab said. After tallying the discussion, here's a list of all the maps offered and support voiced for them. Some editors supported more than one map and the votes reflect it. Also, some maps went through slight variations to try to gain consensus, like Nab's and mine, so they're listed together. They are litsed in the order the first version appeared.

• Template:Location map Israel - MN (Michael Netzer), AU (Agada Urbanit) - 2 votes.
• File:Palestine location map.svg - NAB (Nableezy) 1 vote.
• File:Ashdod Israel Map.png - AS (Assad) 1 vote.
• File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png - NAB, SO (Someone35), - 2 votes.
• File:Israel and occupied territories map.png - NAB, 1vote.
• File:Central-IL WB Gaza map.png (with one revision below) - MN, AS, SO, - 3 votes.

File:Central-IL WB Gaza map 3.png

• File:Israel outline jerusalem.png (with 4 revisions below) - MN, NMMNG, AU, YnHockey, DC (Dailycare) - 5 votes.

File:Jerusalem1map.png

File:Jerusalem3map.jpg

File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg

File:JerusalemWBIL1.jpg

• File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png (revised on same file) - NAB, NMMNG, SeanHolyland, AS, DC - 5 votes
• File:Jerusalem2map.jpg - MN, DC, AU - 3 votes

The result, according to my tally, is that there is no majority consensus yet and that we are deadlocked at 5 votes each for two proposals. Everyone's welcome to double check.

But in an effort to try to solve outstanding issues, here's a new map that addresses Nab's concern about the left side. File:JerusalemWBIL2.jpg, also in the gallery. Based on the concerns raised so far, and Nab's last comment about this, no more objections are expected, but I should know better than to say that. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, I never said I supported using File:Palestine location map.svg, or File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png, or File:Israel and occupied territories map.png. But to the point, youre very close to what I would like to see, but there is still one problem. The Golan is shown in what looks like a shade closer to Israel than Syria. There are two solutions here, 1. make the Golan so that it is the same color as Syria but retain the ceasefire boundary, or alternatively you could avoid the issue by cropping that section out. Either way is fine with me, though if we have gotten to the point were we agree on that Israel should be one color, the Palestinian territories another, the surrounding countries another, why cant we agree on making the sea blue, and everything else something other than a shade of grey? If we have to fine, but right now I dont see the point. nableezy - 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing about cropping out the Golan and re-instating some color (hell's gonna catch pneumonia after freezing over twice in this thread). I'll make changes and post it soon. I appreciate your agreement and happy to have good collaboration. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO we should start another voting, since the voters for most maps haven't seen all the maps and since they voted there were new maps to vote for. Also, here's the map I made, Nableezy, tell me, what is wrong with it? That's exactly what you asked for-- Someone35  06:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that things work that way here, Someone35. Consensus is based on people who are interested in the article and are likely watching it. Everyone interested has had ample time to respond. If they're not watching or responding, then it's not our job to round people up for a voting. Issues with your map have been discussed here. The latest monochrome version was achieved after narrowing down and addressing everyone's concerns, and we're almost there. I've made a new color version of it with the last changes Nableezy suggested: File:Jerusalem WBIL.jpg. I think that should do it but let's wait a bit and see. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is nit picky now, but can the administrative Jerusalem not be colored blue? Kind of looks like a lake. -asad (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait for Nableezy and the others to respond-- Someone35  09:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I've told you twice that I don't support showing the line between the Golan and the rest of Syria. How many repetitions do you believe will be necessary? As you haven't modified the map by removing the line, I don't support it and you shouldn't claim otherwise in your vote tallies. Someone35's map here seems OK to me. Edit: this map of Michael's seems OK. Blue is OK but we could also use pink. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare, I honestly did not mean to misrepresent you. I apologize if I jumped the gun but it seemed safe to say you supported it because I took your concern into consideration and was already working on it. At any rate, I appreciate the your approval since the changes were made. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Red would be more accurate since many people were killed because of this city...-- Someone35  11:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

