Misplaced Pages

User talk:WGFinley: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:49, 21 December 2011 editWGFinley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,088 edits →Request← Previous edit Revision as of 01:19, 22 December 2011 edit undoMichaelNetzer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,033 edits →Request: Understood and appreciated. Here is a list of some sources and explanations.Next edit →
Line 201: Line 201:


Whenever I see discussion get into arguing scholars I start to wonder if the discussion has gone into ] and that could be the case here. --] (]) 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Whenever I see discussion get into arguing scholars I start to wonder if the discussion has gone into ] and that could be the case here. --] (]) 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

:I understand and appreciate the advice. Here are the sources presently in Etymology, and others, to help navigate.
:*(25) ^ a b Binz, Stephen J. (2005). ''''. Connecticut, USA.: Twenty-Third Publications. p. 2. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
:**This one above was there before the dispute began and it referenced the ancient 'Foundation of Shalim' etymology. Directly after it: ''"The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness."''
:The following are 3 scholarly sources that I added recently to the article to support the meaning in Etymology.
:* (34) ^ Hastings, James (2004). '''' (Part II: I -- Kinsman), Volume 2. Honolulu, Hawaii: Reprinted from 1898 edition by University Press of the Pacific. p. 584. ISBN 1410217256. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
:*(35) ^ a b Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2007). ''''. The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. pp. 225-226. ISBN 9004153888. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
:*(37) ^ Bosworth, Francis Edward (1968). '''' Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 183. ISBN B0000CO4LE. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
:*This is the most extensive scholarly source on the origin and evolution of the name Jerusalem. Professor Yaakov Klein, Bar-Ilan University in Tel-Aviv., Department of Hebrew Language and Tanach. ''''. It's in Hebrew but it seems to clarify things and covers more than I've seen anywhere. Zero000, who seems fluent in Hebrew acknowledges that it affirms 'city of peace' as the popular meaning of the name with linguistic foundations, but says it . I strongly disagree. I haven't seen this degree of resolution and exposition on the name in present sources in the article.
:This one is also a supportive scholarly source but it has been dismissed on grounds that seem unreasonable, that I've responded to .
:*(36) ^ a b Denise DeGarmo (9 September 2011). ''''. Wandering Thoughts. Center for Conflict Studies. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
:These are additional supportive sources that show the wide recognition of the popular meaning. As supportive for the intent of showing popular recognition, they are all published by reputable reliable publishers, though not all of them are publishers of only scholarly books:
, , , , , , ,
' , , ,
:A few additional concerns:
:#As the first few sources show 'city of peace' and 'abode of peace' are synonymous, though the latter seems to be far more prevalent in scholarly and popular references.
:#The appearance in the lede is not meant to be a linguistic thesis on the name. It reflects well supported scholarly and popular recognition, though there are enough academic sources that support its literal meaning. This is naturally disputed, in that it's a contentious issue within the A-I conflict, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's a minority opinion. If anything, it might be a significant enough minority to justify its inclusion in the lede for the purposes of popular recognition. But it seems to me to be a well established fact about the name's meaning. What editors have done now by removing the Hebrew meaning and leaving the Arabic is create an unwarranted discrepancy on unsubstantiated grounds of a linguistic preference, which is not what the lede is meant to serve.
:#The significance for both the Hebrew and Arabic meaning appearing in the lede is that they reflect the two prevalent modern cultures presiding over the city. Removing one or even both, compromises the articles quality and recognition of the city for what it represents in the introduction.
:#I believe I tried to remain civil and collaborative but admit it's been difficult in the face of what seemed unequivocal dismissal of everything I've said and the type of personal insinuations that I don't see tolerated elsewhere in the editing space. :#I am somewhat at a loss for how to proceed. I believe there's a need for non-involved administrator guidance, or editors not previously in the same "camp" as the editor who instigated the change, such as some of the few who stepped in to "mediate". I don't wish to be facetious but it seems odd that everything I say is distorted, attacked and deemed wrong, in light of the case I've tried to make in good faith. I'm concerned the same editors will pounce on a ] request and we'd be back at square one. Any advice would be appreciated. --] (]) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:19, 22 December 2011


Feel free to use this page to reach me. If you are in need of more personal, private, or immediate assistance, feel free to email me. Thanks!.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13


This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.

— Thomas Jefferson

In a last ditch effort...

