Talk:Nazarene

Redirect

I suspect that most people coming to this page are seeking an explanation of the origin and usage of the word, in which case they should redirected to Nazarene (title) and material here moved to Nazarene (disambiguation). If someone is looking for information about the Church of the Nazarene, they would presumably type in something like "Nazarene Church." There are quite a few Google hits related to the church, but they are embedded in the name. The ancient sect and the other options offered appear to be comparatively obscure. Kauffner (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but it looks like a regular WP:RM should be followed here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, an automatic redirect to Jesus is tendentious and has no place in an NPOV treatment of "Nazarene." Other meanings of the term (Mandean, Gnostic, ancient Jewish-Christian) may have equal (or greater) basis in fact than the standard Christian explanation as a "title" for Jesus of Nazareth. There needs to be a place for a general treatment of "Nazarene" which covers all the meanings. If this page is not the place, then please suggest a better place.Renejs (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What you're proposing is an article on ancient sects, something that belongs at Nazarene (sect). "Nazarene" is most commonly a reference to the modern Church of the Nazarene. The art movement comes up a lot too. So a comprehensive article would have to highlight those. In any case, to begin the article as a disambiguation page and then transition to a text treatment is a goofy format. Kauffner (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazarene (word)

Nazarene (word) is logically the same thing as just plain Nazarene. Putting a "(word)" after an entry term does not appear to be a standard or common Wiki usage. Kauffner (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should use just plain "Nazarene." The point is, we need a page which discusses "Nazarene" in ALL its religiously-significant uses. Nazarene (title) can't do this, because some of the historical uses of "Nazarene" were not titular (Gnostic and Mandean).Renejs (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please work out a formal proposal for how to handle this. Please do not duplicate most of the content from one article in the other by copying and pasting (i.e., Nazarene (word) and Nazarene (title). If a page needs to be renamed, then propose a move via WP:Requested moves. If the difference in content between the pages is a point of dispute, then please discuss and reach consensus on what to keep and what not to keep. There is extensive duplication without any very obvious reason to a casual reader between three articles: Nazarene (word), Nazarene (title), and Nazarene (sect). older ≠ wiser 10:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please answer the following: (1) Why is it be preferable to have a restricted page called Nazarene (title) (one which narrowly discusses the term [as 'title'] in reference to Jesus) instead of a single page which discusses all the main uses of "Nazarene"? (2) Why should a page called Nazarene be prohibited simply because YOU claim that this HAS TO BE a "disambiguation page"?

I repeat my point above: "we need a page which discusses 'Nazarene' in ALL its religiously-significant uses." The subpages Nazarene (title), Nazareth (disambiguation), and Nazarene (word) are clearly all SUPERFLUOUS. Only one page needs to exist: Nazarene!

We should not let the remote uses of "Nazarene" sidetrack the discussion. The novel by Sholem Asch, the ship wrecked in 1957, the wooden sculpture in Quiapo, Manila, and the Finnish metal band--these can all be mentioned in a "See also" heading or footer.

On the other hand, the ancient Mandean and Gnostic uses of "Nazarene" are very pertinent to this discussion. They are extensively discussed by scholars, and are unique and striking interpretations that vary with the traditional view of the term "Nazarene." They need to be part of the discussion.

The Nazarene material can easily (and straightforwardly) be included on a single page Nazarene, AS WE'VE BOTH ALREADY AGREED. Please do not reinstate any of the subpages without first answering the two above questions, and without checking for consensus.Renejs (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't care what the page is titled. 2) According to the edit history this IS the disambiguation page, which you copied and pasted to Nazarene (disambiguation) which is inappropriate. DO NOT COPY AN PASTE to change the title of a page. If a name change is required, follow the process at WP:Requested move and propose a move. older ≠ wiser 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) Obviously, you should care what the page is called, or you don't deserve an opinion. I care, and so do those looking for information on "Nazarene." (2) Procedurally, you're out of line here, Bkonrad. You need to learn the difference between a content and a disambiguation page. "Nazarene" is a CONTENT page. Why are you removing the content and making it a disambiguation page? Wikipedia offers a standard way to direct the reader to the disambiguation page. (3) On the other hand, you keep perverting the normal protocol by using two weird redirects: (a) from "Nazarene (disambiguation)" to "Nazarene," and (b) from "Nazarene" to "Nazarene (title)". (3) You jolly well unilaterally decided to delete content from "Nazarene (word)" and redirect it also to "Nazarene (title)." Did you seek consensus? No. . .

Incidentally, I'm willing to let "Nazarene (word)" go only if "Nazarene (title)" goes. Content needs to be where it belongs: at "Nazarene," with an accompanying disambiguation page. Period. That's the one solution that's going to fly, bobo.

If you continue to restore confusing anti-Wiki redirects, I'll file a complaint.Renejs (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again. DO NOT MOVE THE PAGE BY COPYING AND PASTING. That is not how to move or rename a page. Doing so violates the terms of the license under which editors contribute content to Wikipedia. That is non-negotiable. You can rename the pages by properly moving them to whatever titles there is consensus for. But you have to follow the appropriate procedures and copying and pasting is not how to do so. Please see WP:Requested moves. older ≠ wiser 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, again. YOU'RE the one that needs to make any request, because it is YOU who are moving content against WIKI policy. I'm simply placing content WHERE IT BELONGS--on the content page. The original errors that you're pointing out are not mine. They belong to the dumdums who made the Nazarene page a disambiguation page, and who redirect away from the REAL disambiguation page to a bogus page called "Nazarene (title)" (I won't mention any names).

As soon as I have a minute I'll contact Wiki administration about this. Until that time, I'll continue to 'undo' as necessary. Let's let the administrators decide who's right.Renejs (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines can be found at WP:PT. "(disambiguation)" is used only when there is both a primary topic and more than one secondary topic. If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Kauffner (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

@Renejs, please do contact other administrators. I believe they will agree that moving by copying and pasting is unacceptable. Please develop a consensus here for what the page title should be and follow the process at WP:Requested moves to properly move the pages and edit histories.