<- Remember, if this can't be resolved, we always have Heinrich Bünting's fine map as a backup. It's approximately correct. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the color of Jerusalem in File:Jerusalem WBIL.jpg to a grayish tone. From all concerns voiced here, this seems to solve our problem and we can finally have a representative location map for Jerusalem that everyone agrees to. I think this is a good example where editors can work out differences together. Everyone's input is well appreciated. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You should probably either remove "Beit Shemesh" and "Bethlehem" or at least show where they actually are. Now it just has the words there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Both those municipalities would appear rather large on such a close-up and become distracting to the area of Jerusalem if their areas are delineated. I did it this way because Jerusalem is also written over its area, which gives us a good enough location for the others considering they are only there for reference. Do you insist on such a change or is it only a preference? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't care enough to insist on anything. It just looks weird when it has the names of the cities but gives no indication as to where they are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The assumption would be they're right where the name is and placed there for relative location, but I'll look to see if there's a way to clarify it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the map adding the specific location of Bethlehem and Beit Shemesh. Seems that this should do it so I'll make the change on the article. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I dont know if this bit was intended or not, but the word Israel appears to be the same color as what you made for the area of Jerusalem. Could you make all the words a consistent color? nableezy - 02:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't intended to be the same as Jerusalem area, Nableezy. It became that way because of recent changes. I've revised all the words so they're in the same gray tone. Thanks. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Im good with it now, thanks. nableezy - 04:02, 11 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 .

Name (ar): القُدس

Tranliteration: al-Quds

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 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 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 " 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 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 09:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What I said was in reference to the appearance of "Al-Quds " 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 (Template:Lang-he-n (audio), Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس (audio), al-Quds)

The changes are removing the disputed translation for both and removing "", 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. I am in the process of preparing a questionnaire for Misplaced Pages: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 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What matters here, Zero is adhering to WP:Consensus, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources and WP:Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 "; 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. --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:Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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) , , , , , , , ' , , , 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 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 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 (Template:Lang-he-n (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)

Renaming Palestine by Hadrian

"Hadrian renamed the entire Iudaea Province Syria Palaestina, after the biblical Philistines, in an attempt to de-Judaize the country" There is no evidence that this took place. The source provided does not confirm that Iudaea province was renamed after the Philistines or to "de-Judaize" The view could be taken that this was an attempt to consolidate smaller provinces in one larger one. It wasn't just a simple "renaming". In fact Cassius Dio as the ultimate source for the Bar Kokhba revolt, not only does not mention why the renaming took place, but even that it took place in Hadrians time at all. Writers such as Philo of Alexandria (Jewish scholar) referred to Palestine before Hadrian was born.

This is an open question that came up a couple of months ago here Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_15#Hadrian_renaming_of_Judea. I agree there does not appear to be any evidence to support the supposed "motive". It is difficult to prove a negative though, particularly one which is repeated often by those who have a point to prove. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is no evidence for the imputed motive, then the phrase 'in an attempt to de-Judaize the country' can be removed. One doesn't have to prove a negative. One should write with a source at hand or in mind, and if one cannot justify edits of this kind, anyone should feel free to remove such material as WP:OR. It is, in any case, not historical. Hadrian technically restored an ancient name for the province, since Herodotus uses 'Syria Palaestrina'. Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources that say Hadrian did it as an anti-Jewish act. The only OR here is disputing sources by academics on the basis of the claim that contemporary sources don't mention it. I'll add a source shortly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a disputed theory, appropriate wording has been added to caveat it. Most sources do not mention the supposed motive. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those weasel words are appropriate only if you show that there is an academic dispute, not a dispute on a wikipedia talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy. Actually, my position isn't that far from yours, only I think 'de-Judaize', 'anti-Jewish act' are words that tend to insinuate this was motivated by anti-semitism, and not by (a) Hadrian's attempt to destroy Judean messiah nationalism as part of his geopolitical reorganizing of the area (b) his Hellenic restoration ideology, as evinced by the way he repopulated Jerusalem and reintroduced the old Greek term for the area. He no doubt thought Jewish religious practices were both barbaric and politically insidious for Rome's imperialism. But he banned Jews from Jerusalem, except for one day, not from Palestine. History articles just need to ensure we don't reread the past in terms of the pathologies and obsessions of the modern world.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-Jewish act" is not something I came up with. It's what the source says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Once you get into history, esp.ancient history, you get into conflicts of interpretation on almost anything and every datum is surrounded by a can of worms. You'll find excellent sources using 'anti-Jewish', you'll find sources that stress that Hadrian developed an eirenic policy towards the various ethnoi of the Roman empire. So, to avoid a sentence expanding into a survey of disagreements among historians on any issue, one choses the phrasing all would probably underwrite. A fundamental of encyclopedic writing lies precisely in the exercise of discretion, the choice of language, that reduces to a minimum challenges from all parties. 'Abode of peace' can be well sourced for 'Jerusalem': it happens to be a well-established error based on the widespread diffusion as a fact of what were folk etymologies. Anyone with a mission can justify it. But it happens not to be true, as a large number of RS tell us. What do you do? You avoid using tendentious sources, even if they are good, and find a solution that does not mislead the reader.

