Talk:Meleke

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [1], [2]. 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; Michal Oren-Nordheim (2001). Jerusalem and Its Environs: Quarters, Neighborhoods, Villages, 1800-1948. Wayne State University Press.  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." [3], [4] 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.