Convo Hijacked By Sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To prevent me filing an A/E case against you, could you please wikilink me to where you responded this specifically and directly? I am still willing to accept it was an oversight on my part. I see you are currently offline, I will try to wait until I am finished typing up the report for you to respond, if you even want to at all. -asad (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I just clicked through on that link, and saw the part where you wrote:
...his search term in Google Books was, "where is mt hermon israel or syria". JJG was just fishing through Google Books to find any source he could where it stated "Israel" rather than "Syria".
To me, it looks like he was trying to identify whether it was in Israel or Syria. If he had searched for something like "mr hermon israel" I would agree with you, but it really looks like he was just looking for sources that discuss the topic.
If you file an AE case, please also look into WGFinley's misconduct in this AE and the discussion at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported to A/E. Sorry I couldn't give you more time to respond, but I reread the JJG case and I am confident that you have never addressed the issue of misrepresentation of sources. -asad (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the 6 hours, is there anything at WP:ADMIN that says I'm not allowed to have a job? --WGFinley (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything that says I have to request double clarification? The issue has been moved here. -asad (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I stated my opinion and reasons on an AE case. Another admin (not me) deemed there was no consensus. Another admin (not me) closed the case. It's concluded, I didn't take any action that requires explanation. --WGFinley (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Thanks for giving me the 6 hours, is there anything at WP:ADMIN that says I'm not allowed to have a job?" does not sound civil to me. Further, the fact that you think you don't need to explain your actions shows why this is so necessary. You don't think you're accountable for your actions. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    No, I definitely am accountable for my actions, I just won't be accountable for unreasonable requests made when I have a life, a job, a family. I can't respond immediately to every request made on my talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    asad asked you, multiple times, to address the issue of Jiujitsuguy misrepresenting sources. Do not try to misrepresent this as only being brought to your attention here when asad notified you of his intention to file an AE. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    Asad wants me to get involved in a content dispute, I refuse to do so, I've answered it multiple times. --WGFinley (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You miss the point entirely. The issue is your bad judgement calls related to an editor misrepresenting sources. The content itself is not in question here. You seem to be handwaving to draw attention from your unsatisfactory administrator behavior. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"related to an editor misrepresenting source" = a content dispute! --WGFinley (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • No, absolutely not. Misrepresenting a source is a violation of the core goal of the project. Where did you get the idea that misrepresenting source = content dispute? un☯mi 09:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone with that kind of small-minded, pigheaded attitude should not be a Misplaced Pages administrator. You're in the wrong here and you're trying to misdirect attention to cover it up. That's totally unacceptable. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@Unomi Since it would be up to editors to review the source and determine how it is represented. If the source says "a widget has a wang doodle and a thingamabob" one could say "a widget has a thingamabob" and supporters of wang doodles would be very upset and might call it misrepresenting the source. That's a content dispute. If one says the source says "a widget doesn't have a watchamacallit" that would throw another wrench into the works wouldn't it? All three of these statements are true but can be presented different ways, hence they are about content and WP:ARBCOM has continually declined to get involved in content disputes hence my methodology on AE. Now, if one says "You don't know what the hell you are talking about, you clearly can't understand normal thinking because that source is rubbish and this source says there's also thingamabobs you pig headed small minded fool." Now that would be conduct and subject to admin action.

Yes, but to stretch your example further, in this case we had an editor who took a source stating "a widget has a wang doodle but no thingamabob", and cited it as saying "a widget has a... thingamabob". That is not a mere content dispute, but a clear user conduct issue. RolandR (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@YTA Your goal here appears to call me names, I don't see how discussing this any further with you will have any merit. --WGFinley (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

BD

Hi Wgfinley!

I wrote something similar on my user page.

Administrators are generally supposed to avoid granting self-blocks of editors. A small number of administrators do grant self-blocks, under stringent conditions, none of which allow the blocking of an angry user like Badger Drink.

