Talk:Names of Jerusalem

Turkish name

Removed Cudsembarie or whatever it said. There is no such name. That word structure isn't even Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.205.220 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A few 19th century writers transliterated the Turkish name as Coudsheriff (Kudüs şerif?) or Cudsembaric (Kudüs mübarek?) --ארינמל (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Names from Shaami languages

TNK,Bible,OT,etc.

Instead of using a multitude of terms, why not just use the term "bible"? It's the most nuetral, and most commonly used, term.--Yoshiah ap 21:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I considered that too. But I realized that "Bible" means different things for different religions. To Samaritans, it's the first five books. To Jews, it's what makes up the Tanakh. To Christians, it includes the Tanakh along with the New Testament. But if I say "Book of Genesis", no one is too confused. :) Either someone knows what it is and knows what I'm talking about, or they don't know what it is and have no clue about most of these words anyway. :) - Gilgamesh 01:56, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

Well, there aren't that many Samaritans, let alone Samaritans that surf English websites. I think an honest estimate would be 10 Samaritans check out English websites reguarly. Jews recognize when someone says "The Bible", they are generally talking about the Christian Bible. The word "Tanakh" is used excuslively when speaking of a Jewish Bible, and the phrase "Old Testament" to refer to a Christian translation of the bible.--Yoshiah ap 03:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There might indeed be only ten Samaritans that check English pages but that does not mean we can ignore them. I think Wikipedia, being an international effort, must avoid anything that can cause cross-cultural confusion. It is best to stick to specific terms, rather than using ambiguous terms. Just saying 'Bible' is confusing for Turks too, as they would mostly assume that what's being referred to is the New Testament but sometimes it is used for OT plus NT. Let's not confuse people :) -- EnginGunduz 16:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should "City of David" be added? - Mustafaa 01:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that distinction goes to Bethlehem. - Gilgamesh 02:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References for Ha-Qedosha?

From what I know of Aramaic's methods of adapting loanwords, I find it difficult to believe that this particular title would have entered Aramaic in a form that could generate "al-quds" any more than it could have entered Arabic in that way. Can you cite a reference in support of this claim? - Mustafaa 02:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ha-Qedoshah (the Holy) is applied to Jerusalem on coins from the Bar Kokhba period. In later hymns one finds usage of the masculine Ir Ha-Qodesh (City of the Holiness) as well. In Aramaic Ha-Qodesh is Qodsha' which if I am not mistaken gives rise to Arabic Al-Quds ? Kuratowski's Ghost 13:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ir Ha-Qodesh is phonologically a much more plausible source than "Ha-Qedoshah"; I'm willing to accept that one as the source even without references. Ha-Qedoshah itself, though, doesn't really work. - Mustafaa 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew spelling transliterations instead of pronounceable name?

I see Gilgamesh has replaced the pronounceable names with direct transliterations of Hebrew spelling? I don't see how this is useful to anyone, surely proper words that can be pronounced make more sense than this? Also do we need this Tiberian vs Standard Hebrew stuff? Kuratowski's Ghost 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

More names

• We agreed that Ir Ha-Qedoshah "The Holy City" is different to Al Quds / (Ir) Ha-Qodesh "(City of) the Holiness/Holy Place", so it should be listed as a separate name.

• City of David is indeed used for Jerusalem so we need it as well.

Kuratowski's Ghost 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Shalim outside Ugarit?

