Talk:Montefiore Windmill

A sensitive area?

One paragraph seems to be offending some people. I realise that the Middle East and its peoples can be a sensitive area, and it's not my area of expertise. Therefore I propose to discuss the paragraph here and gain consensus over how it should be worded. My source was written in the 1930s when attitudes were different to how they are today.

Old version

There was much local opposition to the windmill when it was built and a curse was put on the mill by one of the local millers. It was predicted that the mill would be washed away during the rainy season. The mill survived intact and was then declared to be the work of Satan. Another problem was that Arabs developed a taste for the lubricating oil, and is was feared that the mill would burn down due to bearings running dry, as the Arabs licked the bearings to get at the oil. A solution was found by placing a leg of pork in a barrel of oil. The Arabs lost their taste for oil after that.

New version

In Watermills and Windmills (1933), William Cole Finch relates that there was much local opposition to the windmill when it was built and that a curse was put on the mill by one of the local millers. It was predicted that the mill would be washed away during the rainy season, and after the mill survived intact, it was declared to be the work of Satan. Finch also writes that the Arabs developed a taste for the lubricating oil, would lick the bearings to get at the oil, and that it was feared that the mill would burn down due to bearings running dry. According to Finch, a solution was found by placing a leg of pork in a barrel of oil and the Arabs lost their taste for oil after that.

I'm not sure that it is necessary to give the name of the source (Coles Finch) when it is referenced anyway.

Proposed version

In a book published in 1933, it is related that there was much local opposition to the windmill when it was built and that a curse was put on the mill by one of the local millers. It was predicted that the mill would be washed away during the rainy season, and after the mill survived intact, it was declared to be the work of Satan. It is recorded that the Arabs developed a taste for the lubricating oil, and that they would lick the bearings to get at the oil., It was feared that the mill would burn down due to bearings running dry. Apparently, a solution was found by placing a leg of pork in a barrel of oil and the Arabs lost their taste for oil after that.

Comments would be welcome. If you rewrite that paragraph, please copy it and make your changes to the new paragraph so that we can compare the two and discuss them easily. Mjroots (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: That's better than writing "Finch" before each sentence, it becomes a very poorly written paragraph then and serves only one purpose. Epson291 (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Support per Epson291. -- Nudve (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts here Mjroots. Might I ask before making a decision on the matter if the original excerpt from the book containing this information could be re-posted here? It may help us in determining how to better present it. Tiamut^talk 10:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The original version how I originally wrote it is the old version posted above. I realise that use of the word "Arabs" may offend some people, but I can't descibe them as Jews or Muslims because the source doesn't say that. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the original text of the book, I am willing to copy it out, but will need to check the copyright status first. Book may be out of copyright as it was published in 1933. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Yeah, I'm interested in seeing the original text of the book, posted here as a quotation (I don't think that poses a copyright problem). If it's really long, you could just post the relevan excerpts. I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I can't find an online copy and I would like to see the original in order to determine how we can best present the information there, without offending anybody. Tiamut^talk 11:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for confirmation of the copyright status of the book. As soon as it's confirmed copyright free I'll copy out the text. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's a problem, you can send me the text via email. I don't use email for off-wiki wiki related discussions, but I think I can make an exception in this case. Tiamut^talk 12:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I've e-mailed you the text as it's taking a while to get an answer re copyright status. Text is for your own personal use and not for reproduction unless book is confirmed as out of copyright. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi Mjroots. Thanks for doing that. The portion relevant to the licking is here:

In the early days of the mill's working, an extraordinary difficulty presented itself, according to one of the men who went out there. It appears that the Arabs were too fond of lubricating oil, and would steal every drop they could get hold of! A remark was even made that the mill would surely one day be burnt, so dry would she become for want of oil! The Arabs even licked the bearings to get a taste of the oil!
At last a solution to the problem was hit upon. A leg of pork was placed in the barrel of oil, whereupon on account of their superstition against such meat, the Arabs lost their appetite for the oil!

