Talk:Jerusalem stone

Sourcing

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. (forgive my previous phrasing) JPG-GR (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting more general consideration of the naming issue. To sum up my argument in the discussion here, references to the material as "Jerusalem stone" far outnumber those for "Melekeh" as referring to a kind of stone. Even the person cited as an authority for preferring the latter also uses the former term. I do see some small evidence for "Melekeh" being the name of the formation from which this stone is quarried, but it does not seem to me that this is a determining factor. The fact that "Jerusalem stone" is the standard term in commerce does not weigh against it.

I don't dispute that "melekeh" may be the name most commonly used in Israel; however, according to our naming principles the most common term in English is preferred. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT used in Israel at all. In fact, I have never heard it used after decades of editing and translating books on the historical geography of Israel in which Jerusalem stone has been discussed at length--Gilabrand (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

It is in fact commonly used in Israel as I've learned on my visits. It is also used in professional literature. I will return with additional (offline) references. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Indiana Limestone article, I see that the actual name of that formation is "Salem limestone". However even the University of Indiana refers to it as "Indiana limestone", while acknowledging the formation name. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent catch! That is easily fixed! Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says that it needs to be fixed? Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider this academic (or at least technical) source:

The various rock types in the area were exploited for different purposes.The variety of lithologic types used in building are: 1. White, coarse crystalline limestone originally referred to as "Meleke", the stone of Kings. 2. Cream-colored micritic limestone known locally as "Mizzi Hilu" (sweet rock). 3. Red-colored limestone known as "Mizzi Ahmar" (red rock). 4. Gray crystalline dolomite known as “Mizzi Yehudi” (Jewish rock – modern times). 5. Flagstone of thin-layered limestone. These rock types were quarried from the Judean limestone and dolomite in and around the Old City of Jerusalem. This variety of stone gives Jerusalem its unique character. The setting sun reflected on the cream-colored limestone facade of both ancient and modern structures gives them a golden hue, giving rise to the term "Jerusalem of Gold". (Arkin, Yaacov and Amos Ecker (2007), “Report GSI/12/2007: Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Concerns in Developing the Infrastructure Around Jerusalem”, The Ministry of National Infrastructures, Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel, July, 2007.)

Of course the term "Jerusalem stone" is not mentioned in the paper since it is vague & non-technical. The statement that "This variety of stone gives Jerusalem its unique character" would seem to indicate that "Jerusalem stone" cannot be made to refer exclusively to any one of the five mentioned types.

Note also that the five types are said to be (1) white, (2) cream-colored, (3) red-colored, (4) grey, and (5) no-color mentioned, respectively; and that the "golden hue" comes in by way of a setting sun on cream-colored rock. Having seen Jerusalem in broad daylight & at sunset, this makes perfect sense to me. The article should probably be changed to reflect that. Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Next problem: Meleke

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)

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)

In fact, the only source we know of for the municipal regulation is one of the commercial sites (this one). The story sounds plausible & may be true. (I hope it is true, since it makes an interesting story!) However, we need a reliable source for it (& in more detail) or else it should eventually be removed. Also, I think we're past the point where "Jerusalem stone" can be the name of this article. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Better information on the regulation

I haven't found a definite word-for-word citation for the regulation, but I have found a number of references using the phrase "native Jerusalem stone", some in quotes, e.g. the following: [2], [3]. I also found this in Google books: "Moreover, the master-plan included detailed instructions regarding the visual aspects of the city and specified permissible building materials. Among other regulations, the external walls of buildings throughout Jerusalem had to be constructed or faced with stone." (Kark, Ruth (2001). Jerusalem and Its Environs: Quarters, Neighborhoods, Villages, 1800-1948. Wayne State University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) p. 146). This book also cites other which might be useful.

On the other hand, we have this from one Asher Shadmon, who is apparently a recognized expert on building stone: in fact, according to worldwide mining and quarrying authority Asher Shadmon -- an Israeli who's faced more buildings with "Jerusalem stone" than he can remember -- there is no such thing as ... "Jerusalem stone." [4], [5] It's not clear what this means, but if it also means that there is no specific regulation to use "Meleke" in Jerusalem, we still have a problem. The impression I get is that he means that "Jerusalem stone" doesn't specifically come from Jerusalem. As I recall, that fits with what I read when I was first working on this, because some of the commercial sites give specific origins for different types of "Jerusalem stone". Anyway, it's more grist for the mill. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into "Jerusalem stone" a bit now, Shadmon's remark makes perfect sense to me. One of the commercial sites used as a "reference" for this article originally (this one) has a "Jerusalem Stone Guide" which features several types of limestone & dolomite as well as a "volcanic stone" & several types of slate (one of which has the alternate name of Meleke! An obvious error...) The other commercial sites referenced as much as admit that "Jerusalem stone" is “a generic term” (here) and “a trade name” (here) for stone found virtually anywhere in Israel.