My addition that the god Shalim is not mentioned outside Ugarit as well as my statement that the name in the Amarna letters is identical to the word used for peace were commented out by Zero0000. Can you give a reference for Shalim outside Ugarit? As for the meaning in the Amarna letters, I am looking for a good online copy of the text as a reference. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It would have been easier to answer the first question before I returned 10-12 books on the subject to the library a few months ago... The Jewish Encyclopedia lists Phenoecian and Egyptian appearances, and I know there are South Arabian and Mandaic appearances but I can't give a reference immediately. Shalim's twin Shahar has even many more appearances (dozens). The Armana letters are also taken as an appearance by almost everyone. I can find a modern source if you ask (it would take a few days). As for the Armana letters, the issue is not whether the letters can also spell "peace" (I recall "safety", which is similar) but whether that is seen as a reasonable translation in context by the Amarna experts. I do not recall seeing that even once even though I looked in a large number of journal articles and texts. I might have forgotten some, but I'm quite certain that the consensus is that it refers to the god. I'm also certain that the consensus on the "salem" of "Jerusalem" is that it refers to the god. We should not be making our own arguments here but rather quoting named scholars. --12:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia article is badly dated, its suggests "City of Shalim" and then says compare with the Assyrian god Shalman, mentioned in Egyptian as Sharamana etc etc. This doesn't make sense, the Ugaritic "Shalim" means "dusk/sunset" and he was the counterpart of Shahar (dawn). Shalman on the other hand was the Assyrian god of peace. Perhaps ultimately the words are related both coming from an original root sh-l-m meaning "complete" but Ugaritic Shalim is not the same deity as Assyrian Shalman nor do they represent the same concept. Also, don't confuse the god Sahar (s-h-r) Arabian god of the crescent moon with Shahar (sh-ch-r) Ugaritic god of dawn, the names are unrelated but happen to look similar in English transliteration. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article should reflect what the consensus is among relevant modern scholars. Are you going to quote any? --Zero 11:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a consenus. What I have been taught is that the explanation involving "yerush-" + "shalem" is considered the most plausible, where shalem is simply the original name denoting peace. I don't know of any academic references to the god Shalim outside Ugarit (as opposed to Assyrian Shalman obviously found in any text mentioning the emporer Shalmaneser whose name contains it). Kuratowski's Ghost 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah-jireh , Yahweh-yir'eh, Adonai-jireh

The Bible calls the place Y-h-w-h yir'eh. (The apostrophe is a glottal stop, spelt as an aleph) I know that modern Jewish custom orders Adonai ( 'aðōnay) to be said instead; but this rule arose long after the time of Abraham. Anthony Appleyard 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by Ir haQdoosha

In Hebrew, both Qodesh and Q'dushah mean holiness, while the prior may also denote a holy place, whilst the latter refers more to the state of separation from impurity. I'm not sure what is meant by Ir haQdoosha - Ir (city) is feminine, therefore "Holy City" would be Ir Q'doshah would refer to the city, but Ir haQ'dushah would mean "The City of Holiness". Personally, I have not heard the latter expression, while in religious cirles Jerusalem is always called ירושלים עיה"ק "Yerushalaim Ir haQodesh", which is usually translated as The Holy City of Jerusalem, and "Jerusalem, City of Holiness" which is the literal translation.

Ir Ha-Qodesh means "City of the Holiness", Ir Ha-Qedoshah is the "The Holy City", Qedoshah being the feminine adjective. This is what the article originally had but someone changed it to the odd Qdoosha nonsense and everyone was too lazy to change back. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Urushalim vs. yerushalayim

I am surprised no one has commented on the fact that yerushalayim only appears in the masoretic punctuation whereas the consonants of the name in Tanakh corresponds to what we find elsewhere (including Aramaic and Greek), i.e., yruslim, i.e., irushalim and the like. This raises the question, when and where we first encounter the so-called dual form of the name reflected in the masoretic punctuation. -- In my view, this is a rabbinic midrash on the name that continues the trend, already present in Scripture, of obliterating the obviously pre-Israelite character of the name of the holy city.

"Shalem" - Possible Canaanite Origin

[Discussion transferred from User talk:Kuratowski's Ghost]

You censored my addition regarding the possible Canaanite origin of the word Shalem. This seems extreme to me, considering that the idea already existed in the article (as well as in the Hebrew Wiki) and I was merely adding other Biblical examples (all from other Wikipedia articles). Why is the theory okay for Beit Shemesh (see Wiki for Bet Shemesh) but forbidden for Jerusalem? Even if you have somehow disproved this theory (which I doubt), I think it should at least be mentioned, and you may freely add your rebuttal or criticisms. What happened to freedom of thought? Wouldn't you say blanket censorship of this sort is paternalistic? Why not let the reader judge for himself Yabti, from Jerusalem

Its a old crank idea that was criticized and rejected long ago. Shalim together with Shachar were Ugaritic minor gods representing dusk and dawn and were always invoked together. No mention of these minor gods is found outside Ugarit and moreover the root sh-l-m did not carry the same meaning outside Ugarit. As a rejected idea from modernist pseudo-scholarship it doesn't deserve mention. Moreover the name of the city is not Beth Shalim which is what one would get if it was derived this way. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC) The name would not necessarily be "Beth Shalim" - see for example the village of "Anathoth" which is surely nameed after the (major) goddess Anat and does not include the term "Bet". In addition, as I understand it Canaanite mythology is generally poorly attested outside Ugarit so part of your answer relies on the famed "Argument From Silence", with all that entails. In any event, I thank you for your speedy response Yabti.