It would be good for all if you would now remove the indefinite block on Badger Drink.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point, he asked for a self-block and received it. He is not blocked from his talk so he's free to ask to be unblocked if he so desires. I also told him he could personally contact me if he wished. Unblocking him at this point would reopen a can I would assume leave closed since we finally got it calmed down. --WGFinley (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
By that logic, we could ban everybody, which would calm things down even more. ;)
The point is that your block does not seem consistent with the prohibition against self-blocks and that an indefinite block is excessive. BD should not have to ask to be unblocked.
Further, we have lost the services of a valuable editor.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
If one were to remove his block then you would end up opening up that AN/I case again for review of his behavior since once he asked for the self-block all action was dropped. There isn't a policy against self-blocks, it's generally reserved for certain circumstances and I believe this qualifies and, again, I have given him ways out should he choose to exercise it. These are my conditions as I set them on a case by case basis. You can't use a self-block to evade conduct issues. --WGFinley (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Homer,
You are nodding. ;)
BD didn't evade conduct issues. He was discussing them, relatively well, at ANI when a bad block cut off the ANI and the RfC (which a number of serious administrators suggested was a bad idea to begin).
Please consider this as damage-control on the first imprudent (although technically justified) block.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BD is free to request the unblock at any time BD would like. --WGFinley (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo

Palazzolo Hi there - wondering what news you have on Palazzolo?--Fircks (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked (see above!), I hope to review this weekend. --WGFinley (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


Thank you WGFinley.

You said use your talk page for anything, so:

1. There are no other regular editors on the article's talk page.

2. As regards reference cases, this BLP is unique (as far as I know) because there are no Press articles trumpeting his innocence, or the lack of evidential guilt. There are only Judges rulings and affidavits from lawyers testifying to the lack of evidence against him and - indeed - to the fabrications created against him in SA and Palermo in Sicily, which points to a conspiracy.

3. This dispute centres round the presentation of hearsay and unverified allegations as fact. And if not as fact, then it is mentioned in passing, which is enough to smear a man who, in a court of law, has not been found guilty. This "information" is garnered from newspapers. To which I respond with verifiable, substantiated court documentation. It is, in the end, about a balanced view.

--Fircks (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I am appealing the topic ban that you issued on November 30th.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning recent events..

Understood - I will still advocate for extreme caution regarding admins evaluating sources. --WGFinley (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, Wgfinley: The Arbitration Committee received a request to review your recent actions in reviewing an Arbitration Enforcement request: We reviewed, and wanted to correct a mis-perception.

You have stated in that review and in the related AN discussion that editors misrepresenting sources is a content issue, and as such, should only be handled in the normal manner on the article's talk page, rather then having administrators involved. This is not in tune with numerous Arbitration Committee findings and principles. Editors misrepresenting sources is a conduct problem, not a content problem, and as such can be handled under discretionary sanctions at AE or in other cases, at AN/ANI.

Please make sure to familiarize yourself with this and other such principles that form the bulk of our decisions. If you have any questions, please let us know so we can resolve any further questions you have. SirFozzie (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a very slippery slope to me, but if this is where Arbcom wants admin review then I will do so. I hope Arbcom is there to back up admins when the WP:INVOLVED cry comes out because they were analyzing sources. --WGFinley (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think there is a slope involved; this is a principle that has been well established for a very long time, and quite uncontroversial. Look at Sadi Carnot that set it forth in 2007 (and that may not be its earliest appearance either; it's just the oldest case I am aware of). — Coren  14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Wgfinley may be an administrator who should be more cautious in the future.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Because it is P-I, it is a constant struggle to remain above the fray as the editors in this area constantly bring up WP:INVOLVED to defend against admin actions they don't like, this is putting one more tool in the toolbox of tendentious editors. Already "vandalism" has come to mean almost nothing in this topic space as it is already bandied about on a constant basis to attack edits one side or the other doesn't like. Making decisions in P-I is a delicate balancing act, if we continue getting pushed beyond plagiarism, OR and blatant misrepresentation of sources we run the risk of being pushed too far. This is the stuff that leads to severe admin burnout in this area, they get fed up constantly being under harsh scrutiny for every opinion uttered and decide it's not worth it. --WGFinley (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you should review WP:V, one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages. The more serious precedent would be admins not being allowed to review misrepresentation of sources, something that plainly attacks a core pillar of the project.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "This is the stuff that leads to severe admin burnout" -- that's extremely sophistical reasoning. I think you're aware of the relevant Misplaced Pages policies, but just have no respect for them. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And I think that WGFinley, not to mentioned myself and likely many others, has heard your opinion of him far too often. Please stop badgering him. NW (Talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    Come on NW, I for one am completely shocked that two users I have taken action on from AE and another appealing a block for someone else would choose to use an Arbcom notice of a discussion (email? I don't know, wasn't invited) to pile on. Shocked I tell you. --WGFinley (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please carry on, WGF. Your contributions are appreciated. Part of the job is that we have to get advice from Arbcom from time to time, but that goes with the territory. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I do not really care what actions you have taken against me or anyone else. If I thought you were right, I would say so. Personal vendettas are for squares. If I say you are wrong, it is because I have come to an objective and independent conclusion regarding the facts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

cookies

Cookies!