The wording of the quotes from the British regulation that I've seen refer to "native Jerusalem stone" which I strongly suspect does not refer to any one type of stone, but just means locally found stone. At this point I have the distinct impression that "Jerusalem stone" doesn't have any specific meaning beyond simply one of the several types of stone found in the Jerusalem area (or, for commercial exporters, anywhere in the country). It seems a hopelessly vague term.

Since meleke/melekeh is by far the best known & most historically significant of these various “Jerusalem stones”, I support keeping the article by that name and discussing other types therein. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re-Name, move to Jerusalem stone

We need to revisit the name issue on this page. 1) This is an English encyclopedia 2)The common name is usual in such cases, see: Manhattan schist, or Puddingstone, 3)There are tens of thousands of citations for "Jerusalem stone" in books, academic articles, newspapers and magazines. 4) Mekele is not a name for this stone in common use in EnglishElan26 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Agree: The name of this page should be restored to "Jerusalem stone," which is the common term for the stone used for building in Jerusalem. I have never heard or seen the term "meleke" in all my years as an editor of books focusing on the historical geography of Israel. --Gilabrand (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree: The article is well referenced for the name meleke which is a name used in academic and technical sources (yes, English ones!). "Jerusalem stone" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. (Please see the previous discussion...) 140.139.35.250 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Dear 140.139.35.250, I believe that you misunderstand the poupose of this discussion. the question is not whether the use of meleke is well-sourced. The word is certainly used in Arabic and scholarly sources. the question is what is the best title for the page. Here are the reasons why Jerusalem stone is the proper title

1) It is an English name and this is an English language encyclopedia.

2) We use the commmon, not the technical name in such cases, see:Manhattan schist, or Puddingstone

3) Jerusalem is far and away the most common name in English language sources. Type "Jerusalem stone" into Wikipedia books and 627 sources come up. Type the key words Meleke and stone in and only 49 sources do, some of them referring to Samoan or Ethiopian words. On a google search, the results are even more uneven, over 107,000 for "Jerusalem stone" 200,000 for meleke, but - and this is a very large but overwhelmingly as a proper name or a word in another language. Tupe: meleke stone Palestine and there are a mere 137 hits. NYTimes.com has 428 cites for "Jerusalem stone" zero for meleke. the Jerusalem Post has 77 for "Jerusalem stone", zero for Meleke. The Guardian has 5 for "Jerusalem stone", 2 for meleke, but both melekes turn out to be personal names. The Washington post has 5 for "Jerusalem stone", three for meleke, again, as personal names or a word in the Samoan language. I tried the Lebanon Daily star and Al Ahram (two English language Arabic papers) and could get no hits for either Jerusalem stone or meleke. I could go on, but what is the point? I have tried and cannot establish that any mainstream publication used Meleke. It is used in some Palestinian publications and in some technical, geological and archaeological writing. Your point that it can be sourced in technical publications is well taken, but not relevant. Neither here nor in the previous discussion has anyone offered evidence that meleke is in any kind of common use. Nor has anyone explained why this should be different from :Manhattan schist, or Puddingstone. Or why an Arabic word should be the title of a wikipedia page for which a common English term with a very long history of use already exists.

As for "Jerusalem stone being "almost meaningless"," this is a false artument. You can log in, type "Jerusalem stone" into the search box, and order the stuff by the square or cubic foot. To be sure, mekele is preferred for certain technical articles on geology. but "Jerusalem stone" is used in quite specific ways in a JSTOR search (score:"Jerusalem stoone" 26, 19 meleke).

Perhaps you would be good enough to add a sub-section explaining the technical meaning of meleke to geologists.Elan26 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

‘’Disagree’’: The reason that “Jerusalem stone” gets so many hits on a search engine is that it is used for almost any stone commercially quarried in Israel: various types of limestone, dolomite, slate, volcanic stones, etc, etc. (Check the commercial websites.) You can get similar numbers of hits for any number of vague terms, but that doesn’t mean you should build a Wikipedia article around all of them! “Jerusalem stone” has different meanings for different contractors and vendors. Indeed, Asher Shadmon, a recognized expert on Israeli building stone, says There is no such thing as ... "Jerusalem stone." [6], [7]

This was all hashed out back in April. Unless someone can bring some NEW information or sources validating “Jerusalem stone” as a particular geological entity, I don’t see any reason to revive this old debate. Valerius Tygart (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• This was not "hashed out" back in April. The discussion had two participants. You and Mangoe. The result was inconclusive. This debate has three. You are on one side , Gilabrand and I are on the other. And I presume that you forgot to log in yesterday and are also participant #140.139.35.250. You have presented no evidence that the term "Jerusalem stone" is used fo slate, volcanic stone or anything other than varieties of limestone. Frankly I oudbt it. Slate does not resemble limestone. The differences among varieties of liestone are along a spectrum, that is why one Temple in Austin, Texas I recently added to the page used Texas limestone to look like Jerusalem stone while building locally and ecologically correctly. Yo have not addressed any of the arguments I brought. particularly th ekey arguments that mekele is a foreign word used as a technical term in the geolological literature but not in common use in English. You may, perhaps, be wishing to change the English language to replace an English term withan Arabic one. If so. Wikipedia is nto th eappropriate place to do so.!Elan26 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

It is not true that meleke is not a word used in English sources. Here are three that I just now pulled off my shelves:

• Israel: A Handbook (1998), by Dave Winter & John Matthews, pg 97, etc

I do not own Israel Handbook By Dave Winter, John Matthews, but it is searchable on google booke. a search for "meleke" produces nothing. A search for "Jerusalem stone" leads to page 148 and this citation "old byelaw dating to the early years of the British Mandate was invoked, requiring all now buildings to be faced with dressed, natural Jerusalem stone".Elan26 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

• Golden Jerusalem (2004), by Menashe Har-El, pg 217, etc

not searchable on gogle books.Elan26 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

• Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography (1995), by Hershel Shanks, pg 137, etc

I have Shanks on my desk, open to page 137. theis is the start fo the chapert, Herodian Jerusalem." the word meleke does not appear on this page. Nor doees it appear in the index.Elan26 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

These were easy to find, so I'm sure there are many others.

See below Elan26 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

And BTW I am not 140.139.35.250 & your tone is getting very close to violating Wikipedias rules of civility. Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This was not "hashed out" in April. Valerius Tygart swooped down, renamed the page on his own initiative, without discussion, and would not allow further input. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And here ("Jerusalem Stone Guide") is the site where JS is used for limestone, dolomite, slate, volcanic stone, etc. It was already cited in the April dicsussion. So now you can stop doubting it. (I hope I'm not "swooping down" in saying this!) Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• You refer me to a single commercial stone yard called the Jerusalem Gardens Stone Works'. It is a commercial outfit offering many kinds of stone to customers in Israel and for export. The page you point to is headed "Jerusalem Stone Guide" It has many kinds of limestone. It also has volcanic basalt, marked volcanic basalt. And three kinds of slate, clearly marked slate. Most interesting because of the argument you are making, is that on the page you yourself pointed two one of the slates reads: "Pink slate stone. Local names: Kofer-Malek, Malakeh" In other words, the page you point to lables SLATE with variants of the world meleke. It is also true that you have offered one source. How do you answer my thousands of sources for "Jerusalem stone" form newspapers, books and academic articles and books. Elan26 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Easy, those "thousands of sources" (they're not really sources, just random search engine hits) refer to many things, including various kinds of stone, not just meleke. You have not done your homework. Find me just ONE good (real) source supporting your argument. I have not seen one. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please address the statement by the expert, Asher Shadmon (Stone in Israel, State of Israel, Ministry of Development, Natural Resources Research Organization, 1972), who says that there is really "no such thing as Jerusalem stone”. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestine: all non-blue

Strongly disagree: as per Resolution 181 of the security council al-Quds belongs to the Palestinian state (see map) and therefore it is an obligation to preserve the name Meleke in the appropriate language. Bogorm (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogrom. This is not the place to debate sovereignty. We're talking about rocks. And the propr name of a particular range of varieties of limestone. Why on earth are you dragging the UN into it?Elan26 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Valerius, I cannot condone your attempt to impose foreign terms on this, and English language dictionary. Jerusalem stone is a generic term covering several varieties of limestone mined in the hill country of Israel and the Palestinian territories. Jerusalem stone is the common English language term used to describe all of the local varieties of limestone. Read this form the New York Tiems:

“The British, who governed Jerusalem from 1917 to 1947, made a powerful gesture toward a higher Jerusalem when they decreed that all buildings had to be faced with Jerusalem stone, a local form of limestone with an exceptionally warm, golden hue. The rule remains in effect, lifted only for a short time in the 1930's when a stonecutters' strike led to the approval of several modernist buildings of stucco, and again briefly in the 1950's, in the rush to build subsidized housing. This rule may be the most important single act of city planning ever in Jerusalem. The stone is an extraordinary material, rich and textured and almost magical in the glow of dawn and dusk in the city's heavy light, and it brings even the most mediocre architecture into a sense of wholeness with the city.” Not random hits. I read architecture and archaeology. And the New York Times. There are, quite literally, thousands of English language books and periodicals in which the term ‘’’Jerusalem Stone’’’ is used precisely as the New York Times uses it here. These are not "random google hits," they are books that I read and use professionally. I find Jeusalem stone in use even in technical articles in archaeology and architecture in articles in which the term ‘’’Jerusalem stone’’’ is used to describe the regional limestone. It is true that technical articles also use scientific and sub-regional names to specify types of limestone. That, however, does not negate the fact that Jerusalem stone is the common English term for the limestone of the hills in the area. And this is an English encyclopedia. As I said befoe, if you would like to add a technical section defining the regional terminology for specific sub categories of dolomite limestones, pleas feel free. but it is imappropriate to attempt to impose an Arabic word rarely used in English on Wikipedia. Elan26 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan22