Its not simply an argument from silence as the root sh-l-m is well attested in the region and means "peace" or "whole" and not "dusk" as in the language of Ugarit. The idea that Anathoth is named after Anat is also modernist presumption since the name can be understood to mean simply "answers". Kuratowski's Ghost 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Deriving "Jerusalem" from the god Shalem is not an old crank idea at all, but the consensus of modern specialists. I know this because I spent several days in a university library looking at the journal literature and recent research texts. This issue will come back, with sources... Zero^talk 05:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

etymology of al-Balat

al-Balāṭ, a rare poetic name for Jerusalem, from Latin palatium "palace".

This is not necessarily correct. In Arabic, balāṭ literally refers to a flat paving stone, and thus idiomatically a path or road. al-Balāṭ would be trivially translated as "the path". In this case it probably refers to a "path of holiness". --76.217.92.82 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Zion?

Zion isn't mentioned here. It is one of the most used names in the Bible I can find. Should it be added? LOOKIE MILK! (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

72 names in Jewish scripture

I remember the article used to list more names. The list compiled that I referenced include the following names in Judaism:

אבן מעמסה , אפרתה , אריאל , ארמון , אשת נעורים , בית תפלה , במות , בעולה , בשן , בתולה , גבעת הלבונה , גולה , גיא חזון , גילה , גלעד , גן אלהים , דלתות העמים , דרום , דרושה , הר גבוה , הר המור , הר מועד , הר הקודש , הר מרום ישראל , חדרך , חפצי בה , טבור הארץ , יבוס , ידידות , ה ' יראה , ה ' שמה , ים , יער הנגב , יפה נוף , ירושלם , ירכתי צפון , כלה , כלילת יופי , כיסא ה ', כרמל , לבנון , מגדל עדר , מוראה , מוריה , מנוחה , מצודה , מקדשים , מרום , משוש כל הארץ , נחלה , סורה , עדן , עיר דוד , עיר היונה , עיר הצדק , עיר ה ', עיר לא נעזבה , עיר שחוברה לה יחדו , עקרה , ציון , קריית מלך רם , רבתי בגויים , רבתי עם , רחל , רמה , שגל , שדה יער , שלם , שרתי במדינות , שם חדש אשר פי ה ' יקבנו .

Might be useful to list them in the article and expand on them. Amoruso (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Jerusalem

This article doesn't say what bibilical scholars / etymologists sugggest the etymology of 'Jerusalem' is. This is the reason I came to the article, so it was a bit of a dissapointment. Tibetologist (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bayt al-Maqdis

The limestone inscription in the mosque of Omar in Bayt Nuba also refers to Jerusalem (or possibly the Dome of the Rock) by this name. The inscription reads: “بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم، هذه الضيعة نوبا بحدودها وأطرافها وقف على صخرة بيت المقدس والمسجد الأقصى اوقفها أمير المؤمنين عمر ابن الخطاب لوجه الله تعالى” --ארינמל (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Query

The article lists these:

• Akkadian (Uru) Salim
• Assyrian (Ur) Salimmu

I'd like to ask whether these names ever appear in the Akkadian/Assyrian sources without the prefixes "Uru" and "Ur". If not, why the parentheses? --Zero 13:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Uru is a determinative placed before names of cities. The general thinking is that determinatives were not actually pronounced. So yes, Ur(u) always appears with Salim(mu) but the same is true of all city names. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So it is like the "River" in "Mississippi River" but we never write it as "Mississippi (River)". We should follow the practice of academic sources and drop the parens. I've looked at dozens of books and journal articles and never saw anything else. That doesn't prevent the name being explained.