ElComandanteChe has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I realize how ridiculous these cookies are, but the readers of this page could enjoy something imbecilic yet positive. So, guys, grab the free cookies, and try to see things in perspective.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Haha, thanks very much, appreciated. --WGFinley (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cookies!

ThatPeskyCommoner has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Nice cookies! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for you :P

The Affectionate Wolf-Schlurrrp
Cookie-sharing? Somewhat-chewed cookie being generously donated by friendly wolf :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on your administrative actions

What you did there was mildly humorous, but not exactly gentlemen-like. You may find the notion easy to dismiss, but I am actually quite capable of making an objective evaluation of someone's actions even when they do something that frustrates me. The only connection for me between your actions against me and your actions elsewhere is that I would not be aware of the latter were it not for the former.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my talk page, if you are going to come here to discuss something you need to let it go when it's been discussed. Adding a comment to a conversation that has been concluded is not going to have desirable results. Frankly, this statement is an admission of hounding. Not a single uninvolved administrator has taken issue with my block or TBAN of you; you might do well to reassess your capability to be objective. Let it go and move on please. --WGFinley (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
His post wasn't remonstrating your AE actions against him, it was addressing you hiding behind claims of hounding and revenge when criticized for an issue which plenty of uninvolved users found you had mishandled due to your misapprehension of policies. un☯mi 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue is obviously settled, and it's time to let the matter drop. This isn't a suggestion that you suppress legitimate complaints (which have already been addressed, not least by an arbitrator, in his official capacity, above), but an invitation to learn when it's time to be quiet. AGK 15:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with you guys is that you don't know when to speak up, or lack the integrity to. un☯mi 16:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't denied him his say and I'm not hiding behind anything. There comes a point where the discussion is over and that discussion was over. He commented 4 days before and didn't add anything new but came to chime in again. I'm certain that when Sir Fozzie and Coren posted here it was to explain the Arbcom position on this stuff to me, not create a place for folks to pile on. --WGFinley (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WG, I wasn't moving your comment, but moving my own comment below yours because I had accidentally placed it above your response to Unomi. It seems the diff showed it as me moving yours because I added a space between comments. No need to remove my comments altogether if that was your only issue with it. So would you mind restoring this version where my comments are appropriately placed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

γ & δ

Could you answer the question before the close? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

Since you think I should not be going to AE so often, please tell me what I should do in the following situation. A user makes gross, obscene distortions on the comments of others, threatens to revert consensus edits, and then actually reverts an edit that has consensus. There is currently a headcount of 6 users in favor of the edit, and one user against who is demanding that his view is the only thing that counts, and everybody else is wrong. What would you have me do in such a situation other than report the user for tendentious and disruptive editing? nableezy - 18:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been an exhaustive ongoing dispute for a couple of weeks instigated by one editor making unsubstantiated claims that scholarly sources don't support the meaning of the name in the lede. It has been intense at times and I've been assaulted with far worse personal derision than the comments in the link above. I've posted many reliable academic sources that do acknowledge this meaning, several are already in the Etymology section. The lede is presently a balanced presentation of the Arabic and Hebrew meanings, a long-standing community consensus. To change it, a quality argument is needed. Not distortion and denial of facts, and certainly not the rallying of a few editors trying to disrupt a balanced introduction to the city. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy I think you would get a lot further if you toned it down Nableezy, apparently calls by all sorts to ask you to have no effect. You never seem satisfied to just have facts that support you, you aren't satisfied until your opponents entrails litter the ground. To me Michael is making a simple point about something, he appears to be of a minority opinion and he appears to need to make a better case for his sources and work more collaboratively, that's kind of tough when some folks have little interest other than to eviscerate him. Repeating "your argument is of a higher quality is both unsurprising and unimportant" a few times and then threatening to go to AE. Did you think belittling him was going to resolve the dispute or piss him off? It would appear the latter. --WGFinley (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Michael: You do seem to have dug your heels in a bit on an issue that could be considered a minority view. I haven't looked at the sources you were citing yet as I don't have much time this evening but I do find this section from WP:OR to be very useful:

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

  • If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research.