The word 'anti-Jewish' misleads the reader for the simple fact that a notable part of 'anti-Jewish persecution' involved massacres of Christians, something which 'anti-Jewish' tends to blur for contemporary browsers not familiar with the subject, etc. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that the disagreement over the 'Abode of Peace' is discussed in the references themselves. You've yet to prove that a genuine scholarly debate exists over Hadrian's motives, to provide references that deny anti-Jewish hostility played a part in his decisions. You'll notice I'm not claiming exclusivity, he undoubtedly had more than mere hatred in mind, but you do have to show that there are scholars that dismiss the notion that Hadrian's act was anti-Jewish. Also, where does the mention of the "massacres of Christians" come from? You speak of 'persecution', yet fail to provide specifics. This is a discussion of the history of Hadrian and Jerusalem, not the persecution of Jews and Christians in late antiquity. Dismissal of the "Anti-Jewish" label because it might obscure anti-christian motives as well requires more substance. Poliocretes (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're asking for arguments over the obvious. Good grief, the literature on this is huge and full of dispute, see Schaefer's edited book in one of the links below. I presume people actually are familiar with the general scholarship, and didn't provide specifics for that reason. Get back to me after reading these (reading each time the whole section), and if they are not sufficient I'll supply another dozen, on controversies, differences of interpretation, Christian-Jewish confusions etc. here here here here here here here here here etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all your sources don't support your claim. Most of them don't even mention the issue, and those that do seem to support what Poliocretes and I have been saying (see for example this from your 6th example). Second, you have now removed sourced material from the article, while discussion was ongoing. Third, you violated 1RR. I strongly suggest you self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't make a claim. I made several commonplace remarks. ::Actually, I didn't make a claim. I made several commonplace remarks. I'm quite aware that some passages in those numerous diffs support what you and Poliocretes maintain (see diff 4 p.ix, for another example). If you read everything, esp the 4th diff you will see that Schaefer for one, on the critical issue re Hadrian and the war, which is the context for determining if he was 'anti-Jewish' (an ontological habit of mind, like antisemitism), cites a number of scholars who disagree on how to evaluate the evidence. I have absolutely no watertight personal view on any issue in ancient history, since I was trained to think anything we might say is provisory, and all interpretations to be bracketed as just-so stories or probabilities, nothing more. If I was POVing this I wouldn't have supplied diffs which support your views. I gave them, alongside others which contradict them. I've left a lot out. Go read the Egyptian-Jewish author of Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles, and the secondary literature on that curious work, and it's hard to see how read Hadrian down to 132, 15 years into his reign, as animated by anti-Jewish bias.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you're having a discussion with someone else since I was talking about a specific anti-Jewish act, and you keep going back to whether he was only anti-Jewish or anti other people as well, or if he had a general anti-Jewish bias from the before the revolt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly revert if I violated IR. All I know is, I added two RS after discussing a few points on the talk page, and they were reverted automatically, as if the opinion of scholars were my POV. I made one revert, or is age getting to me? Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You removed the text referring to the renaming of the province. Twice. Since this material was edited a few hours before you changed it, it's considered a revert. The fact that it was sourced and you have yet to provide a source disputing it (your list of sources not actually discussing the renaming of the province notwithstanding) just makes it worse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So, in these oversights, which cannot be intentional, because there is absolutely no point or POV advantage in eliding an obvious historical truism, (how could I dispute an historical fact I mention above in noting Herodotus uses the term Syria Palaistina?) you want me to revert and remove the material I added? I'd have no problem in reverting, if what you say is correct. Bewilders me that I did that. But, do you think I should remove the useful RS and material I added as well? To cut things short (sincerely), whatever damage I may have done to the text, feel free to fix, if I may delegate to you (without it counting as your revert, of course) the edit. (Context, 6 metres of chimney collapsed in my house, and I have a huge amount of movement and noise about me today).Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should remove the material you added, I think you should restore the sourced material you removed, including the sourced claim that renaming the province was an anti-Jewish act. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That was done immediately on your notifying me yesterday evening, unless I've missed something.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

