Talk:Jerusalem stone

message: The move is not well-sourced at all. Where is the source? The stone is called Jerusalem stone, in every source. You are the one who needs to bring proof.
:Check the 1985 New York Times article by Friedman. That is the source. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: Looking at the Israel Geological Society site, the preferred geological name of that particular formation member is "Meleke", not "Melekeh". (See here for instance.) Searching Google for "Meleke limestone" produces considerably more hits, though closer examination shows that a lot of them are copies of the the same few texts. However, we then run into the next problem: it isn't clear that "Jerusalem stone" refers only to "Meleke". Indeed, it seems to refer not only to that type, but also to the other types of limestone quarried in the same region. Can it be established that the rules insist that buildings in Jerusalem must be faced with "meleke"?
:The varient spellings are not a problem. If "Meleke" is preferred by the IGS, move the article there & mention "Melekeh" (& any other) alternatives in the intro.
:On the different types of "Jerusalem stone": From what I've seen 2 of the 4 types of limestone around Jerusalem have been commonly used for construction: Misseh, which is harder & takes a polish; and Melekeh/Meleke, which is softer & easy to cut (and, apparently, has been much more often used). Which one is mandated by law? My strong impression is that Melekeh/Meleke is the one, but that needs to be confirmed. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the Mandatory administration called it "Jerusalem stone," of which there are several variations and colors. The law does not state which kind must be used. There are buildings from a rough hewn Jerusalem stone known as Tobzeh, and then there are smoother stones and chalky stones and stones like the ones from the Western Wall, which have a polished surface. Jerusalem stone may not be the precise geological term, but it is the term that is commonly used, and thus should be the name of the article, with the geological variants discussed in the body of the article.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Next problem: Meleke

message: I have attempted to edit the page in line with the evidence.  Meleke is the most highly prized of the ancient limestones, a wide range of which are common building stone collectively  referred to in the overwehelming majority of periodicals and books as Jerusaaelem stoneElan26 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: The common English name for this substance, by far, is "Jerusalem stone", not "Meleke". "Meleke" gets 6,600 hits on English language webpages. "Jerusalem stone" gets 100,000 hits on English language webpages. "Jerusalem stone" is so vastly more common that, per WP:COMMONNAME, I've restored this article to its original title. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Jayjg, moving the page while the discussion on whether to move or not has not reached any kind of consensus seems rather premature. Would you mind undoing your move until we can more fully discuss the issues? Tiamuttalk 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that a suggestion was made to move the page to Meleke in April, which was closed without consensus. Nevertheless, one editor moved it there, in an egregious violation of both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. I've moved the article back to its original name, per the guidelines, which is where it should stay, unless someone suddenly creates 100,000 webpages using the term "Meleke". By the way, one webpage using the term does not make it common; I've already pointed out that 6,600 webpages use the term. It's just that 100,000 use "Jerusalem stone". Whether or not there should be a separate article on "Meleke" is another question. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and regarding the "scholarly" term, Google scholar returns 141 hits for English language sources for "Jerusalem stone", but only 52 for Meleke. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers are not in dispute Jayjg. What I was trying to explain above is that Meleke is a sub-set of many different types of stone referred to as Jerusalem stone, which explains why "Jerusalem stone" gets many more hits. What I was aiming for here, before you unilaterally moved the page, was to get agreement between the editors involved in this discussion on how to proceed. i.e. Does the information and sources used here address Meleke more specificially, in which case, an article entitled Jerusalem stone could be created to describe this broader terminology that links back to this article under the name Meleke? Or is the inverse true? I think we need two articles, since Meleke is a geological and scholarly term, whereas Jerusalem stone seems to be a more populist term with religious overtones for some. So I would ask that you move the article back to the title Meleke until this discussion runs its course. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason you can't come to that agreement while the page is at its original, common, consensus name. If you are concerned about "unilateral moves", speak to the editor who unilaterally moved it against consensus. I've done exactly what you asked, restored the article to its original name, pending consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely Orwellian. I don't really understand why you are not restoring the page name to Meleke as a goodwill gesture when there is clear opposition to moving it Jerusalem stone. But whatever. I'm not in the mood for a fight. I guess those of us who want to see an article on the scholarly geological term Meleke will have to sift through this article, remove the references to Meleke and reconstruct an article on Meleke that links back here. Thanks for nothing. Tiamuttalk 01:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article restored to original title, per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] 

message: There is now an article devoted to that subject. I have removed much of what was specifically about Meleke from the article on Jerusalem stone since they are not synonyms. Meleke is a geological term with a very specific meaning. Happy editing everyone! Tiamuttalk 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tiamut has made a very insightful, helpful & decent suggestion (& action) in splitting "Jerusalem stone" and "meleke" into 2 articles rather than one article with redirects. Frankly, the article now called "Jerusalem stone" has become junk & in my opinion is a prime candidate for deletion. (See previous discussions citing geological engineer Asher Shadmon's contention that "Jerusalem stone" doesn't really even exist.) I will direct my future edits on "meleke" to the article so named & abandon "Jerusalem stone" altogether.  Thanks Tiamut. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Tiamut should take your lead and stick to the Meleke article. Here she seems to be getting her kicks leaving false edit summaries.--Yespleazy (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good morning Gila. If you are referring to this diff , you have my apologies. I see noe that it was an IP that deleted that information . If I could strike the edit summary I would. I'll avoid making similar claims without diffs in the future. Have a nice day. Tiamuttalk 11:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: For those interested in writing about [[Meleke]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119190349/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3575/is_1300_217/ai_n14809395 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3575/is_1300_217/ai_n14809395
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified