Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerusalemite

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Demographics of Jerusalem. Most editors called for "merge and delete"; this is an invalid recommendation under the terms of the GFDL, and so the article will simply be merged, with a redirect retained. Neil ム 11:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalemite

Jerusalemite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I and a few other editors believe there is nothing special about the word "Jerusalemite" that deserves its own article distinct from the plethora of other Jerusalem articles (listed in Category:Jerusalem). It appears that the page can only be a hodgepodge of sundry factoids about Jerusalem that more properly belong elsewhere. There is good content on this page, namely the "Overview" section, but this has already been merged into Demographics of Jerusalem, which I think is a more natural home for this sociological info. What remains is the "Intercommunal relations" section, which basically reiterates various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This info is already covered on other pages, especially East Jerusalem (to which I already added info about the stripping of residency status). Therefore, I don't see what further use we now have for this page. nadav (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- nadav (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- nadav (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Demographics of Jerusalem but ensure it is mentioned in both Jerusalem and Demographics of Jerusalem (see New Yorker as an example of how it should be done). Number 57 08:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean that the articles should mention that "Jerusalemite" is the correct inflection of "Jerusalem" for referring to people and things from or relating to Jerusalem? nadav (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes. Number 57 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the sources cited throughout, Jerusalemite is a term with a unique history and usage, certainly worthy of exposition in an article. I disagree with Nadav's characterization of the "Intercommunal relations" section as basically reiterating aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The information is specific to Jerusalemites only and should be expanded to include all of the different Jerusalemite communities. Tiamat 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (with a redirect to Demographics of Jerusalem). "Jerusalemite" is nothing but an inflection of "Jerusalem", and does not warrant an article. All relevant info has been merged into the appropriate articles. okedem 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Not so. First of all, Jerusalemite has had a number of different meanings over the years that are tied to Jerusalem's long history of diverse habitation. Those different meanings are and can be further explored in this article. Further, much of the information in the article has not been merged elsewhere despite its being useful and well-sourced. Tiamat 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge into other Jerusalem articles 69.116.62.33 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Belongs under some other Jerusalem article. Probably Demographics of Jerusalem. 70.21.254.188 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Should be merged.--Sefringle^Talk 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Notable. A common historic term. I see more than 700 hits on Google Books [1] containg the term, with 200 publications from before 1900 (almost the same amount as William Shakespeare, who has 280 pre-1900 hits); in the last two years alone there are 150. Neither Jerusalem or Demographics of Jerusalem are suitable, as those are dealing mostly with the present-day situation -- Steve Hart 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That is very, very far from the point. It's like arguing that because "the" or the indefinite article "a" are used quite often, then we should have individual articles about them. "Jerusalemite" is only used to talk about people or things relating to Jerusalem, so content should be in the proper Jerusalem pages, whether it be History of Jerusalem, Demographics of Jerusalem, or whatever else you prefer. nadav (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) And the objection that "those are dealing mostly with the present-day situation" would seem to indicate you have not even bothered to read Demographics of Jerusalem, since it carries all the historical content in Jerusalemite word for word. nadav (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It remains the case however, that Jerusalemite as a term has a unique centuries long history that distinguishes from other adjectival equivalents such as New Yorker. If Palestinophilia can be retained, I see no reason that Jerusalemite cannot. Tiamat 10:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• nadav, if Jerusalemite simply was "a person living in Jerusalem" I would agree with you. But historically the term refers to a person devoted to the Holy places of Jerusalem, ie. the correct definition was a person of faith. These people settled down in the Old City to perform religious duties, hence the name, but it did not refer to everyone living in Jerusalem, nor did it exclusively refer to people in Jerusalem (there was even a religious sect who called themselves the New Jerusalemites with churches in England [2] and Scotland [3]). It's true that the term today is more often used to refer to people living in Jerusalem, but this is no excuse to disregard the important history defined by the name, which has nothing to do with demography -- Steve Hart 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then. I suppose that might be the sort of thing Tiamut should have written in the article in the first place, instead of what she did write - which only refers to the dictionary meaning of the word, as an inflection of Jerusalem. okedem 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that in your zeal to delete the article, you missed those points Okedem:

Jerusalemites are of varied national, ethnic and religious denominations and include European, Middle Eastern, and African Jews, as well as Palestinians, Muslim and Christian Arabs, and Greek, Armenian, Syrian, and Coptic Christians, among others. Many of these groups were once immigrants or pilgrims that have with time become near indigenous populations; many claim the importance of Jerusalem to their faith as their reason for moving to and being in the city.

Tiamat 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I read the whole article, including that paragraph. It has little to do with what Steve Hart said above. okedem 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange you would see it that way. Steve Hart's definition revolved around "a person of faith". The sentences above say explicitly that many claim the importance of Jerusalem to their faith as their reason for moving to and being in the city. Isn't this a less explicit way of saying the same thing? Tiamat 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. okedem 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To each his own I guess then. Tiamat 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Oxford English Dictionary has no listing for the word "Jerusalemite," so I am skeptical. Could you provide a source for this etymology? By the way, an article should be created about the British New Jerusalemites sect, but the topic appears to be tangential to this article's subject. nadav (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Upon further reading, it looks like we have two articles on it already: The New Church and Swedenborgianism. nadav (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the website Onelook.com ([4]), which searches hundreds of dictionaries, found only one mention of "Jerualemite", via Dictionary.com ([5]), which was actually a definition for "Jerusalem", listing "Jerusalemite" as the adjective/noun, but saying nothing further. Same goes for the Merriam-Webster dictionary ([6]). okedem 08:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that the dictionary would not give a history of the use of the term and its etymology since in popular usage today, it tends to mean merely a "Resident of Jerusalem". That does not however erase the relevancy of the historical usage of the term, its unique history, and its application to and by different groups. These are all worthy of further examination. Indeed, if you had not kept blanking the page and redirecting to Demographics of Jerusalem, the article could have been developed further. Hopefully now we will have that chance. Tiamat 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And are you also not surprised to almost no dictionary even recognizes the existence of the term? Perhaps because it's... non-notable?

As the content you chose to put into the article is nothing more than demographics data and some historical tidbits, I find any further development unlikely (at least in any useful direction, and not as a POV-fork). okedem 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The OED is the most complete listing of etymologies that I know. It also contains many archaic or obsolete words. nadav (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who's adressing who here, but in case the point aligned with mine was directed at me: I can only reiterate what I said, that Jerusalemite is a name historically unrelated to demography. I will offer the following quote from the Acts of the Apostles by Samuel Thomas Bloomfield, from 1828, it says:

  ... when the conversion of Cornelius had been noised abroad, som Cyprians and Cyreneans, converted to Christianity by these Jerusalemite Christians, came to Antioch, and, as being Hellenists dwelling among Gentiles, and thus so much the more disposed to tolerate and admit pagans, they communicated the doctrine of Christ to the Gentiles dwelling at Antioch.[7]

The Antioch it speaks of is, I believe, the one founded about 300 BC and destroyed in 1268. Further, on the Jerusalemite Christians it says:

Mosheim and Kuinoel are of the opinion that the whole of the Jerusalemite Christians was diveded into seven parties, or families, for which there were as many places of public whorship; and that hence also seven persons were elected for the purpose of taking care of the poor and of the strangers ... [8]

As can be seen in the last quote, the context is one of a religious sect, and that has little to do with demography. The wording is interesting, it says "Jerusalemite Christians" rather than "Christian Jerusalemites". Finally, me mentioning the New Jerusalemites in England/Scotland was merely an example as to how far beyond Jerusalem it spread, they were not Jerusalemites in the true meaning of the word. As to your point about dictionaries, I can only refer you to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - I think you will find that the names of most article in WP are not in a dictionary. I might have erred in calling it a term (I'm not a native English speaker), but it is a name. I have not made any edits to this article, but I may add the little I know when time allows. -- Steve Hart 16:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but I think all your inferences here are very false. The first sources you brought that mentioned "New Jerusalemites" were very clearly talking about the Christian sect that evolved out of the philosophies of Emanuel Swedenborg about his vision of the New Jerusalem. See the articles I linked to earlier. The other sources you cite are talking about the very early Christian church. I see no reason not to interpret the text plainly as "Christians that come from Jerusalem". Please bring sources that explicitly support your claim that Jerusalemite means more than "from, of, or relating to Jerusalem".nadav (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what is unclear. People of faith went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, some with the strongest belief settled there, mixed with the local population and founded, over a period of time, various religious sects (or groups). Commonly they were know as the Jerusalemites and that name became a symbol for their faith. The Jerusalemites were both Christian, Jewish and, in time, Muslim. The New Jerusalemites didn't come around before 1800 (if you reread my response you'll see the use of brackets). -- Steve Hart 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom and Tiamut's claim as well; There is no article on the typical 'New Yorker', merely a bland disambig page. --Shuki 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What claim did I make that supports the deletion of this article? Tiamat 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.