Please note that this is a second-hand anecdote relayed to Finch by a nameless character ("one of the men who went out there" [to the mill?]). One wonders if it should be included at all, with all the ridiculous exclamation marks, but since you all seem to like it, I'm not about to go against consensus. Forgive my itchiness on the subject but this kind of Orientalist balderdash is part of why the West looks at Arabs as though we are inferior life-forms. No matter.

The important thing is that the text in this article should reflect that this is a second-hand anecdote, not something Finch witnessed himself. He is an WP:RS on windmills yes, but not on the eating habits of Arabs and neither is "one of the men who went out there". So perhaps something like this:

William Cole Finch writing in 1933 provides the reader with two anecdotes surrounding the windmill's construction. The first is that there was much opposition from among the local millers to the windmill, who looked upon it with the evil eye, sending their head man to curse it. Predictions were made that the mill would be washed away during the rainy season, and after it survived intact, it was declared to be the work of Satan. Another anecdote related to and by Finch is that the Arabs developed a taste for the lubricating oil and would lick the bearings to get at it, prompting fear that the mill would burn down due to bearings running dry. A solution was found by placing a leg of pork in the oil barrel and the Arabs were said to have lost their taste for oil after that.

I'm sorry if I come off sounding pernickety about this, (and please excuse my frankness) but really, some Jewish colonist in Palestine tells a Brit that the Arabs lick windmill bearings and that they solved the problem by putting pork in it (hardy-har-har). He believes it and writes it down in book, and because he's an expert on windmills, we're quoting this crap in an article. And we cannot offer any real context because no one bothered to deconstruct the Orientalist outlook in the writings of a windmill expert. (Where is Edward Said when you need him.) Oh well. Yeah for Wikipedia! Tiamut^talk 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting "one of the men who went out there" doesn't make sense without saying where there is, remove it, it doesn't have to be quoted. Epson291 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tiamut^talk 23:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Combination of the Proposed/Tiamut version In a book published in 1933 two anecdotes are told surrounding the windmill's construction. The first is that there was much opposition from among the local millers to the windmill, who looked upon it with the evil eye, sending their head man to curse it. Predictions were made that the mill would be washed away during the rainy season, and after it survived intact, it was declared to be the work of Satan. The second Another anecdote related to and by Finch is that the Arabs developed a taste for the lubricating oil and would lick the bearings to get at it, prompting fear that the mill would burn down due to bearings running dry. A solution was found by placing a leg of pork in the oil barrel and the Arabs were said to have lost their taste for oil after that.

Comments please. Epson291 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Before I comment, some background. As I stated earlier, the book was written 75 years ago when attitudes were very different to those today. Its target audience would most likely have been English middle class people. The "one of the men who went out there" is most likely one of the millwrights or an employee thereof. Thus there is most likely a lot of truth in what is related. The opposition to the mill would be because the new mill was vastly more efficient than grinding by hand querns, and the millers may have feared that their work would be taken from them. Although built with all the modern machinery of the time, a windmill needs wind to enable it to work, and this was the ultimate reason it was not a success, not due to any fault in design or construction.

That said, I support the combination paragraph as proposed by Tiamut. It gives an accurate summary of what was published, and makes it clear the info is secondhand, which is one concern Tiamut raised.Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted "from among" - should be "from" or "amongst", I prefer the latter, but either is fine. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

support. The combined version looks fine to me. -- Nudve (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the combination version I did, but I'll update the article pending no further disagreements. Epson291 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's settled then. Thanks to all for working together, and especially Tiamut for her frank views on the source and the information contained therein. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for allowing to me participate (and vent a little ;)). I still thinnk the "licking" part is a little dubious, but if you all want to include it anyway, I won't make any more of a fuss about it. T