City of David+Zion

I deleted 'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David. "Zion", ' because it is nonsensical for several reasons. The ref used for this must support that sentence, not 'City of David'. The sentence said that tradition called 'the city of David Zion'. The identical sentence has been restored with a page ref to a text which no where supports this statement, but simply mentions City of David. Apart from the weirdness of calling an original settlement a 'neighbourhood' (neighbouring what, if it was the first settlement? This is an overflow from recent usage re Jerusalem settlements and very unfortunate).Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David. "Zion". See the dot before the ref num? The first sentence indicates the oldest settled parts were called the "City of David". The part beginning with "Zion" is a new and unrelated sentence. Poliocretes (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the dot, old man's eyes, but if thus, then (a) the comma after 'the old settled neighbourhood' misled me, since I find it unnecessary.

(b) Tradition at first sight would require 'Biblical' or 'Jewish'. But that too is problematical since even in the Bible, Jewish tradition, as opposed to modern scholarship, also retains 'Jebus/Jebusite' (1 Chr.11,4;Josh.15:8 etc.) as the name for, let us say, 'the oldest settled site in Jerusalem'.

(c) The source cited does not have on that page anything justifying Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David'.

(d) 'Zion' which is not to be identified with the City of David, follows as though it were a synonym. Sorry to niggle, but I always think one should write paraphrasing sources, saying neither more not less.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The name "City of David" appears in both the books of the Maccabees and the works of Josephus, all extra-biblical and written hundreds of years appart. I think 'tradition' is a farely safe word to use. 'Jebus' is problematic since all we've got is the Bible, but if you can think of a way to put it in there, I wouldn't mind. same goes for the Zion bit. Poliocretes (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you provided a ref for a dubious statement. I've asked twice where on that reference page is the statement supported. One writes to sources. Please explain the relevance of that source to the statement.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I presumed "people actually are familiar with the general scholarship". You'll notice pages 445-447 of my ref discuss the name "city of david" at length, and quite clearly place it on Jerusalem's south-eastern hill. Sources indicating that the the southeastern hill is the original site of Jerusalem abound, you don't need me to find them. As for the tradition part; I quote from page 447: "It is hard to imagine that, like Josephus, the author of I Maccabees used the term 'City of David' improperly ... he was certainly well aware of the topographical denotation of the name ... Its location on the eastern hill is clearly indicated in numerous biblical verses ... That hill continued to be popularly known as City of David in Nehemiah time ... The actual and formal use of the name at the time of the Hasmonaean Revolt is indeed shown in an official document of Simeon's era..." Read the whole thing, there's more, and Josephus postdates the Hasmonaeans by a further 250 years. I understand that all this doesn't explicitly say T-R-A-D-I-T-I-O-N, but that's just nitpicking. If you insist, allow me to suggest the following:

• Decoster, Koen (1989). "Flavius Josephus and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem". ZDPV. Weisbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 105: 70–84. ISSN 0012-1169.
• Dequeker, Luc (1985). "The City of David and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem" in Yigael Yadin; Chaïm Perelman; Edward Lipinski (eds.). The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilizations. Louvain, Belgium: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. ISBN 90-6831-031-3.
• Y. Tsafrir, The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem, Revue Biblique, tome LXXXII, n° 4, october 1975, pp. 501-521.