@Kauffner, yes you are correct. If there is no primary topic the disambiguation page should be at the name without "(disambiguation)". There appears to be some question about whether there is a primary topic for "Nazarene". For the record, I have no opinion about whether there is a primary topic for Nazarene. My ONLY objection is to executing pages moves copying and pasting the content. older ≠ wiser 12:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted this edit war to mediation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-10-27/Nazarene.Renejs (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, the problem with this version is that it is a POV fork that puts disproportionate emphasis on whether or not Nazareth existed in New Testament times. Perhaps half the lede is devoted to this issue. The idea that Jesus didn't come from Nazareth is a marginal theory at best and doesn't deserve this kind of emphasis. Meanwhile, more directly relevant material gets buried deep in the article. Kauffner (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[Response to both Bkonrad and Kauffner above.] I'm more in sympathy with Kauffner here than Bkonrad, for K. has a substantive reason for his actions (though I quite disagree with his position). Bkonrad has erected a strawman, assuming the position of Wiki-ninny standing on a procedural technicality buried in the history of the pages, for we are both now reverting each others reverts. I'm even suspicious that B. is guilty of exactly what he accuses me of-- moving content by cutting and pasting. Even so, this doesn't exercise me at all. Like Kauffner, I am more concerned with the page content (as I'm sure B. is, but can't admit it).

Regarding content, I assume Kauffner is talking about this page, Nazarene. You write that "The idea that Jesus didn't come from Nazareth is a marginal theory at best and doesn't deserve this kind of emphasis." OK. . . I hear you. If you look at the article as it stands now, you'll see that doubt regarding the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus is only mentioned far down the article, in the section "Did Nazareth exist at the time of Jesus?" A careful reading shows that the other mentions of Nazareth have to do with etymology, except for one allusion in the first paragraph which properly alerts readers to the minority position, that "the association of "Jesus the Nazarene" with Nazareth is challenged by some scholars on linguistic and archeological grounds." BTW, this is no longer such a remote position as you imply.

I invite you to abbreviate the paragraph ""Did Nazareth exist at the time of Jesus?" and even to reduce it to a single sentence, as well as to jettison the heading. I reserve the right in the future to return the content as this position gains currency (as I think it is doing). I'm very sensitive on this, and will keep a close eye. What I would not agree is to reduce this thesis to a footnote, or to ignore it entirely. The (non-)existence of Nazareth in the putative time of Jesus has firm scholarly support in the published literature going back many generations, yet is still far too controversial to enjoy wide support. The thesis does need to be mentioned in the article Nazarene precisely because the etymology of "Nazarene" is traditionally derived from "Nazareth."Renejs (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-27/Nazarene, providing a detailed history of the copy and past edits made to the page by Renejs. I suspect that Renejs simply does not understand what is meant by preserving edit history or by not doing copy and paste moves. He certainly has no clue whatsoever about what my interests are in this matter. As I've said repeatedly now, my interest is in not making the very convoluted edit history any worse. There is a chance that the edit histories of the various articles can be repaired, but adding new copy and paste moves on top of old ones only complicates matters. older ≠ wiser 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the edit history of this and related pages

Initially posted at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-27/Nazarene, though the detail is more relevant to this talk page. older ≠ wiser 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All I have to say is that the edit history of these articles is a disaster, largely because of copy-and-paste moves made largely by Renejs.

No. My activities have been to rectify your wrongheaded "redirects" which confuse the issue. Confusion is certainly one way to evade troubling content.Renejs (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, you are going about it in the wrong way. You are further mangling the edit histories of the pages. For most of the past few years (from 5 AUG 2006 until 25 JUN 2009), Nazarene has been a disambiguation page. Please show us the discussion and consensus to change this. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And it is even worse than I had originally thought. The edit history of several pages, Nazarene (history), Nazarene (title) (history), Nazarene (word) (history), and Nazarene (disambiguation) (history) are currently a hopelessly tangled mess.

It appears that Nazarene (title) has the oldest content, dating from 03:45, 5 August 2006 when Wighson (talk · contribs) moved Nazarene to Nazarene (heresy) with the summary : Moving disambig info at top to its own pg) -- the next edit after the move was to change Nazarene into a disambiguation page. Nazarene (heresy) was subequently moved on 07:08, 5 August 2006 by Michael C Price (talk · contribs) to its current location at Nazarene (sect).

On 23:27, 13 September 2006 Haldrik (talk · contribs) moved Nazarene to Nazarene (disambiguation). Viewable in the deleted edits of Nazarene, Haldrik also change Nazarene to redirect to Nazarene (sect). On 10:23, 30 October 2006 Budo (talk · contribs) changed Nazarene to redirect to Nazarene (disambiguation).

On 07:14, 22 November 2006 Commander Keane (talk · contribs) moved Nazarene (disambiguation) to Nazarene, after deleting the redirect back to Nazarene (disambiguation) which was then at Nazarene.

Things were relatively quiet so far as page moves were concerned until this edit on 02:19, 25 June 2009 by Renejs placed a large amount of non-disambiguation content onto the disambiguation page.

On 18:54, 15 July 2009 Inquietudeofcharacter (talk · contribs) moved Nazarene to Nazarene (word) along with all of the earlier edit history of the disambiguation page. On the same day, Inquietudeofcharacter also changed Nazarene to redirect to Nazarene (disambiguation).

On 13:52, 3 August 2009 {user|R'n'B}} deleted the redirect at Nazarene and moved Nazarene (disambiguation) to Nazarene.

On 11:23, 21 September 2009 Kauffner (talk · contribs) moved Nazarene (word) to Nazarene (title) -- which for those trying to keep track of this -- had most of the earlier edit history of the diambiguation page -- at some point, I can't quite determine when, the disambiguation page was recreated and the edit history is forked.