Thanks especially to Mjroots for taking the time to type out the text and send it to me. I realize this whole discussion is a little out of your scope (your focus being more on windmills, trains, etc., in themselves) and I appreciate that you took so much of your time to deal with my concerns. Happy editing everyone. Tiamut^talk 11:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaffa Gate Mill

(From User_talk:Epson291#Moses_Montfiore_Windmill and User_talk:Mjroots/Archive/Mills#Moses_Montefiore_Windmill)

Is this windmill the Jaffa Gate Mill built by the Canterbury, Kent millwrights Holman Brothers? If so, I can expand the article with details about its construction. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes in was indeed. See the google link here (first several links). I don't know who the Holman Brothers are, but it was bought and from Canterbury and while I've never heard it called the Jaffa Gate Mill it is defintly that, it is right next to Jaffa Gate and it is the mill that was built there for the new community. Epson291 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it and it was indeed by the Holman Brothers, check out this article here and look at comment (talkback) number four. Epson291 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The name of Jaffa Gate Mill would probably date to the 1860s. It should be mentioned in the lead per WP:LS and also in the infobox where a space is provided for alternative names. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Gilabrand, would you mind restoring the bolded name in the lead and in the infobox? Or should I? Tiamut^talk 13:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something, but what's the source for this being called "Jaffa Gate Mill" again? I mean, the fact it's right next to Jaffa Gate and is a mill doesn't count as an RS, now does it? I'm removing it from the lead until it's sourced. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT right next to the Jaffa Gate. It is about a ten minute walk.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced, p51 of Watermills and Windmills states that the mill is about ¼ mile from the Jaffa Gate. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The illustration of the mill in 1858 from the Illustrated London News is captioned "Jaffa Gate Mill" in Coles Finch's book. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact the mill is near the Jaffa Gate, does not mean it's called Jaffa Gate Mill. That's OR. This is the first time you mention the illustration in the book. The fact a google search for "Jaffa Gate Mill" returns only links to wikipedia at the very least means this is a VERY uncommon name and doesn't belong in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is mentioned at least twice in a book means that it should be mentioned in the lead as an alternative name. I'll admit that it is not the primary usage but it is a valid alternative name. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-wiki source in which the mill is referred to by the alternative name (talkback #4). Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, at best this is a VERY uncommon name used 150 years ago. Also, I'm pretty sure talkbacks are not considered RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) Agree that the external link isn't a RS, which is why it's not used in the article. However, it does prove that the name is known to someone other than myself. Coles Finch's book was reprinted in 1976, and is still available in some Kent libraries as a reference item. If someone found that anecdote and wanted to know more about the mill, having the lesser-known alternative name in the lead immediately confirms to them that they have found the right article. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a google search only returns links to wikipedia proves this name is VERY uncommon. I think the redirect covers people who found that anecdote knowing they're at the right place. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For that reason, I have put it in the section about the anecdotes, which is precisely where it belongs. This whole argument and the way it is being inflated by certain editors is nothing short of ridiculous.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a good edit, but it is still valid in the lead per WP:LS, see Gibbet Mill, Rye for an example of a mill known by many names. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Putting this in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Again, the fact a google search provides exaclty one link outside wikipedia, and that to a talkback is pretty good proof this is at best a VERY uncommon name which should not be in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a simple redirect would suffice for the unliely occurence anyone would ever know the windmill by that name. Having it in the Anecdotes section is more than enough. (All google searches point to this page). - Epson291 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This constant adding/removal of the alternative name is getting us nowhere. The consensus we are trying to gain is on the question of whether the removal of the alternative name was correct, not on it's inclusion, which is already covered in the MoS. Therefore I propose to raise this where the wider community will have a chance to comment on the issue. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All Wikiprojects related to this article have been informed of this issue. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "Built in the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood in 1857, less than a kilometer from the Jaffa Gate of the old walled city of Jerusalem, it was designed as flour mill."