• • • Valerius Tygart's assertions are simply not in line with the evidence. Searching books google for "Jerusalem stone" produces 632 hits. Overwhelmingly using "Jerusalem stone" in its common sense. This includes books by individuals such as Nadia Abu El Haj, "a building in which on one side the facade is older Jerusalem stone..."Facts on the Ground p. 197 and dozens of Christian and non-Jewish architecture books. By contrast, a search of meleke produces over 646 hits, many of them referring to Polynesia, Ethiopia, or to Meleke as a personal name. A search on Meleke and stone produces , and here we do see it refer to the limestone of Israel. These make it clear that meleke is a technical term used for a subcategory of the regional limestone. For example, in The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700, 2008, p. 59 we read: "The rock roof is the overburden of inferior stone under which the quarry- men cut to reach the prized meleke limestone.” Or it is specified as an Arabic name, Bulletin of the Geological Department: Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Leo Picard, p. 18, “Meleke : (malaki) "The Royal". An Arabic name used for an excellent building- and tomb-stone from the vicinity of Jerusalem.”

Searches on the two terms, are, as Valerius Tygart asserts, simple to do. The thing is, they show meleke as an Arabic work or a technical term for a particular, and highly desireable, sub-category of the family of local limestones known in English as Jerusalem stone.Elan26 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

For the record, here is what the most eminent authority on Israeli building stone said about the term "Jerusalem stone" in a 2000 interview: "In [Israeli] mining and quarrying, Asher Shadmon … is still at age 77 one of the world's foremost authorities on what's underfoot. [He is] one of the world's experts on marble (and building stone) who has "written more books on the subject than anyone else." He must be considered a reliable source when he explodes a cherished myth: Jerusalem stone is as yerushalmi as Jerusalem artichoke. "There is no such thing as 'Jerusalem stone.' Stone that's used in Jerusalem is Jerusalem stone. "Most of it comes from Ramon or the Galilee or the territories. It has become a very popular item, worldwide, and we have lots of trouble with Americans about that. Some Jerusalem stone was used in San Diego, but it came from near Yatta in the territories. About 90 percent comes from the territories (Orbaum, Sam (2000), “Our Main Mine Man”, Sam Orbaum’s Website, 20 February 2000). Those who think "Jerusalem stone" means anything more specific than "stone found near, or used in, Jerusalem... or somewhere in Israel ... or sold as such" are being hoaxed by people who are hawking their wares, being super-patriots, or both. The term is used as a marketing device by vendors and contractors to apply to a wide variety of Israeli building stone and is really very close to meaningless. "Jerusalem stone" is not any one particular kind of stone. Does "Jersalem stone" warrant its own Wikipedia article? I would say no, but others disagree. It's really moot now as "meleke" (the most famous type of "Jerusalem stone") and "Jerusalem stone" (the "trash can" category) now each have their own separate article. Knock yourselves out, "Jerusalem stone" fans! (But don't deceive people into thinking it is something it is not....) Valerius Tygart (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Edits

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)Elan26

Article restored to original title, per WP:COMMONNAME

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)

(edit conflict) From my understanding, Meleke is a more precise term, or if you like one specific type of stone of seven that are referred to as Jerusalem stone. (See this link: [8]). If you want to write an article on Jerusalem stone which discusses that phrase and the different kind of stones and sentiments it can refer to, I would suggest being bold and going for it. It can link to this article, which can be a spin-off from that main article. Meleke is however the preferred scholarly term to discuss this particular type of stone. Even the Israeli archaeological website uses it, stating: "The limestone bedrock in the region of the Sanhedrin Park is meleke of the Bina Formation, dating to the Turon Epoch. The meleke was preferred for quarrying, as well as for the preparation of masonry stones used in the monumental construction in Jerusalem..." so I think it's incorrect to claim that it is not very much used in English. Tiamut^talk 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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? Tiamut^talk 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Tiamut^talk 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Tiamut^talk 01:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in writing about Meleke

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! Tiamut^talk 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Good morning Gila. If you are referring to this diff [9], you have my apologies. I see noe that it was an IP that deleted that information [10]. If I could strike the edit summary I would. I'll avoid making similar claims without diffs in the future. Have a nice day. Tiamut^talk 11:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)