On 04:16, 25 September 2009 Kauffner (talk · contribs) moved the disambiguation page at Nazarene to Nazarene (disambiguation) over the redirect and on the same day changed Nazarene to be a redirect to Nazarene (sect).

On 22:21, 28 September 2009 IP user 82.6.115.62 changed Nazarene to redirect to Nazarene (disambiguation). Then on 29 September 2009 JHunterJ deleted the redirect at "Nazarene" and moved Nazarene (disambiguation) back to Nazarene -- although this is only a partial edit history of the disambiguation page.

Then begining on 26 OCT 2009, Renejs edited the disambiguation page at Nazarene to change it into an article and also copied and pasted the disambiguation content to Nazarene (disambiguation) -- which changes I've been reverting. Somewhat incindentally, Renejs also edited Nazarene (word), which was a redirect to Nazarene (sect) and duplicated much of the content from other articles.

All I would like is that the edit histories could be merged more meaningfully reflect the actual history of the disambiguation vs. articles. And second for Renejs to stop trying to move pages by copying and pasting, and finally that the process at WP:Requested moves be followed to determine what article should have which title.

Sincerely, older ≠ wiser 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with redirects

(1) Please, Bkonrad, don't falsely accuse me of messing up these pages. The disamb. page was redirected to "Nazarene" long before I came on the scene (per edit history).

(2) You claim to be miffed that I copy and paste. That's a strawman. I'm reverting your redirects. Anyway, C & P is standard Wiki procedure. If you prefer (as a procedural matter) that pages be "moved," then what's stopping you from moving them? I invite you to do so. Only please ensure that the content page winds up at Nazarene and the disamb. page at Nazarene (disambiguation). Since they're already there, I don't see the point to that exercise. But if you think it'll "clean up the edit history," then by all means do it!

(3) Redirects are unacceptable in these pages because content is not found where expected and the reader is herded to a tendentious page. Redirect crassly effects the entire page at the global level. It can have the effect of deleting ALL content on a page from view. Redirect should be used rarely and only under particular conditions--and, please, with consensus!

(4) As lame motivation for perpetuating a complete mess in the Nazarene pages, you (Bkonrad) claim to be keen on preserving the edit history... That's like spending $100 to save a wooden nickel. There's nothing we can do about the edit history. It's HISTORY, and it's already confused. What users can do NOW is clean up the mess and make the content better. A start is to have content on the content page, and disamb. on the disamb. page. Then, we can deal with the internal nature of the content. Finally, superfluous and redundant pages can be deleted.

(5) If I didn't undo your edits, Bkonrad, here's the insane scenario which would exist:

(a) Nazarene (disambiguation) redirects to Nazarene

(b) Nazarene returns the abbreviated content of a disambiguation page

(c) A link on the abbreviated Nazarene page points to Nazarene (title)

The result is:

(a) The true disambiguation page is not used

(b) The disambiguation page is on the content page Nazarene

(c) The reader is directed to a narrow discussion at Nazarene (title)

(d) Most importantly, nowhere do we find a comprehensive discussion of the term "Nazarene."
That informed content is exactly what many readers want (but some people want to avoid?)Renejs (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You began this mess by introducing non-disambiguation content onto the disambiguation page. That page, along with the edit history of the disambiguation page, was then mistakenly moved to a different title. You continuing to try to copy and paste content between pages is only making the edit history more difficult to clean up. It is possible for administrators to merge edit histories between different pages, but it is made much more difficult when there are intervening edits. Please stop until the mess can be sorted out and the pages properly moved.

You mistakenly think that copy and paste is standard Wiki procedure. It is not. Please see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. older ≠ wiser 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The supposedly insane scenario you outline is in fact standard practice when there is no primary topic. You appear to mistakenly think that because a page has "(disambiguation)" in the title that that is the "true disambiguation page. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:INTDABLINK. You appear to think there is a primary topic that should be located at Nazarene. That could well be. As I've said, I have no opinion at this time about whether there is or is not a primary topic. That question should be decided by consensus and then the content should be properly moved by following the process at WP:Requested moves and not by copying and pasting. older ≠ wiser 02:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not likely, Bkonrad. You're making all these vague claims--now that the administrators need time in between edits to do their work (?). I disagree with your analysis and proposed solution. (a) Nobody's argued about the "primary topic." The page Nazarene has not been impugned in this regard. (b) Why do we need a "requested move" ("with consensus")? The content page is exactly where it belongs. (Orr do you disagree? If so, I'd like to know why.) (c) Do you think the disambiguation page is misplaced? (Again, if so, I'd like to know why.) I don't buy your explanation that anybody needs to clean up the edit histories. (If you feel so strongly there, you'll need an administrator to weigh in on that.)

Well, if the administrators need time in between edits, then simply LEAVE the pages without redirects. The administrator can act as easily with the content page in place as with your version. I won't move on this, because as time passes, readers are missing important content. If you insist on leaving these pages in the scenario you wish, then we will both wait for an administrator. That's exactly why I filed for Mediation.Renejs (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Unless there is a primary topic, this page should be a disambiguation page. Why should the content relate to ancient sects as opposed to, say, the Nazarene art movement? Content focusing on the sects can justified only after there is a consensus to the effect that this is the primary topic. Kauffner (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

@Renejs -- Up until you relatively recently inserted nondisambiguation content into the disambiguation page which was then at Nazarene, that title had been a disambiguation page for most of the past several years. Please show me where there was discussion and consensus that there is a primary topic. If there is agreement that there is a primary topic, then that page should be moved with edit history to the new name. That is how pages moves are to be done. Period. If you think copying and pasting content is an acceptable way of moving pages, you are very mistaken. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nazarene" and Wikipedia policy

OK. I've read the section WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It begins as follows:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

If the primary topic for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used.

