Talk:Nasrani

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Christianity: India

	Christianity portal This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
	This disambiguation page is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India.

Merge

Does this really need its own article? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Done - Fayenatic (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No subject "needs" an article but this word is interesting enough to have one in an encyclopedia. Also since there are two possible meanings this acts as a disambiguation page. 79.79.88.161 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is not justified by only two meanings. The wider meaning is now covered by a Redirect hatline at Syrian Malabar Nasrani. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrani

The word Nasrani is not limited to saint thomas christians, It has deep semitic roots and deserves its own page. 3abos (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have it turned into DAB instead of stub. Etymology can be transferred to Wiktionary.

BTW Nasrani was still used by Middle Eastern Christians until 50 years ago, it doesn't necessarily carry derogatory connotations.--Kathovo talk 13:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No nasrani has been used for very long as nerogatory. Any middle east first class witnesses will tell you that.

Please see this reference from a primary source on the calling of Christians Nasrani "http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\19\story_19-2-2006_pg3_4". It is also clearly a semitic word. It is not a malayam word. It is simitic.

3abos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the foreign vocabulary of the quran, pp. 280-1 the Arabic word most likely originate from East Syrians who used to call themselves Nașrāye. Example of usage in modern Christian Arabic literature are: القصارى في نكبات النصارى by Isaac Armalet, النصارى:حوارات حول المستقبل by Shenouda III. Medieval Middle Eastern Christian apologists such as Theodore Abu-Qurrah and Abu Raita always refereed to Christians as Nașārā, pl. of Nașrānī, see for example this section.--Kathovo talk 07:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So then we are settled. the word 'Nasrani' is not explicitly used for St Thomas Christians. I believe it should have its own page. Although it will be a stub now, it would be good for you to put in all those references in there. Thanks. 122.106.151.224 (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in Arabic Nasrani is singular and Nasara is plural. 122.106.151.224 (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing to your attention that we already have a page Nasrani_(disambiguation).PalakkappillyAchayan 06:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The only use of the term "Nasrani" that has its own article is Saint Thomas Christians. Disambiguation can be handled at the existing page Nasrani (disambiguation) but "Nasrani" needs to direct to Saint Thomas Christians. If you disagree, start a move request at Nasrani (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas Christians

In my opinion,the Saint Thomas Christians might have been named as Nazrani.I even posses 100 years old documents saying or officially calling Syrian Christians of Kerala as Nazrani. I would like to develop this site more into their customs, beliefs, rituals etc. Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kokkarani: Nasrani already redirects to Saint Thomas Christians. That would be the logical place to make additions, this is just a WP:disambiguation page. There's no reason to create a second article that just duplicates the first one.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Sorry I can't see any other way to close this. Discussion could continue on whether the redirect Nasrani should be retargeted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrani (disambiguation) → Nasrani – Up until the ISIL painting of Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over the Christian gateposts of Mosul in 2014 it's possible that the South Indian use of "Nazarene" to redirect to Kerala's Saint Thomas Christian castes really was the main use in English sources. But that isn't the case since 2014, as Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed the Arabic letter ن since 2014, here is a Google image search and a news search. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I don't necessarily object to a change, this is a strange request. If the Arabic term "Nasrani" is the primary topic as the nominator suggests, Nasrani should redirect there and the dab page should stay put (and be updated). That would be a matter for redirects for discussion, not RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing strange about it. Please see the dab page - which has three possible topics for Nasrani, the comment in the proposal covers two of them - that's right Arab Christians and Arabic term "Nasrani" In ictu oculi (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange, in that you are (or were) arguing that the Arabic term "Nasrani" was the primary topic, which is a matter of changing the redirect, not moving the dab page. If you're saying there is no primary topic, then yes, the dab page should move to Nasrani. You only just altered the dab page, but adding Arab Christians isn't appropriate; the article doesn't appear to mention the term "Nasrani", and the term actually refers to Christians beyond Arab Christians.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the reference to Arab Christians from the dab page twice does not change the fact that "Nasrani" in WP:RS English sources is a term used for Arab Christians in some Arab Countries whereas westerners are more likely to be referred to by other terms. Hopefully once this RM goes ahead you'll permit Arab Christians to be listed on the dab page so readers can choose between all four relevant articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the whole point of a dab page is to let readers find relevant articles... If you want to add a mention of Nasrani into the Arab Christians article go ahead. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article Arab Christians supports the claimed usage, it should not be included on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 00:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkonrad: it's not in question that Nasrani is the Arab muslim term for local Christians. The question is whether that will be allowed in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue in this sub thread is whether the article Arab Christians should be mentioned on the disambiguation page. As for whether the move should occur as proposed, I remain unconvinced at the moment. older ≠ wiser 10:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, "Nasrani" never means "Arab Christians" specifically. It means "Christian", in some cases Christians who are minority communities in their areas (most notably the St Thomas Christians), but I doubt there are many sources supporting the claim that it refers to Arab Christians as a whole.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Iraq "Nasrani" means local Christian, as opposed to "Salibi", western Crusader. In any case this is rather academic. We've already seen that Saint Thomas Christians are in no sense the main meaning of Nasrani, so this is simply arguing pointlessly other whether Arab Christians goes in the main section of the dab or in the See also. I can't believe any editor, however difficult, would object to Arab Christians being listed in the See also section. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Nasrani" in some contexts can be used to distinguish "local Christians" from foreign Christians, but it's used that way regardless of whether they're Arab Christians or not, as the St. Thomas Christians example proves. In other cases it means foreign Christians (or even any non-Muslim foreigner).[1] As such Arab Christians isn't an appropriate dab entry (I don't personally care if it's listed in the "see also" section if it will end this silly discussion).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I oppose the move as proposed. While it seems clear that Saint Thomas Christians is no longer the primary topic, the evidence suggests that the Arabic term is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. We have no evidence that any other topic challenges it. I would be amenable to redirecting Nasrani to Christian#Arabic terms, leaving the dab page here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As noted above, if indeed it were true that "Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians", then Nasrani should be the title of the article about that topic, a redirect to it, or a redirect to the subsection of the article that covers it. I see no argument to make this a dab page. That said, after 5 minutes of research, it's not clear to me whether there is a primary topic, much less what it is. It might be the Saint Thomas Christians to which this currently redirects, it might be the Arabic term for Christians (I see no evidence that it means Arab Christians), or it might be nothing. But somebody, ideally the one making the proposal, needs to figure this out and post the evidence and findings accordingly. Until then, I see no reason to change the status quo. --В²C ☎ 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is true, and looking at news sources from 2015 to date will confirm it. Why should "Nasrani" be a redirect to Saint Thomas Christians a church in India when the most common meanings of Nasrani are (a) Arab Christians, (b) the Quranic Arabic name for Christians. Those opposing are supporting a redirect to something which is a rare and marginal use. Why? There's nothing to figure out here. Look at the news sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. "Nasrani" is a term for any Christian, not Arab Christians specifically. Your own search confirms this.[2][3][4][5][6] By nature, Arab Christians will be included when the context is Arab countries, but the term isn't exclusive to Arab Christians and I've never seen a source that defines it as you're claiming. The article Arab Christians certainly doesn't make that claim, meaning it's not an appropriate dab page entry.