This is a compromise. Nobody should like this idea, but everyone should be able to live with it. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What compromise? Your suggestion just supports the position of those against including the alt name in bold in the first sentence. Mentioning the location doesn't correct that.

The Manual of Style guidelines indicate that alternate names, even if archaic (and its arguable as to whether this one is or not since its still used in talkbacks), can be included in parantheses beside the name in the first sentence of the article [1]. When included, they should be in bold [2]. I don't really understand the resistance to including this alternate name in the lead. Its a useful piece of information. But I guess I am more of an inclusionist than some others here. Tiamut^talk 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not in the lead, but if more sources can be found, then it is natural to put it in the second section. --Shuki (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shuki. Where in the guidelines I linked to does it say we should put alternate names in the "second section" of the article? How did you come to this conclusion? Tiamut^talk 22:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to find more sources? One RS is enough. Mjroots (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should defer here to Mjroots. He is something of an expert on windmills, and if he says that this is what windmill mavens call this, I believe him.

What's more, Mj has two sources for the name "Jaffa Gate Windmill" (the book Waters and Windmills and the London Illustrated Times), whereas anti-JGWists have, in fact, only one: the Montefiore heritage site calls it "the Montefiore Windmill", but the other sources listed never refer to it specifically by that name (David Kushner's book refers to it as the Montefiori [sic] windmill, but not as a proper name - the "Montefiori" is simply a modifier).

Incidentally, we should probably write something about the other windmills in Israel. There is one in Rehavia (not far from the Montefiore/JG mill) and I believe there are two or three others. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think Mjroots is saying that JGM is what "windmill mavens" call this. He's saying this name appears in a book.
Second, if you do a search for "Montifiore Windmill" you'll see many sources that call it that. This is unsurprising because that's what this building is called by EVERYONE. It's a well known Jerusalem landmark with a well known name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the mill was known as the Jaffa Gate Mill when it was a working windmill in the mid-late C19th. This is reported in the Illustrated London News of 18 December 1858. The name was repeated in Coles Finch's book Watermills and Windmills which was published in 1933 and reprinted in 1976. I have also shown an example of someone other than myself who knows the mill by this alternative name. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, what's the policy about emailing the guy who wrote the talkback and asking him where he got the name from? He's obviously done some research about this mill, why not invite him here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy is WP:CANVAS. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CANVAS applies here, particularly if editors from both sides of the issue agree to do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've restored the alternative name, but made it clear that this is a historical name and not the modern name of the mill. As I stated above, the alternative name should be in the lead per MoS. There are at least two reliable sources for it, plus other evidence that the mill was known as the Jaffa Gate Mill. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You done right. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Saying it was "previously known as Jaffa Gate Mill" is even more misleading than just putting the virtually unused other name in the lead and giving it the same weight as the commonly used name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The above poster is right. It was not "previously known" as the Jaffa Gate Mill. Citing the name in the anecdote section is more than sufficient.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Is this a political thing? Like, pro-Palestinians refuse to recognize the existence of the Montefiore quarter? Because this insistence on removing the name used by perhaps the most definitive tome on world windmills is so pigheaded that there can be no other explanation. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing is the fact that a name that's very VERY rarely used (even if it does appear in a 150 year old RS) does not have the same weight as the common name everybody knows this monument by. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When you say the common name that everybody knows, you mean that everybody in Israel knows. I am in Israel and I know it by that name. But here you have Wikipedia's leading expert on windmills asking if you mean the Jaffa Gate windmill when you say Montefiore windmill. This guy Mjroots (as you would know if you visited his userpage) is the veritable Sherlock Holmes of the windmill industry.