Whenever I see discussion get into arguing scholars I start to wonder if the discussion has gone into WP:OR and that could be the case here. --WGFinley (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate the advice. Here are the sources presently in Etymology, and others, to help navigate.
  • (25) ^ a b Binz, Stephen J. (2005). Jerusalem, the Holy City. Connecticut, USA.: Twenty-Third Publications. p. 2. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
    • This one above was there before the dispute began and it referenced the ancient 'Foundation of Shalim' etymology. Directly after it: "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness."
The following are 3 scholarly sources that I added recently to the article to support the meaning in Etymology.
  • (34) ^ Hastings, James (2004). A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume II: (Part II: I -- Kinsman), Volume 2. Honolulu, Hawaii: Reprinted from 1898 edition by University Press of the Pacific. p. 584. ISBN 1410217256. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
  • (35) ^ a b Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2007). Historic cities of the Islamic world. The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. pp. 225-226. ISBN 9004153888. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
  • (37) ^ Bosworth, Francis Edward (1968). Millennium: a Latin reader, A. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 183. ISBN B0000CO4LE. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
  • This is the most extensive scholarly source on the origin and evolution of the name Jerusalem. Professor Yaakov Klein, Bar-Ilan University in Tel-Aviv., Department of Hebrew Language and Tanach. "The Origin of the name Jerusalem and its meanings". It's in Hebrew but it seems to clarify things and covers more than I've seen anywhere. Zero000, who seems fluent in Hebrew acknowledges that it affirms 'city of peace' as the popular meaning of the name with linguistic foundations, but says it ["doesn't have anything not appearing in English sources". I strongly disagree. I haven't seen this degree of resolution and exposition on the name in present sources in the article.
This one is also a supportive scholarly source but it has been dismissed on grounds that seem unreasonable, that I've responded to here.
  • (36) ^ a b Denise DeGarmo (9 September 2011). "Abode of Peace?". Wandering Thoughts. Center for Conflict Studies. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
These are additional supportive sources that show the wide recognition of the popular meaning. As supportive for the intent of showing popular recognition, they are all published by reputable reliable publishers, though not all of them are publishers of only scholarly books:

, , , , , , , ' , , ,

A few additional concerns:
  1. As the first few sources show 'city of peace' and 'abode of peace' are synonymous, though the latter seems to be far more prevalent in scholarly and popular references.
  2. The appearance in the lede is not meant to be a linguistic thesis on the name. It reflects well supported scholarly and popular recognition, though there are enough academic sources that support its literal meaning. This is naturally disputed, in that it's a contentious issue within the A-I conflict, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's a minority opinion. If anything, it might be a significant enough minority to justify its inclusion in the lede for the purposes of popular recognition. But it seems to me to be a well established fact about the name's meaning. What editors have done now by removing the Hebrew meaning and leaving the Arabic is create an unwarranted discrepancy on unsubstantiated grounds of a linguistic preference, which is not what the lede is meant to serve.
  3. The significance for both the Hebrew and Arabic meaning appearing in the lede is that they reflect the two prevalent modern cultures presiding over the city. Removing one or even both, compromises the articles quality and recognition of the city for what it represents in the introduction.
  4. I believe I tried to remain civil and collaborative but admit it's been difficult in the face of what seemed unequivocal dismissal of everything I've said and the type of personal insinuations that I don't see tolerated elsewhere in the editing space. :#I am somewhat at a loss for how to proceed. I believe there's a need for non-involved administrator guidance, or editors not previously in the same "camp" as the editor who instigated the change, such as some of the few who stepped in to "mediate". I don't wish to be facetious but it seems odd that everything I say is distorted, attacked and deemed wrong, in light of the case I've tried to make in good faith. I'm concerned the same editors will pounce on a WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard request and we'd be back at square one. Any advice would be appreciated. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. Wales, Jimmy. "WikiEN-l roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--", September 29, 2003.
User talk:WGFinley: Difference between revisions Add topic