Not really the same, seeing that "river" in Mississippi River is really pronounced, its not punctuation like cuneiform determinatives. I think the Akkadian and Assyrian names should be listed as Salim and Salimmu with only a parenthetical note following that they are always preceded by the determinative Uru/Ur which is unrelated to the Jeru- in Jerusalem. I've often come across non-academic articles that include the Uru/Ur as if it is a full part of the name which very easily leads to the misconception that the Uru/Ur is equivalent to Jeru-. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good enough reason. In my experience, all academic sources write Urusalim or similar and we should follow that example. The best way to handle the Uru=Yeru problem is just to explain it. --Zero 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::::One does see "Urusalim" but this is just an unthinking perpetuation of the first few times this was done. Usually in academic works the Uru is written as ^URUsalim. And moreover when discussing the names of all other cities the Uru is not placed in the English name, this is something that is only done with Jerusalem and appears to be directly related to the misconception that the "Jeru" is related to "Uru". Kuratowski's Ghost 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit I was wrong here. I have consulted with my former lecturer on this and the text has both the Uru as a determinitive AND spelled out in two syllables after the determinative, so the name is indeed Uru Shalim / Urushalim with the uru pronounced, meaning City (still correct that this is not identical to "Jeru"). Also the consonent is also definitely Sh in the cuneiform not S and Shalim does mean peace elsewhere in the text, found in Abdi Heba's third letter. (Still trying to find a good online source showing this.). Kuratowski's Ghost 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that cuneiform is part of Unicode, can someone who knows the forms of these names add them in? Jamie Norrish 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the derivation of yeru from yerusha is no longer the preferred theory. The majority opinion today is that yeru comes from yarah (to lay a cornerstone, as in Job 38:6) and so probably means something like "foundation". --Zero 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a source for this? My understanding is that speculation that its based on the verb yarah is an old idea which was never more than speculation and which has been dismissed (not to mention that the form "yeru" wouldn't make gramatical sense if it were based on yarah). Kuratowski's Ghost 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with deriving the "yeru" from "yarah" and attempting to explain it as meaning "foundation" or "founded by" is that the only connection between the word and "foundation" is the verse you mention in Job, the verb "yarah" actually means to shoot or cast, the verse in Job uses it in connection with the cornerstone of the world resulting in translations in English like "laid" or "put down", but the original Hebrew is basically asking "who cast the cornerstone of the world into place?" Kuratowski's Ghost 01:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Iirc, refs [1] and [7] in [| my report on this that doesn't have a proper home yet] give this theory and one of them says that it is the most popular now. I don't think it is true that only Job is involved here; the specialists would have also considered related words and constructions in other Semitic languages. However, nobody claims that it is proved beyond doubt, nor that the "yerusha" theory is disproved beyond doubt. --Zero 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well its been about 15 years since I studied this at university. But at the time an explanation using "yarah" was mentioned but quickly dismissed, the main problem being that trying to interpret it as "founded" is based on shoddy scholarship that misses the fact it literally means cast or shot. There is also as I mentioned above an obvious problem with making sense of the grammar if its from yarah. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sky

I have removed the section claiming that celestis was a title for Jerusalem:

In a drawing discovered beneath the ruins of King Solomon's temple, Jerusalem is referred to as Celestis.(ref)Rand Flem-Ath and Colin Wilson, The Atlantis Blueprint, ISBN 0-7515-3100-6(/ref)

I have removed it because:

• Its anglicised latin; latin would be caelestis. English (and Anglicised latin) isnt a classical language
• Latin is an odd language to be used in this way by people who view the romans as a destructive force to be fought (cf First Jewish Revolt etc).
• The Temple of Solomon, has, as far as I am aware, never been found; indeed its very location is a matter of controversy. How anything could have been found under ruins that have never themselves been found needs quite a bit of justification.
• The reference supporting it is a piece of scatter-gun pseudoscience (according to numerous reviewers) seeking to prove a thesis concerning Atlantis.

In essence, I feel that the claim is extremely dubious, the source for the assertion even more dubious, and essentially backed up by virtually no-one.

I will be happy to add it back in if someone can produce a reputable source for the assertion. --User talk:FDuffy 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

Azerbaijani term doesn't belong here. As discussed here, the Azerbaijani term, which is identical to Turkish, was added because Armenian was here. VartanM (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Saying "doesn't belong" won't cut it.
2. It is not identical to Turkish at all.
3. I do not remember 'discussing' anything (someone's complaint is not a discussion), and quite frankly, I could not be less interested in what somebody's personal impression of its inclusion may be. Parishan (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this does not do it... claiming that the removal was not justified when he provided a link to the Arbcom evidence page won't do it this time. We'll request a comment for this, because the Azeri term does not go there for sure. The intro says, Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The Jews have seventy (70) different names for Jerusalem. There is no way Azeri fits there.

For Jerusalem we have the following languages:

• Biblical Hebrew (obvious why)
• Aramaic (obvious why)
• Biblical Greek (obvious why)
• Syriac (obvious why)
• Biblical Latin (obvious why)
• Arabic (As the language of Muhammad, and the Quran, obvious why and for historic purposes)
• Armenian (The Grabar, and I think the Armenian Quarter in Old Jerusalem should suffice)
• Tiberian Hebrew (obvious why)
• Standard Hebrew (obvious why)
• Old Norse (historical and ethymologic value for the Scandinavians, Germanic etc.)
• Russian (The Russian Orthodox Church, the faith of the Slavic people)
• Azeri (Why oh why Parishan? The current alphabet was introduced in 1991, and not before 1938 those scripts had ever been used).

Parishan, what you are doing is obviously unacceptable and amounts to POV pushing. It is not because the Armenian term was there that it means that the Azeri term fits. It has been explained to you on several occasions that the Grabar Armenian term was used since the Sixth century, and that the Armenian Quarter is one of the few in Old Jerusalem.

Using your logic we could add Japanese, Chinese, and the several hundred dialects which exist in the world. Please stop playing this childish game. Going after articles where Armenian terms are present and without valid justification adding Azeri terms is disruptive editing. - Fedayee (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost two years have passed since Arbcom (enough time to at least try and polish your argumentation), but I have heard nothing new. Your explanation of Jerusalem being of historical importance to viking tribes of Norway and Iceland do not make much sense, and you are still to prove the relevance of Persian, Urdu and Hindi spellings, which are also present. It is not disruptive editing. It is POV pushing on your part in trying hard to rid the article of a reference to Azeri. Who exactly appointed you to set standards for inclusions of names into articles? Tell me, why can the articles Name of Greece and Names of tea include names regardless of languages, but this particular article all of a sudden must adhere to somebody's Azeri-excluding standards? Parishan (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not making sense is your words, it makes sense to anyone willing to understand, that those language terms have been used and written throughout the centuries, while Azeri words are varients of Persian (which you compare to Azeri, for its legimity to stay) and Arabic written in Azeri characters which didn't exist prior to the 20th century. If you would stop taking this matter as a 'battle' and read the article, its introduction and the other languages which are there, and compare it with those of Greece (in comparaison it could be considered as the name of the country), you will see that your comparaison does not work. Since while the article on Greece was made to become just a name given to the country from various languages, the one of Jerusalem has made to become one of historic name. By now you should have understood this. Each time there is a controversy on your behavior you disappear the same day to come back days later to jump in the same controversy, the same way when you stopped contributing during the arbitration cases to escape scrutiny for this very same behavior. VartanM (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, as most human beings in this world, I happen to have a life, which might keep me quite occupied at times and therefore prevent me from active participation in Wikipedia discussions. If you truly believe that my recurring short absences are the result of me being intimidated by your edits, I strongly suggest that you take a Wiki-break. I am glad you missed me during the arbitration but my disappearance was not linked to any Wiki-scrutiny: I ceased to edit entirely on 29 January 2008 and did not resume until 20 May 2008 due to personal reasons. I did not realise I had to have a permission form signed by you allowing me to do so.

The short comment in the heading of his article reads: "This article explores the different names of Jerusalem and their linguistic natures". It does not talk about any 'historical relevance', whatever your understanding of that phrase might be. Most of the names listed their are 'varients of' one another, not just the Azeri. In fact, they are even groupped according to original root toponyms, of which they are varients. By claiming that the Azeri name has no place there because it is a varient of Persian, you might as well delete Persian, because it is in turn a varient of Arabic, as are the Urdu and Turkish names. If you are bothered by the Romanised Azeri writing so much, it would be no problem for me to add the corresponding Azeri names in the Arabic script, and we can put an end to this discussion. Agree? Parishan (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not miss you because your alter ego never left. Your disappearance to escape scrutiny is not limited to this, several other cases include for example Khoikhoi's warning. Like I said, it has become a circular discussion (as can be seen you are still comparing long written languages with Azeri) and neither of us can bring anything new. The only step left at this point is to request a RfC. Agree? VartanM (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek form