Discussion [with numbers to facilitate reference]:
(1) Is "Nazarene" ambiguous? My answer: Yes.
(2) Is there a "well-known primary topic for "Nazarene"? My answer: Yes. That primary topic is 'Nazarene in reference to Jesus of Nazareth.'
(3) Is "the primary topic for a term titled something else by the naming conventions"? My answer: No. By convention the term is "Nazarene". It's not "Nazarene (title)", "Nazorean," "Nasarene," or any related word or words.
Therefore, no redirect is applicable here.

Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic.

OK. (4) With "Nazarene" we indeed have a primary usage (Jesus of Nazareth) and other uses (Gnostic, Mandean, and even more). Therefore, Wiki directs that we (a) "should have a disambiguation link at the top." The Nazarene page already has this with a hatnote link to its disambiguation page: "For other uses, see Nazarene (disambiguation)."

As for the disambiguation page, Wiki says (b) "the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic." (An example is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Linking_to_a_primary_topic.) Accordingly, I've rewritten the top line of the disambiguation page as follows: "Nazarene is a term primarily referring to Jesus of Nazareth, with alternate Gnostic and Mandean usages."

Bifurcating this topic and losing context is contrary to Wiki policy. If necessary, I'm prepared to enter into an extended discussion as to why it's also bad from a content point of view.

Bkonrad and Kauffner--If you insist on reverting from now on, I insist that you give reasons according to the discussion above.Renejs (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Renejs, you're still missing the point. Nazarene was quite peacefully a disambiguation page for most of the last few years until you improperly inserted non-disambiguation content into it. Apart from your unilateral decisions about whether there is or is not a primary topic, there has been no discussion and no consensus to change. Based only on your unilateral reasoning, you've been copying and pasting content to change the titles to suit your own ends.

So it is obvious that you think there is a primary topic. Fine. Please demonstrate that there is consensus for this and then if such consensus exists, properly move pages rather than copying and pasting. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The need to "properly move pages rather than copying and pasting" is your invention, Bkonrad. Resorting to excuses contrived from the ancient history of the pages and "waiting" for consensus has absolutely no force. If it did, none of the Wiki pages would ever improve. I've demonstrated that "Nazarene" and its disambiguation page as they now stand accord fully with Wikipedia policy. Your actions need to address the current pages that, again, accord fully with Wikipedia policy. You may not like it, but because something appeared in the past history of a page does not make it right or better. The pages as I've configured them are now in accord with Wiki policy. That's what matters. I'm filing a complaint.Renejs (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Preserving the attribution of edits is a fundamental part of the license under which Wikipedia operates. That is non-negotiable. Moving pages by copying and pasting violates that fundamental principle. If there is demonstrable consensus for pages to be named in a particular manner, I'd be happy to move the pages myself. As I've said many times, I have no opinion at this time about which page goes where. But there are right ways and wrong ways to do things and you are doing this incorrectly. What you say that you've demonstrated is your opinion alone.

The scheme I've outlined is not anyone's opinion but Wikipedia policy. "Nazarene" is primary topic and requires a disamb. page. I don't see where this is subject to consensus. However, I also accept that the history of these pages may reflect improper moves, and as mentioned before, I am fully ready to comply with rectifying that.Renejs (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Where has this been discussed? Where is the consensus? older ≠ wiser 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been (and continues to be) discussed on this page. As for consensus, where is the need? Wiki policy dictates how the pages are to be configured.Renejs (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is the basis for how Wikipedia works. That is policy. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As to whether the need to "properly move pages rather than copying and pasting" is my invention, please see Help:Moving a page#Before moving a page:

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)

Definitely not my invention. older ≠ wiser 18:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's proceed. What is the first step in restoring the edit histories here?Renejs (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. One is merging the edit histories for content that has been forked. Second is determining if there is consensus about whether there is a primary topic and what related articles should be titled. If there's no objections, I can merge edit histories to the pages' current locations, assuming they won't get moved by others while the process is underway. Then since you think there is a primary topic, you can use WP:Requested moves to propose moving the disambiguation page currently at Nazarene to Nazarene (disambiguation). If there is some other existing page that you think should be at Nazarene (such as Nazarene (title)), you can simultaneously request that move also. Or if there is not any existing page that you'd want to move, you can create a new page in your userspace, such as User:Renejs\Nazarene and request it be moved along with moving the disambiguation page. If you create a new page, it shouldn't substantially duplicate content from other pages. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Does anybody disagree that "Jesus the Nazarene" is the primary topic for the term "Nazarene"? (I think everybody's in agreement here.)Renejs (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this, but a few facts argue against this. There are three tests suggested at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

1) What links here for Nazarene indicates that editors are creating links to Nazarene intending any of several meanings.

2) Wikipedia article traffic statistics is inconclusive. Over the past 12 months, Nazarene received on average 5,171 views/mo; Nazarene (title) has existed for less than a month and a half with 1,616 views in October and 360 in Sept; Nazarene movement had 1,320 views/mo; Church of the Nazarene had 10,471 views/mo; Nazarene_(sect)had 2907 views/mo. If the statistics suggest any primary topic it would be Church of the Nazarene, but because it is at best only a partial match for the term it would be a weak case. But as none of the other uses had significantly more views than others, that would suggest the base term should be a disambiguation page.

3) Web searches such as Google and Bing are also do not indicate a primary topic. For both Google and Bing, the top result for "nazarene -wikipedia" is Church of the Nazarene. Other results on the first page show a variety of topics, suggesting a disambiguation page.

On Help:Moving a page I can apparently do the move myself, if the move is agreed upon ("not controversial"). However, given the history of these pages, even though the primary topic is pretty clear I'll proceed tomorrow with a move "request" of the disambiguation page currently at Nazarene to Nazarene (disambiguation), having given anyone else (Kauffner, etc.) a chance for input.

As per the discussion above, the page that should be at Nazarene is the general page which I've been reverting all this time. It is emphatically not Nazarene (title) which is only a part of the necessary discussion. (See below.)

I shall follow your directive and create the "new page" Nazarene at my userspace, which is the content of the one I've been reverting. I'll request it be moved along with the disambiguation page tomorrow.Renejs (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, because there is an edit history at the pages, an admin would need to make the moves, which is one reason for WP:Requested moves.