I.e., without an adequate citation to back that statement, the sentence is an egregious example of WP:OR. To repeat, I read the pages I cite, and there is nothing there which would permit an editor to make the synthesis you have made, or the silly use of the word 'neighbourhood' for the first settled site on the hill. By the way there are two points on the hill which can claim early settlement, one is the City of David. Whether that is the same place as the pre-Israelitic 'Zion' is very much moot. And that is why saying that 'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem' is dubious. Archeologists cannot excavate under all areas, perhaps once inhabited, contiguous to the City of David. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've provided you with four different refs, yet you accuse me of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here's Ronny Reich, an authority on the archaeology of Jerusalem, saying the exact same thing. That's scholarship. Removing a name that was in use for hundreds of years is not. You do what you have to do, Nishidani, I won't revert. I don't edit war and wikiwarriors bore me. Poliocretes (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, your first reference says nothing related to Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David.'

Of the other three references, no specific page is given for two, and the third lacks any pagination whatsoever. It is standard in wikipedia for controversial statements, that editors ask those who support the statement and its phrasing to cite the specific wording used in sources. This is not editwarring. I am not a wikiwarrior. What I ask of you, has been asked of me repeatedly in the past, and I responded by typing out the sentences in my references which justified my edit. It is called courtesy, apart from considerations of ensuring absolute conformity of the text to what RS say.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The ref I provided is quite clear about the traditional use of the name. It clearly states the name was in use during the composition of the bible, after the babylonian exile, during the Hasmonaean period and then at the time of Josephus. That's at least 600 years (and I'm being generous with dating the bible). Now I've also provided you with an archaeological authority, linking said name to the oldest inhabited parts of Jerusalem. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the recognition of the City of David with the south-eastern hill. It's accepted, well established and practically indisputable archaeological fact. I would also point out that when quoting academic articles (as opposed to books), one is not obliged to provide neither exact pages nor quotations. It's a courtesy, yes, but not an obligation.

Nevertheless, here's a quotation from Mazar, Eilat (2002). The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations. Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication. p. 1 ISBN 9659029918:

"For the first two thousand years the city was located on the southern part of the hill referred to as the Eastern Hill. The hill has an elongated shape divided into three topographical components: the northern component is Mount Moriah, the central is the Ophel, and the southern is where the most ancient settlement was, subsequently called the City of David".

So what is this debate about, the use of the word "neighborhood"? As I said earlier, if it's a matter of wording, feel free to suggest alternatives. Otherwise, I've been quite forthcoming with the references. If you have any issues with them, provide your own. Poliocretes (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by this. "Tradition" or not, how can the oldest part of the city be the "City of David", when the city was in existence at least 1,000 years before David even existed (if he ever existed)? Whatever we leave in there, this needs to be clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No one - neither I, nor the bible, nor any other ancient source, nor the references I provided - is claiming it was called the City of David from the start; merely that the name "City of David" denotes the oldest section of the city. To put it another way, the original site of Jerusalem is to be found in the section of the city known as the "City of David". Poliocretes (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but that is not clear in the text, and an average reader would likely be mislead to jumping to that conclusion without clarification. On a separate point, do you have any sources which suggest that it was locally known as the City of David in Ottoman times? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(ed conflict)

"For the first two thousand years the city was located on the southern part of the hill referred to as the Eastern Hill. The hill has an elongated shape divided into three topographical components: the northern component is Mount Moriah, the central is the Ophel, and the southern is where the most ancient settlement was, subsequently called the City of David".

That is precisely the kind of quote I asked for. You seem to think I don't believe in the high antiquity of City of David. That was never in dispute. I dispute, as a native speaker of English, the phrasing employed. The quote from Eilat Mazar, despite her often criticized biblical fideistic approach to archeological interpretation, is fine by me.

I would suggest that the best way to translate your quote is along these lines:-'the most ancient settlement came to be/was subsequently/ known in Biblical tradition as the City of David.'

The ugly POV and meaningless anachronism, 'settled neighbourhood' is avoided. Tradition is not the subject, which is impossible, and being indefinite, occludes clarity that the tradition is biblical. But you will have your own version no doubt.