We have: "The Greek form Hierousalēm with the rough breathing (h sound) not derived directly from the Hebrew pronunciation, indicates a reinterpretation of the first syllables as the Greek hiero meaning holy." and for this we have a citation "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume" by Kittel et al. However, that source does not support the text. What it says is "For Jerusalem the LXX has Ieorusalēm (hē is the article), but the form Hierosólyma also occurs and Hellenistic Jews prefer it because it echoes hierós." This is not the same thing at all. It doesn't indicate this as the origin of the form but only that it is preferred because it is similar to something. So a reference is still required. According to Smith's book "Jerusalem" (Vol I, p260): "In the Septuagint and the citation of Josephus from Clearchus the light breathing should probably be prefixed to Ierousalem; but in any case the rough breathing came early into use : Hierousalem. This may have been originally due to the effort to express the consonantal force of the first letter; but more probably arose from--and was at least confirmed by--the fashion prevalent in Western Asia from the third and second centuries B.C., of Hellenising proper names." On the same page Smith also calls Hierosolyma the Hellenised form. Smith's book is quite old (1908) but Kittel's work is not recent either (Kittel died in 1948). Zero^talk 05:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Amarna letters

Problematic text:

In the Amarna letters, Urušalim (^URUšalimum) is used for Jerusalem and is recognized as being a cognate of Hebrew Ir Shalem - city of Salem. In the language of the Amarna letters, the term šalim has the meaning of "peace". The letters thus corroborated the traditional understanding of the name and overturned earlier speculation amongst scholars that attempted to link the name Salem to the name of a god of dusk Shalim found in Ugaritic writings.

This carries no citation and is wrong and/or fringe. In fact Urušalim does not appear as ^URUšalimum in the Amarna letters (here URU is a determinative that indicates a city name is following). It appears either as ^URUurušalim or as urušalim without a determinative. The statement "cognate of Hebrew 'Ir Shalem' - city of Salem" might be true in some sense but it is misleading given that the Amarna letters long predated the Hebrew language. The rest of it ("peace" etc) is entirely contrary to mainstream scholarly opinion, which supports the connection to the god Shalim over other alternatives. Zero^talk 07:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem lead RfC

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Names of Jerusalem. 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/20140221223704/http://www.biblicalwritings.com/shalem-deity-the-anchor-bible-dictionary/ to http://www.biblicalwritings.com/shalem-deity-the-anchor-bible-dictionary/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/Etana/SMITH.JERUv1/SMITH.JERUv1.250.273.pdf

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) 04:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Beth-Shalem

I removed a claim that Beth-Shalem appears in the Amarna letters, for the following reasons: (1) although it does appear in the source, the source fails to mention the consensus on urusalim nor any other checkable information, making its reliability dubious; (2) I checked several academic articles specifically on Jerusalem in the Amarna letters and Beth-Shalem is not mentioned at all; (3) This source explains that Beth-Shalem is J. Lewy's 1940 attempted reconstruction of an ancient name, based on the (challenged) appearance of Beth-Shalem somewhere other than the Amarna letters. Zero^talk 03:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Old Norse

Moved over here from the article the following:

Similarly [to the Greek Hierosolyma, "holy..."] the Old Norse form Jorsalir (plural; genitive Jorsala)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://runeberg.org/nfbm/0102.html|title = 171-172 (Nordisk familjebok / Uggleupplagan. 13. Johan - Kikare)|year = 1910}}</ref> exhibits a re-interpretation of the second element as -salir, denoting a hall or temple, common in Old Norse toponyms.

An Old Norse-related sentence in the middle of the Greek-related paragraph, with a dead link as a source and presented in a weird form (source in the middle of the sentence; suggests that it only covers the name as such, while the commentary is the work of the editor[s]) is not acceptable. The language of the source isn't indicated, the title is not translated, no access date, nothing. I have no idea what the source is supposed to be beyond the website's name, which might or might not be connected to Johan Ludvig Runeberg. Shame, maybe there was something interesting there.

From the edit history: the etymology of Jorsalir was introduced by a once very active former editor (here, on17 April 2005):

The Old Norse form Jorsala indicates an interpretation of the last syllables as the Old Norse toponym ending -sala denoting a hall (sometimes a temple hall).

Another (anonymous) editor, 151.177.57.24, who only edited in 2019-20, added the source in the middle of it on 26 January 2020, and then changed -sala to -salir.

This all looks possibly legit and interesting, but is hard to keep in the article w/o a proper source as some minimal way to check that what's written there has any base in reliable research. Once it's been sorted out, I'd be happy to have it back in, in a place of its own. Arminden (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Israeli name in Arabic

Like the Hebrew article and the Arabic Jerusalem article this article should mention أورشليم القدس Ūršalīm-al-Quds used by the Israeli Government, Jerusalem Municipality, and other organisations in publications road signs and on tv and radio. Mcljlm (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

References