Assuming, hypothetically that there is consensus for there to be a primary topic, would there be any necessity for a separate article on Nazarene (title)? At a glance, there looks to be a lot of overlap between the version you were trying to create and that article. I think you'd need to establish a rationale for the existence of both pages -- rather than renaming and editing the existing article. older ≠ wiser 22:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments -- disambiguation and page moves

As the exchanges above show, there is a disagreement about several interrelated topics including

1. where the disambiguation page should be located
2. whether moving pages by copying and pasting is appropriate

So far, the discussion has been limited and hopefully with wider input we might be able to reach some basis for understanding and a way to proceed without acrimony. older ≠ wiser 17:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- The question is whether this article should be called Nazarene or Nazarene (disambiguation) (which is currently a redirect to this article. The primary refernece is clearly to Jesus Christ, and the article Nazarene (title) is a substantial one dealing with this. All other uses are derived from this.

Thank you for your input, Peterkingiron. Your statement is not entirely correct. The other uses of "Nazarene" (Gnostic, Mandean, etc.) are not derived from "Jesus the Nazarene" (the Mandeans, whose priests are "Nazarenes," are actually opposed to Jesus and are followers of John the Baptist).

There is thus a case for moving this article to Nazarene (disambiguation) and then Nazarene (title) to this title, but that is something that only an admin can do. I would support such a more, since the reference to Jesus is clearly primary. Accordingly, the correct procedure is to list this at WP:Requested moves, which will place a tag on this page enabling a discussion to take place which can be resolved by the closing admin. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks, but the best solution is to move the more general article which is in the edit history under Nazarene, not the limited article Nazarene (title) which only deals with Jesus of Nazareth. Is there consensus on this?Renejs (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason for there to be separate pages? older ≠ wiser 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your question, you are asking: Is there a reason for there to be a separate disambiguation page? The answer is apparently "Yes." We read at Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term." On the disamb. page we (already) have:

   * Nazarene (sect), a sect of early Christianity

   * Church of the Nazarene, modern Christian denomination

   * Nazarene movement, art

   * The Nazarene, a novel by Sholem Asch

   * FV Nazarene, a ship wrecked in 1957

   * Black Nazarene, a wooden sculpture in Quiapo, Manila

   * Impaled Nazarene, a Finnish metal band

In principle I'm not opposed to placing a "See also" on the content page. I'm not sure what the advantages are one way or the other. Does anybody have input on this? I can vouch that "Nazarene" is an extraordinarily complex term which, like an octopus, has tentacles which extend in different (and surprising) directions. Those different meanings will eventually probably be touched on by Wikipedia.

For example, future discussion may be supplied for variants such as "Nazorean" and "Nasarene (sect)." These might potentially exist via links to other articles or in discussion on the Nazarene page itself. As I've argued (above), discussion of the Mandean priest as "Nazarene" and the word as a Gnostic term should be on the same page as the primary discussion of the term in connection with Jesus, since these widely different usages arose about the same time and probably have a common linguistic foundation (some scholarship attempts to trace the common root back to early Mesopotamia).

Anyway, even without a separate disamb. page, I have been forced to recognize that we would still need to move the disambiguation page from "Nazarene" in order to make room for content there.Renejs (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is interesting, but I now realize that Bkonrad was asking whether there need to be separate pages Nazarene and Nazarene (title). The answer is "no": There is indeed significant overlap between the two pages. It is critical, however, that the broader article assume the content under the heading "Nazarene." This is important so that the traditional association of this term with Jesus be accompanied by ancient associations with Gnosticism and Mandeism. In fact, this is where scholarship currently points. Discussing the term in isolation with Jesus alone is outmoded and no longer productive. Hence, I would maintain that the content page needs to have the heading Nazarene and that it needs to be multivalent.

The (unfortunate) alternative would be to fork the discussion into separate pages. One link might go to Nazarene (title). (A better wording might be Jesus the Nazarene). Another link to the use of "Nazarene" in connection with the Mandeans, another link to the Gnostic usage, etc. In this case, then I suppose the disamb. page can stay right where it is--at Nazarene.

I guess with all these questions, it's best not to hurry but to see where consensus lies.Renejs (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My question was not about the disambiguation page, but rather about the page you propose for Nazarene and the page currently at Nazarene (title). It appears to that you want to rename and revise that page rather than create a new page that duplicates most of the content. older ≠ wiser 10:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose no renaming or revising. The narrow discussion at Nazarene (title) yields relevant content already included in the Nazarene page last online 17:07, 29 October 2009 (see Nazarene history page). The page that should be at Nazarene (after the disambiguation is moved) can be found here: User:Renejs/Nazarene.

I am proposing the following: (1) Move the disambiguation page to Nazarene (disambiguation); (2) tranfer the content ("move" or "cut and paste"?) from my user site to Nazarene. Of course, this new/old article (it's been an alternate version to Nazarene (title) for some weeks now) will be subject to revision, as always.Renejs (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The question remains though, is a separate page at Nazarene (title) necessary?

Considering that a very large portion of the content of your proposed page duplicated material at the already existing page -- it seems that what you actually should be proposing it to move that page and revise its content. That is, the problem of copying and pasting and attribution remains. older ≠ wiser 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No page at Nazarene (title) is necessary.

I have no objection in principle. As far as content goes, we can basically start anywhere. I've been led to understand that this exercise is to address the integrity of edit histories and the nature of pages (a disamb. page not functioning as a content page, and vice-versa). My question now is: Which edit histories do we want to keep?

Nazarene (title) began as a redirect to Nazarene (heresy) and quickly became a short disamb. page (5 Aug. 2006). At 02:19, 25 June 2009, I placed content on the page relating to the term "Nazarene" which did not belong in the (at that time) very long and unwieldy article Nazareth. For about three weeks Nazarene (title) had the status of a disamb. page but the character of a content page (article). At 18:43 15 July it lost its status as a disamb. page. After that time, Kauffner was principally active on the page, as we see from his 75 edits in the week 16-24 Sept.