But all that is besides the point you appear to be trying to make re WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As I said above, I don't object to changing the redirect away from the Saint Thomas Christians, but you need to be clearer about what you're trying to do. At first you were arguing that "Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning", in which case this is the primary topic, and Nasrani should redirect there. But you seem to want the dab page to move to Nasrani instead, which would be fine if there's really no primary topic. However, you've given no argument that anything challenges the Arabic term as primary, apart from your claim that "Nasrani" also means Arab Christians specifically, which is incorrect.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously someone speaking in Arabic could equally describe American Christians as "Masihi/Nasrani" when speaking in Arabic. But an American visitor to Iraq would not be described in any sense as "a Nasrani visitor", wheras you do now get people in the Middle East using the term "Nasrani village" and so on to mean local Christian. I hadn't heard it used in this sense until 2 years ago. But there you go.

As to whether there has to be one subject. No. "Overwhelmingly" relative to Keralites in press sources now, yes. But so what. WP:RECENT. And there is the movie etc.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a lot of work in the past disambiguating links to Nasrani etc. The St Thomas Christians page should keep the immediate redirects from other spellings such as Nasranees, Nazrani people. However, Nasrani continues to be linked with multiple intended meanings. I agree that it's time to move the primary meaning down into the main list on the disambiguation page, and for "Nasrani" links to go to that page. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I again searched all the Wikipedia pages that refer to Nasrani. I have created a redirect Nasrani (Arabic term for Christian) and linked 15 mentions of "Nasrani" to that page – about the same number as for the film. It is a fact that the overwhelming volume of mentions of Nasrani within Wikipedia are for St Thomas Christians. However, the usage within Wikipedia does not reflect the balance of current usage in general media, and the latter should determine whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The disambiguation hatnote at Saint Thomas Christians should be kept for a variant redirect e.g. Nasranis. – Fayenatic London 16:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Second look

The use of the meaning of Nasrani (Arabic term for Christian) has dropped off in the media now that ISIS have retreated out of public consciousness but still "Nasrani is" in GBooks overwhelmingly refers to the Arabic use for Christians not St Thomas Christians in India. The same check "Nasrani are" plural likewise points more to the Arabic term for Christians. So why is the dab page not at the baseline? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC) JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrani (disambiguation) → Nasrani – move over the redirect to India's St Thomas Christians as no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The ISIS daubing of red Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over Christian gateposts in Mosul in 2014 has faded from the media, the ن logos are gone from Twitter and Facebook, but even so Nasrani still more commonly relates in GBooks to Christians in Arabic speaking countries than St Thomas Christians in India. Apart from helping readers, having the dab-page at the baseline will also help the dab-bot. See comments last year from Fayenetic London re cleaning up mis-links. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I opposed this last year, but it seems it was agreed to by all parties that the St. Thomas Christians are not the primary topic of the term "Nasrani". A dab page at that name probably makes the most sense, certainly more than the current status quo.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support again, for the same reasons as above (30 March 2017). The balance of usage of "Nasranis" also looks somewhat marginal, but I am prepared for that and other redirects to remain pointing to St Thomas Christians. – Fayenatic London 19:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.