Unlike articles like Kafr Saba and Israel and the apartheid analogy, which are of no interest to anyone outside the tiny coterie of 8-year-olds who like to pick at the Middle East scab, here is an article which appeals to a broader audience. There are probably several hundred people in the world interested in windmills, and they will probably all be looking for this particular windmill by the name that Cole Finch uses. The fact that you cannot accept that this gang uses a different name for your windmill suggests a parochiality that is, sadly, typical of editors of articles about our region. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the reason the the article is titled "Montefiore Windmill" and not "Jaffa Gate Mill", because we are using the modern name for the mill. The fact remains that when the mill was a working mill, it was also known as the Jaffa Gate Mill, due to its proximity to the Jaffa Gate in the city walls of Jerusalem. Despite the revert of the re-insertion of the alternative name, WP:MOS states that it should be included in the lead, and the infobox was specifically designed with multiple names for individual mills in mind. If the addition of the alternative name is going to keep getting reverted, then I'm afraid that the only option available to me will be to take this to WP:RFC. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The dates of the source for the name are 1858 (Illustrated London News), repeated in 1933 (Watermills and Windmills - the definitive book on windmills in Kent - the mill is mentioned as it was built by a leading firm of millwrights from Kent) and again in 1976 (reprint of Watermills and Windmills), which is relatively modern, and the reason that people may want to look for the mill under the alternative name. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, when I say the common name that everybody knows I mean the name that gets all but one hit (to a talkback) on google. In other words, less than 0.01% of mentions of this windmill on the internet (outside this article and related discussion on wikipedia) calls it by a certain name. One guy in a talkback mentions another name that appears in a very old book.

The hundereds of windmill enthusiasts have a redirect that takes them to the correct page which gives the correct WP:WEIGHT to another name mentioned in a 150 year old book, which was republished in the 70s. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

NMMNG, thanks for clarifying the oppositions objections in the RFC below. Those of us involved in the dispute should now leave that section for uninvolved editors to comment, unless a direct question is asked which needs a reply from any of us. One objection you put forward is that it's a source you don't have. I'm afraid that is not a valid objection. There are millions of sources that I don't have, but I just have to assume that they do exist and the reference therefrom is accurate. The British Library will have a copy of both editions of Coles Finch's book, and may well have a copy of the actual issue of the Illustrated London News that the article about the mill appeared in. Mjroots (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by "a source we don't have" is that nobody here apparently has put eyes on it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't seen it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Per discussion above, I'd like comments from uninvolved editors on the removal of the alternaive name of Jaffa Gate Mill from the infobox and lead.

My position is that the inclusion of the alternative name in the lead is covered in the MoS, and that the infobox was specifically designed to allow for windmills that were known by more than one name. I believe that there is consensus for the inclusion of the alternative name as detailed above.

The opposing position is that the inclusion of the alternative name gives it undue weight, and that the alternative name is not prominent on internet searches (other than in relation to the article and discussion of the alternative name). Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

More precisely, the opposing position is that the "alternative name" appears only in a 150 year old book (which I believe also quotes another source which we don't have) and that a google search returns only one link outside wikipedia to this name. That's a ratio of about 5000:1. The "alternative name" is extremely uncommon and putting it in the lead would give it undue weight. There is no objection to it being mentioned in the article itself. Also, there is a redirect from this name to the main article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- I know nothing of the subject, but it seems to me that the topographic name (even if only rarely used) would be acceptable: even if it is technically not the "Jaffa Gate Mill", it is certainly the "Jaffa Gate mill". If this name is indeed only rarely used, it might conveniently be omitted from the the infobox. The inclusion of the alternative name is preferable; otherwise, we are liable to get some one creating a duplicate article with that title, something highly undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment ---I know nothing of the subject, it seems to me if that name was on an Ordnance Survey map past or present that it would be acceptable, even useful (to me at least). I have had one very slight involvement in the mills project knowing the owners of West Wratting windmill in Cambridgeshire, though had no response to that. SimonTrew (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

include alternate name in lead and infobox. it helps the readers if we provide additional names. untwirl(talk) 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exclude - one mention in a 150-year old book is not enough for an alternate name. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment deleted as it is from a sockpuppet account and therefore invalid. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Exclude - this page is the part of the Israeli project, right? Everyone (at list whom I know) knows what is the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood and its most famous Montefiore mill. If that source really exists, do include it somewhere in the article, but not in the infobox or lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Include - Call it the "Jaffa Gate mill" per Peterkingiron, and include it in the lede. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Result of RFC

Three uninvolved editors in favour of inclusion, one uninvolved editor against. One sockpuppet opinion disallowed. Therefore I'll reinstate the alternative name in the lead and infobox. Any further removal will be considered vandalism and warnings issued accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How did you count 3 in favor of inclusion? There are 2 in favor, one against. That's hardly a consensus. Please remove your edit and lets continue with the dispute resolution process. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Three in favour are Peterkingiron, untwirl and DThomsen8. One against is Sceptic Ashdod. I'm not sure whether SimonTrew is for or against so haven't counted him. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am against.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Peterkingiron declined to !vote and decided to comment instead. I'm not sure why you're counting him as in favor. That's your interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Peterkingiron's comments were clearly in favour. Gilabrand, as you are an involved party, you don't get a !vote in the RfC. That was for uninvolved editors in the dispute. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Peterkingiron is clearly in favor of inclusion - if No More Mr Nice Guy is seriously suggesting otherwise that would be disruptive. I'd remind No More Mr Nice Guy that he has been notified of the WP:ARBPIA case, so sanctions can be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. How do you interpret SimonTrew comment then? It's obvious there's no clear consensus here. I suggest once again that the disputed edit be removed and we continue with other dispute resolution methods. If this is considered disruptive then go ahead and block me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not going to block you for the above comment, you're clearly still being unreasonable. Given the RfC has a result of 3-1, you can't just say there isn't a clear consensus, and use that as an excuse to continue edit warring. If you persist, a short block could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on RfCs, but it seems to me that Peterkingiron declined to !vote because he doesn't know the specifics here. For example, he thinks the mill is right next to the Jaffa Gate, which it isn't.

I think this article is now a prime example of why wikipedia gets a reputation for being unreliable. This monument is called by a certain name by literally every single person who's ever heard of it, except for maybe a few hundred windmill enthusiasts around the world. Now a name that appeared in a book 150 years ago gets the same weight as the vastly more common one. At least it doesn't say that "historically" it was called something else anymore, giving the impression someone changed its name (I think you know what that means in the IP context).

I guess we could ask Peterkingiron and SimonTrew what exactly their !vote was, but somehow I doubt there will be much enthusiasm for that.

Anyway, I won't edit this article anymore, so threatening me with blocks is no longer necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've accurately represented the facts NMMNG. As Mjroots writes above, the dates of the source for the name are an article in Illustrated London News in 1858, a 1933 book on Watermills and Windmills and its 1976 reprint. Mjroots also noted the use of it in a talkback forum (not an WP:RS, but still evidence of knowledge of that name today) and in a recent workshop on windmills (according to the message s/he left on PhilKnight's page).

This is an alternate name, which, even if archaic, per the MoS, should be included in bold in parantheses after the article name. I don't understand your stubborn resistance to providing information to our readers regarding this alternate name, nor the need to characterize its inclusion as a basis for why Wikipedia has a "reputation for being unreliable." The RfC results were rather clear, and Mjroots was very patient in letting it run its course, even though the sources and Wiki guidelines indicate that his position is the right one. Tiamut^talk 17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to me why it's so important to give so much weight to an "alternate name" almost nobody uses? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to me what makes you so sure that "almost nobody uses it"? We have three sources from Mjroots, and two anecdotal examples of recent use. Perhaps it possible that you may not be familiar with the other names for the windmill? Perhaps for people like you who only the windmill by one name, it might be beneficial to be made aware that there are other people elsewhere in the world who call the same thing by another? Tiamut^talk 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is an alternative name that almost nobody that you know uses. But the Wikipedia readership is not made up exclusively of Israelis, Israeli supporters, Israel opponents, tourists of Israel. There are people out there, believe it or not, who are interested in other things - windmills, for example. Here you have been provided with ample evidence by a number of people who have no interest in the middle east but lots of interest in windmills, that they refer to this windmill by a different name. Why is that so hard to understand? Ravpapa

The fact it gets exactly one solitary hit (outside wikipedia) on google is pretty good indication that almost nobody uses it. No web sites, no books indexed by google, no university papers, not even windmill enthusiast sites. Only one talkback.

So I ask again, why is it so important to give this "alternate name" that almost nobody uses the same weight as the vastly more common name, rather than put the "alternate name" in the body itself as the anecdote that it is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be that in the 1880s, when the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood was built and there was nothing outside the Old City walls but rocky terrain, this windmill, perched on a hill opposite the walls, might have been considered "near the Jaffa Gate." It could be that back in 1933, some windmill hugger was looking for a way to differentiate it from the windmill built by the Greek Patriarchate in Rehavia. But none of this amounts to the Jaffa Gate mill being an "alternative name." The use of the name appears in this article in the anecdotal section, which is where it belongs. Boy, that windmill hugger from 1933 would get a real kick out of it if he knew his made-up name would be the source of such a hue and cry on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"jaffa gate windwill" actually gets 10 hits. The Jewish Times Asia in an article about the Yemin Moshe neighborhood notes: "The land was purchased in 1857 and a windmill, Moses Montefiore Windmill or Jaffa Gate Windmill, was erected to provide flour to residents and help provide flour at lower prices for the Jewish residents in Jerusalem." I don't see why we should avoid mentioning the alternate name in the lead. WP:MoS is clear that alt names can be included after the article name, even in if archaic, in bold and parantheses. Tiamut^talk 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is clearly citing Wikipedia. So there you have it: Wikipedia, citing falsehoods, is perpetuating falsehoods, which are then used to back up the falsehoods. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it is citing Wikipedia. So are the just over 3,000 hits on the Montefiore Windmill. The book on windmills by Finch comes up in a google search though and its name is "Jaffa Gate Mill", as indicated by Mjroots in the intro now (with source). That book, plus the newspaper article, are enough for me, and others who commented here in the RfC which was opened to settle this issue. If you and NMMNG want to ignore the results of the RfC, you are free to. Perhaps you would like to open mediation? Tiamut^talk 18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I stand corrected. Two hits compared to thousands for the more common name. If we leave it like it is now for a while, I'm sure we'll get even more hits for the "alternate name" almost nobody uses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are both overestimating how many people have been interested in this windmill, either under its Montefiore or Jaffa Gate names. Before the wikipedia article on it, references to it were sparse on google. A book by a definitive source on windmills, names it "Jaffa Gate Mill". Notice the caps throughout, indicating it a proper name. I don't see why you against sharing this information with others. But open a mediation if you do not like the outcome of the RfC. Tiamut^talk 18:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You honestly feel that "The Montefiore Windmill (known as the Jaffa Gate Mill)" gives the readers of this article the correct impression about how this windmill is called out there in the real world? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NMMNG, I fully accept that in the Middle East the mill is known as the Montefiore Windmill. The article is at that title, the infobox title and photo caption also give that name due prominence. However, in the UK, the mill is also known by the alternative name, which it was probably also known by in Jerusalem 150 years ago. Any objections if I tweak the lead to read "The Montefiore Windmill (also known as the Jaffa Gate Mill)"? Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly better than it is currently. Still gives it undue weight if you ask me, but like I said I'm not going to edit this article anymore, so do as you wish. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Restored mill?

After the 1948 bombing, the top of the mill was restored, as it now appears in the article photo. More information about this would be welcome. Perhaps the date, 2005, should be added to the photo. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the caption. It should be noted that the cap design was changed from the original Kentish style cap to a dome shape at some point, but whether this was as a result of the 1948 bombing or earlier I don't know. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)