It is the word "title" in the heading which unnecessarily restricts the discussion (principally to Jesus of Nazareth). I'm going through all this with you principally to remove that single word from the title of the main article discussing "Nazarene."

We could begin with the substance of Nazarene (title), now "moved" to Nazarene. Then we could add the subsidiary (Gnostic etc.) content. In fact, this is, I believe how the page at User:Renejs/Nazarene came about.Renejs (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're slightly misreading the history at Nazarene (title). At the time of the edit on Aug 5 2006, the page was located at Nazarene. The page that had been at Nazarene was moved to Nazarene (heresy) (which was later moved to Nazarene (sect)) and Nazarene then became a disambiguation page. When you added non-disambiguation material to the page on 30 June 2009, it was still titled as Nazarene. On 15 July 2009, User:Inquietudeofcharacter removed the disambiguation template and moved the page to Nazarene (word). The page was moved to Nazarene (title) on 21 September 2009. What I propose for the edit history is to merge all the edit history prior to your edit on 30 June 2009 with the current disambiguation page. The remaining edit history deals with subsequent development of the article content, primarily by yourself and Kauffner. That page can be moved to whatever title there is consensus for -- which would be determined by a proposal at WP:Requested moves. older ≠ wiser 03:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't totally follow, but that's due to my lack of experience with Wikipedia. I trust that the disamb. page will move from Nazarene (where it is currently) to Nazarene (disambiguation). This will leave a place for the content page to move to Nazarene. So we have a two-stage affair: first the disamb. page, and then the content page.

Had I been more aware earlier, I would have objected to these various moves, esp. Kauffner's move from "Nazarene (word)" to "Nazarene (title)", for which I don't recall consensus being solicited.

Accordingly, thank you for going ahead as you've proposed with stage one ("merge all the edit history prior to your edit on 30 June 2009 with the current disambiguation page"). Let me know when this is done, and I will then proceed onto stage two, the content page, by requesting two moves: the disamb. page -->Nazarene (disambiguation), and then another page (we will choose)-->Nazarene.Renejs (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Where the pages move would be the outcome of a WP:Requested moves discussion. As I indicated in a previous section, none of the typical indicators of a primary topic are there. But based on a requested move discussion, consensus may determine that there is one despite the lack of indicators. older ≠ wiser 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To bring this matter to a head, I am putting in a requested moves nomination (below). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit histories are now associated with the correct pages. older ≠ wiser 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC Response, I think the current layout is correct, with Nazarene as the disambiguation page, Nazarene (title) about the use of the term in the New Testament, and so on. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

• Nazarene → Nazarene (disambiguation) — [to make space for primary article]
• Nazarene (title) → Nazarene — [The primary reference is clearly to Jesus Christ. Nazarene means a person from Nazareth and he is by far the most prominent. The article is a detailed discussion of the term. Of course, an "otheruses" capnote will be needed. This move can only be made by an admin as the target exists as a redirect. ] -- Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — Per the discussion below, Nazarene (title) is not the primary topic of Nazarene, so leave the disambiguation page at the ambiguous base name. --Una Smith (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The primary topic, if there were any, would be Church of the Nazarene. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment-- How did the Church of the Nazarene get its name, if not from Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene)? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As I explained elsewhere, I wouldn't expect Mormon to redirect to Mormon (prophet). Similar situation here. However, after reviewing the discussion, I agree that a disambiguation page is best for Nazarene; that way people won't be surprised by an article they weren't expecting, since there could be various expectations when entering "Nazarene" into the search box. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 23:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose rename. I tend to think that Jesus the Nazarene would be the best title for the Nazarene (title) article in any event. And, while I acknowledge that the word is most frequently used in connection with Jesus, I also very much doubt that the average editor would really type that word, rather than say Jesus to find content on such a clearly contingent topic anyway. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've reversed my original stance and now believe that Nazarene should return a disambiguation page, given the wide variety of significant meanings associated with the term (see "Discussion" below).Renejs (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment-- The only exception would be if the base page Nazarene is a discussion of the etymology of the word. (See discussion below for the underlying etymology of all the various strands.) For example, the article Nazareth goes through the history of the settlement era by era. Nazarene could similarly go through the term (actually a Semitic root) progressively: Babylon - Israel - Christianity, Mandeism - Modern (e.g. Church of the Nazarene). In this case, the dab page would go to Nazarene (disambiguation) and terms in the base article would link to subpages. This might be the most comprehensive solution. Any thoughts?Renejs (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Favor. I agree with John Carter (above), and favor a renaming of Nazarene (title) to Jesus the Nazarene. This page would be accompanied by a disclaimer, such as: "This page discusses the term Nazarene in relation to Jesus of Nazareth. For other uses see Nazarene" (which returns the root disambiguation page).Renejs (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment (from nom) -- We will probably need a hatnote something like {{redirect|Nazarene}}. This may not be quite the right one, but this needs to be kept as a spearate article from the biographic article on Jesus. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Reiterating what I wrote above, I'm not sure that be the three tests listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC show that there is a clear primary topic:

1) What links here for Nazarene indicates that editors are creating links to Nazarene intending any of several meanings.

2) Wikipedia article traffic statistics is inconclusive. Over the past 12 months, Nazarene received on average 5,171 views/mo; Nazarene (title) has existed for less than a month and a half with 1,616 views in October and 360 in Sept; Nazarene movement had 1,320 views/mo; Church of the Nazarene had 10,471 views/mo; Nazarene_(sect)had 2907 views/mo. If the statistics suggest any primary topic it would be Church of the Nazarene, but because it is at best only a partial match for the term it would be a weak case. But as none of the other uses had significantly more views than others, that would suggest the base term should be a disambiguation page.

3) Web searches such as Google and Bing also do not indicate a primary topic. For both Google and Bing, the top result for "nazarene -wikipedia" is Church of the Nazarene. Other results on the first page show a variety of topics, suggesting a disambiguation page.

Where is the evidence for there being a primary topic? There are certainly other cases where the evidence from the primary topic tests are set aside for other arguments, but perhaps the case for primary topic could be more clearly articulated. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In the following I shall indeed attempt to furnish evidence of a "Primary Topic" as regards the term "Nazarene."

I agree with Peterkingiron, who writes: "The primary reference is clearly to Jesus Christ, and the article Nazarene (title) is a substantial one dealing with this."

Bkonrad has repeatedly emphasized the need to identify a Primary Topic in order to justify the existence of a Nazareth content page at Nazarene. On this page (above), he has defined his position:

- " I have no opinion at this time about whether there is or is not a primary topic."

- "Unless there is a primary topic, this page (i.e., Nazarene) should be a disambiguation page."

- "If there is agreement that there is a primary topic, then that page should be moved with edit history to the new name."

Bkonrad then offers statements which he maintains shed some doubt on the existence of a Primary Topic. He notes three things: (1) Wikipedia links statistics to Nazarene; (2) Wikipedia article traffic statistics; and (3) Web searches on Google and Bing. However, none of these is meaningful, as I will now show.

(1) ASSOCIATION. The question, "Is there a Primary Topic relating to "'Nazarene'?" can be answered by putting it another way: "Is there someone whom people reflexively associate with the word 'Nazarene'?" The answer is clearly "Yes." "The Nazarene" universally means "Jesus of Nazareth." (If you are in doubt on this, consult any dictionary or ask your neighbor or family member.) This alone decides the issue that "Nazarene" indeed has a Primary Topic, that is, Jesus of Nazareth--aka (in everyone's mind), JESUS THE NAZARENE.

(2) WIKIPEDIA WEAKNESS. Wikipedia statistics do not bear on this question at all. The problem, as we're seeing right now, is that Wikipedia is not correctly configured to reflect the clear association "the Nazarene" = Jesus of Nazareth (see above). Much less is it configured to reflect any minority usages. The plight of Wikipedia in this regard is that "Nazarene" is a poorly-developed term at Wikipedia. Today, it is no more than a totally content-free disambiguation page. By nature, a disambiguation page directs onwards. It hardly generates interest for itself. Therefore, it is tendentious to calculate popularity by measuring hits of the disamb. page "Nazarene" vs. hits of a number of subpages. One can hardly expect the statistics of such a banal disamb. page to rival those of even minor subpages which reflect content. This is why measuring Wikipedia by hits is, in this instance, a bogus measurement of "Primary Topic." The best one will do in this regard is to measure the relative popularity of Nazarene SUBPAGES.

(3) ORIGINAL INSPIRATION. It has been suggested that (by number of hits) one or another of the "Nazarene" Wikipedia subpages would qualify as a Primary Topic for this term--i.e., "Church of the Nazarene" (by far the most hits), "Nazarene (sect)," "Nazarene (title)," "Nazarene movement," and "Nazarene." The elephant in the room is that underlying ALL of these subpages is one towering figure: JESUS THE NAZARENE. His existence (in fact or myth) has yielded ALL the partial matches above: Nazarene; Nazarene (title); Nazarene movement; Church of the Nazarene; and Nazarene_(sect). These latter are unimaginable without Jesus. It is erroneous to suppose that because one of these derivatives gets the most hits, then it could somehow be more important than the figure which gave it meaning, Jesus "the Nazarene."

For these reasons, it is crystal clear to me that a Primary Topic exists for "Nazarene": Jesus of Nazareth.

In conclusion, I join Peterkingiron in affirming the existence of a Primary Topic in relation to the term "Nazarene." That Primary Topic is "Jesus the Nazarene." The Wikipedia page Nazarene should be a content page reflecting the primary association of the term with Jesus of Nazareth, and lesser associations as appropriate. It should be linked to a separate Nazarene (disambiguation) page which disambiguates unrelated meanings.208.100.240.133 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "evidence" is only a chain of reasoning in which one has to share your assumptions in order to arrive at the same conclusions. Initially I was neutral, but after having looked into this somewhat more closely, I find no convincing evidence has been presented that there is a primary topic, as used for purposes of disambiguation on Wikipedia. As has been established numerous times in other disambiguation discussions, primary topic on Wikipedia is meant to facilitate readers finding the topic they are looking for. It is not an indication of what some might feel, however strongly, is the most important topic. With few exceptions, primary topic is determined primarily based on the three tests listed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And in many cases, the exceptions are where there is conflict between what is an overwhelmingly popular topic and the traditional meaning of a term. You suggested that any dictionary would show that "Nazarene" means Jesus. I don't actually see this. At Dictionary.com, the Random House dictionary only lists Jesus in the context of "The Nazarene". American Heritage identifies Jesus as sense b) under the first entry. Merriam-Webster makes no mention of Jesus. Even granting that Jesus is sometimes known as "The Nazarene" -- what is the likelihood that someone coming to Wikipedia is going to enter "nazarene" in the search box with the expectation of going directly to an article about Jesus? That is where the three tests at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can offer some guidance. Looking at what editors intend with the links to the term Nazarene, it is pretty clear that most of them do not mean Jesus. Looking at Google and Bing, which rank results based on actual usage, there are a variety of topics returned on the first page. Both of which strongly suggest that Nazarene should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I intended to mediate this discussion, but instead, I think I'll join it. I think you're both wrong. The tests on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC all seem to indicate that Church of the Nazarene should be the primary topic. That article states "The denomination is commonly referred to as the Nazarene Church, and its members referred to as Nazarenes." The sheer size and quality of the article suggests that it is a bigger topic. The number of wikilinks to Church of the Nazarine blows Nazarene (title) out of the water. The previously mentioned statistics place it as the most visited page, with nearly twice as many hits as Nazarene. If any primary topic is to be selected, it should be Church of the Nazarine. The "original inspiration" argument is quite irrelevant...would you expect Mormon to redirect you to Mormon (prophet)? No.

If you disagree about the suggested methods for determining the primary topic, I suggest you take it up at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That page does make it clear that these methods are just guidelines, and not determining factors. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the tests tend to indicate Church of the Nazarene as the primary topic. However, the statistics are not actually that overwhelming and the disagreement over primary topic tends to suggest that the page should be a disambiguation page (which it was, without much commotion for the past few years). older ≠ wiser 02:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a clear primary topic is one that outweighs the other topics (all together) by an order of magnitude (10X) or more. Here we have a most-viewed article that is well developed with many incoming links, yet it has only 2X the views of one other article. So to me it is not a clear primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised at this discussion, which insinuates that the "Church of the Nazarene" (an evangelical denomination less than two centuries old) is somehow the most important topic associated with the term "Nazarene." I'll relax and see where the discussion goes from here. If this is the best we can do at Wikipedia, so be it. I'm not tied to one format over another, being content-driven. If "Nazarene" remains a disamb. page, then we will simply create subpages for important minor usages, such as the meaning "truth" (Gospel of Philip, etc.), and the "Nazarene" as the name of the enlightened priest in the Mandean religion. The various usages will be parceled out on a number of subpages, instead of being found on a single page. Either way, there is fertile future ground. It is a no-brainer to me that Jesus of Nazareth is the most important and obvious association with the term. Other proposals are, IMO, curious.Renejs (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The metric here is not importance, but numbers of readers impacted. The wide variety of usages of the word "Nazarene", and the expectation of more articles related to this word, is exactly the kind of situation where a dab page at the ambiguous base name (Nazarene) is a good choice. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Having a disamb. page at Nazarene with a number of subpages works to reduce the importance of any one page over others. I like this, for I think that "Jesus the Nazarene"--though currently by far the most important association with the term--needs to gradually allow place for other (still fairly unknown) ancient usages. Also, having "Jesus the Nazarene" virtually hidden from public view under the rubric Nazarene (title) aids this. Count me in: I have no objection to keeping Nazarene as a disamb. page, nor to keeping the subpage Nazarene (title).Renejs (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- This is a Requested Rename discussion. Please vote in the section above and set out your reasons succinctly there. An Admin will in due course close this discussion, according to the votes cast (though not necessarily the majority of votes), as in WP:AFD and WP:CFD discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite ready to vote yet. I've looked at how Wikipedia deals with homonyms (see http://home.alphalink.com.au/~umbidas/Homonyms_main.htm#ball). "Nazarene" fits this category, since it means "a person from Nazareth," specifically "Jesus of Nazareth," a priest in the Mandean religion, "truth" according to the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, a member of the Church of the Nazarene, and so on. Wikipedia's treatment is not always intuitive. An obvious primary topic (PT) returns a main article (angle, ball, bank, bat, cape, yard, volume) but "rock," for example, returns a disambiguation page. This may be because Wikipedia seems to reward specificity and to penalize generality. "Rock" is a general term which has been adopted in a multitude of specific personal names.

"Nazarene" is today mostly used in reference to Jesus the Nazarene, which IMO qualifies as a PT. However, I believe that this assessment is going to change with time, as other uses become better known. Thus, "Nazarene" should ideally return a disambiguation page.

It has to be mentioned that a page named Nazarene (title) is problematic. What does this term mean as a "title"? Does it include the Mandean name for their priests? On the Jesus page (scroll down) we read: "The Gospels record that Jesus was a Nazarene, a term commonly taken to refer to Nazareth, his boyhood home, but sometimes understood as a religious title." Here, the author seems to oppose "Nazarene/title" to "Nazarene/from Nazareth." Clarification on these questions is appreciated.Renejs (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Nazarene (title), according to that article's content, would be more correctly renamed Nazarene (title of Jesus); Nazarene, Jesus of; or something like that? ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The following paragraphs explain my above vote to keep a disambiguation page at Nazarene, but also (in agreement with Peterkingiron) to rename Nazarene (title) --> Jesus the Nazarene.

"Nazarene" is an inordinately complex and important term which once meant "savior" and which goes back no less than 4,000 years--LONG before Christian times. Babylonian kings were sometimes named "Natsar/Nazir" (savior, protector, e.g. Ashur-NATSIR-pal), and a sacred mountain in Mesopotamia was known as Mt. NATSAR/Nizir. Even the ark/boat which saved Noah and all life was known (in the oldest Babylonian version) as the "NATSIR (savior) of life." The term, apparently, early had gnostic significance (= wisdom). Wikipedia does not permit original research, but no one should suppose that any of these ideas are mine. They're all in the literature, scattered among scholarly articles.

The word "Nazarene" can't be divorced from all the above meanings and we are, in fact, now entering a new era where Christianity will finally reclaim ancient roots long hidden. Wikipedia may not be the place for up-to-date research, but in this case nothing prevents it from properly reflecting the complexity of the term, whose many meanings must eventually see the light of day.

Therefore, I vote for a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE at the root term "Nazarene." This is contrary to my original position which favored a main page (Primary Topic) dealing with Jesus of Nazareth. I also propose that the subpage Nazarene (title) be renamed Jesus the Nazarene (or a similar name to make the reference to Jesus of Nazareth clear). This page may get the most hits and the most attention. However, many other articles sharing the term "Nazarene" (or its Semitic root, N-S-R) will eventually form a constellation of information tied to this very interesting word.

A final note: The etymology of the term "Nazarene" is critical to Wikipedia's organization of these pages, and historically unifies/underlies them all. It should be removed from the page Nazarene (title) and given a separate page (which I've tentatively titled Nazarene (word)), listed first at the top of the disambiguation page Nazarene. In this way, Wikipedia can deal with the term "Nazarene" and all its important (and so far unsuspected) connotations.Renejs (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.