I don't know why this laborious interchange was necessary. In English, at a glance, Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem/(,) the City of David was patently question-beginning. I may be a nut for nuance. But the restoration of the sentence I elided because it had a 'citation needed' tag for 13 months, with a citation that did not bear out anything about some 'tradition' naming the oldest settlement the City of David, was improper in my view. I don't edit-war, or niggle to make people uncomfortable). My principles are: write closely paraphrasing quality sources, and write to avoid either question-begging vagaries or ambiguities, with a strict eye on NPOV. Thanks, therefore, for the cite, and I look forward to seeing Mazar replacing the old source, along the lines sketched above.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I amended the sentence, though I opted for "antiquity" rather than "Biblical tradition" as that could be construed to imply a far shorter time span than the references provide. Accordingly, I added Mazar but did not replace the old source, I don't think there's actually anything wrong with it. For that matter, why is "settled neighborhood" an "ugly POV"? Idiosyncratic perhaps, but where's the POV? just interested ... Poliocretes (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It just drags over, here and at City of David, into a section on ancient Jerusalem a term that is current for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem east of the Green Line. There is also the fact, quaint to my ear, of using the word 'neighbourhood' which implies in English vicinity to another inhabited site (neighbour) to denote the first settled area. When the first settled area was established, there were no neighbours or neighbourhoods which neighboured on the settlement. In correct English usage, one cannot have a 'neighbourhood' of one. It is a solecism, imprecise, conjuring up a misleading and self-contradictory image therefore, and anachronistic. Thanks in the meantime for the edit. I don't agree with retaining the older ref., as it contains nothing other than remarks on the City of David. I contested the phrasing of the sentence, not the existence of City of David. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Re-floating an old idea

Way back in this thread I suggested reframing the opening paragraph so that it went something like this:

Jerusalem is an ancient Middle Eastern city which has played a major role in the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all of which have important holy sites there. The city has been fought over many times, notably during the Crusades. Most recently it has formed one of the central issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In its 1947 partition plan, the United Nations had intended the final fate of Jerusalem to be dealt with separately from the establishment of Jewish and Arab states in mandate Palestine. The city was to be administered as a corpus seperatum independent of either state. However, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War resulted in the city being divided with Transjordan gaining control of most of the Eastern part of the city, including the holy sites of the old city, and Israel holding modern West Jerusalem where it established its capital. Israel took the remainder of the city in 1967 as a result of the Six Day War. It has declared the whole city its "complete and united" capital but this claim is opposed internationally with the United Nations Security Council having resolved that the Jerusalem Law which asserted this claim is "null and void", and with most states maintaining their embassies in Tel Aviv. Meanwhile the Palestinians have declared East Jerusalem as the capital of their intended State of Palestine...

My feeling is that the current opening represents suffers from WP:RECENTISM and that, like Rome, Jerusalem is more important for its past than its present and that further it is this historic significance that makes its present quite such a knotty problem. Having said that, I do still include quite a lot of the present there but at least the religious dimension gets in first, as does the notion that it is ancient and that the current dispute isn't the first one over the city. In the previous discussion, Okedem was the person who was most set against it, Nableezy wanted some tweaks and David Tombe was quite enthisiastic. There has been a fair churn in who is active here, so I wonder what the present editors here think.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go rocking that particular boat here again. It took months of effort, repeatedly, with copious, nearly interminable and often acrimonious discussions, to achieve the existing wording and structure. Its balance, whatever you may think of it, has been stable and is functioning. The re-floated "old idea" probably failed to take hold because of inherent problems, not simply because of which editors were active in the last round of discussions or prior to that. Contrary to your expressed desire to avoid "recentism", your proposed opening is skewed almost entirely toward emphasis on current (1947-2011) conflicts, as if the essence of the city was those issues. A lead should most of all tell what a city is, which is the case with the existing opening, and even the case in the article on Rome. I fail to see any neglect of Jerusalem's rich and long history in the article or in the lead section. If indeed "Jerusalem is more important for its past than its present", its past, and the significance of that past for the present, is well covered. I counsel leaving well enough alone. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of crucifixion

This 'Friday, April 3rd, 33' shouldn't be there, since it is only Newton's guess, and certainly the putative date is not indicated in the New Testament. Sandars has a long discussion on the various possibilities broached over the centuries. It should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• High-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists