Talk:Nazareth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit request on 16 December 2011

Please replace: Known as "the Arab capital of Israel," the population is made up predominantly of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. to Nazareth is known as "the Arab capital of Israel;" its population is made up predominantly of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. This is a purely grammatic change. The current text is a Dangling modifier. That is, the current text suggests that it is the population [of Nazareth] that is known as the Arab capital of Israel. Other grammatically correct alternatives exist, e.g., Nazareth's population is made up predominantly of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. It is often said to be "the Arab capital of Israel"

BorisG (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this very sensible request.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done I fixed your punctuating, too. Anomie⚔ 21:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange POV in section on New Testament

The section titled "New Testament References" seems both incorrect and misleading. The details of how this text is wrong lead me to believe that the information presented is deliberately misleading.

Renejs: Rather, it is the above writer who is mistaken. . .

Overall, the intent of the three paragraphs leads the reader to the following mistaken conclusions: (1) Translations from Greek to English are mistranslating "Ναζωραιοσ" as "of Nazareth" rather than "Nazarene." Greek words are inflected according to the part of speech in which they are being used. "Ναζωραιοσ" is an adjective form of the root "Ναζαρεθ"

Renejs: Ναζωραιοσ is used nominally in the New Testament, as we see from the presence of the definite article in 12 out of 13 cases (ho Ναζωραιοσ, ton Ναζωραιοv, etc). The only instance where the article is lacking is Mt 2:23. There, the word Ναζωραιοσ may be interpreted either nominally or adjectivally--as when we say “John will be called fat” (adj.) or “John will be called Fat” (proper noun).

(2) Although Jesus may have lived in Nazareth, that would somehow not make him a Nazarene. The article therefore is refuting content from the New Testament, to wit Matthew 2:23: "And coming he-down-homes into city being-said "Nazareth" (Ναζαρεθ) which-how may-be-being-filled the being-declared through the (prophets) that "Nazarene" (Ναζωραιοσ) he-shall-be-being-called."

Renejs: That's a very strange translation! In any case, the derivation of the New Testament term Ναζωραιοσ is not from “Nazareth.” The Semitic name of the town is nun-tsade-resh-tav. An inhabitant of that town would (in Greek) have been called something like “Νασαρεθεivos” (the Hebrew tav at the end = Gk. theta). The tsade would yield Gk. Sigma (not zeta). Also, the town’s name in Semitic has no vav or “o” sound (= Gk. omega). So, there is very little linguistic relation between the name of the town and the Greek word Ναζωραιοσ. Evidently, the Matthean evangelist was being very creative. He tried to make a link between Jesus and the town of Na-ts-ar-eth (Semitic) but he did not know the rules of language.

The section seems to appeal to obscure information from the original Greek before translation to English, but the assertions made about the Greek are false. Those who wrote this section may be attempting to deliberately mislead viewers.

My thought it to replace the entire section with a brief reference to Matthew 2:23, which explains the significance of the city to NT readers, without addressing the made-up controversy.

Renejs: The above writer does not seem to be aware of the old, divisive, and controversial issues now coming to a head as regards Nazareth archaeology. This is not a "made-up controversy." It is quite real and is being played out on this Wikipedia page itself.

I notice the existing section has 3 references. The first is to a series of NT citations organized according to Original Research. The second is to an 1899 source. I submit these are not representative of broad modern thought on the subject.

Renejs: "Broad modern thought on the subject" no longer exists. There is no longer a consensus on Nazareth archaeology.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathhunnicutt (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 December 2011‎ (UTC)

This edit deleted a bunch of material which should have been cited to Dumper. I've restored it and added the citation, the lack of which, I m assuming was the reason for its deletion. If I am wrong, please clarify hat the problem is. Tiamut^talk 18:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

transliteration of צ

I changed it from "ts" to "ṣ" as it makes no sense when talking about classical Hebrew to transliterate it with Modern Israeli pronunciations..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.156.46 (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Archaeological support for the biblical account?

The other day I had a conversation with a couple of university-level history students, and the question of the reliability of Wikipedia came up. One of them made reference to our article on Nazareth, saying that no historian of archeologist outside of some fringe religious groups believes that anyone lived in Nazareth at the time of Christ, yet Wikipedia appears to treat it as if the science supports the possibility.

I just finished examining the article and checking the cites, and I have a few concerns.

First, we have "James Strange, an American archaeologist" speculating about the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ, as if the only question is how many people lived there. Following the reference, I found that it is a 1992 article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. That's a Tertiary source. For such a controversial claim, we should have a reliable secondary source -- actual peer-reviewed science.

That "archaeologist" label is also quite interesting.

It turns out that James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of South Florida. His degrees are:

Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959

Master of Divinity from Yale Divinity School in 1964

PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970

He is on the editorial board of Biblical Archaeology Review, but I see no evidence that he claims to be an archaeologist.

Next we have the claim that "In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period"

Apparently, the source of this is December 21, 2009, news release from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was published in hundreds of newspapers, but the original is here:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Residential_building_time_Jesus_Nazareth_21-Dec-2009.htm

Despite the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs claim that this was "Communicated by the Israel Antiquities Authority" I cannot find any reference to anything published by the Israel Antiquities Authority that mentions this archaeological find, nor can I find any scientific paper published by Yardenna Alexandre or anyone else associated with the excavation.

Finally we have "A few authors have argued that the absence of 1st and 2nd century AD textual references to Nazareth suggest the town may not have been inhabited in Jesus' day. Proponents of this hypothesis have buttressed their case with linguistic, literary and archaeological interpretations, though such views have been called "archaeologically unsupportable".

That last "archaeologically unsupportable" claim appears to come from a book review that criticized the book The Myth of Nazareth: The Town of Jesus, a book that we don't mention at all other than to quote the critic. The rest of the paragraph is completely unencyclopedic; besides the weaseling, Nobody needs to "argue" that the town was not inhabited in Jesus' day. Someone needs to provide a citation from a reliable source that shows that it was.

Unless someone can show me some sort of peer-reviewed science supporting these claims, I must ask whether these claims were inserted into the article in order to make it appear that there is archaeological support for the biblical account. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can suggest to those history students that they study harder. The communique from Yardenna Alexandre can be found on a website run by the Israeli Antiquities Authority here. Not that there is any reason to suspect the MFA would make it up. There seems to be no formal publication yet, but that is not too surprising as it always takes several years. You can check Dr Alexandre's other assignments with the Israeli Antiquities Authority by searching for her at http://hadashot-esi.org.il . Now, reading carefully, the significance of the discovery is that it is the first house to be excavated. Not that it is the first evidence of habitation, since she mentions that nearby tombs from the period were already known. Next, that book review you question was written by Ken Dark of the Research Centre for Late Antique and Byzantine Studies, University of Reading, who is a recognised authority on the region. In his paper "Roman-period and Byzantine landscapes between Sepphoris and Nazareth" published in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 140, 2 (2008), 87–102, there are multiple references to pottery and other Roman-era remains found in Nazareth with citations to the scholarly literature. So if he claims that it is "archaeologically unsupportable" to claim that Nazareth was uninhabited, we are entitled to suspect he is correct. (But of course it doesn't matter what we suspect, since he obviously and amply meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source.) If a similarly eminent source claiming something else is found, it can be included too. Zero^talk 07:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

These "multiple references to pottery and other Roman-era remains found in Nazareth with citations to the scholarly literature" appear to be completely missing from the citations to this section. Instead I am seeing the the Anchor Bible Dictionary used as a citation and a claim that a professor of Religious Studies with no training in archaeology is an archaeologist. One would think that citations to the scholarly literature would be preferred over bible dictionaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims? to get a second opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That text has been in the article since July of 2007...

..is not, in my view, a valid reason to restore material to this article here when reasonable concerns have been raised at ANI here. The content can stay out until the sourcing issues are resolved. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, my revert was proper, and allowing someone to replace a stable version with his preferred version while in the middle of a content dispute is a poor decision. The statement was in the article for five full years without anyone being harmed by it and without anyone complaining.

Reverting to the last stable version before a content dispute erupted is something that we do a lot here on Wikipedia. The basic principle is explained at WP:BRD and WP:PRESERVE. Finally, please think about why we have a citation needed tag instead of just deleting anything that has a citation problem.

What you are doing is inviting abuse. We can't let people just delete things they don't like and then insist that the deletion stands while the content dispute is discussed, nor can we let people add things and insist that the addition stand while the content dispute is discussed. Reverting to the last stable version before a content dispute erupted is the only fair choice. I think you should self-revert your deletion of stable content. There is no emergency that requires us make a snap decision. Leave it as it was for the last five years while we discuss the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has erupted and Zero is not the kind of editor who deletes things because he doesn't like them. What has happened is that a highly experienced and meticulous editor/sysop (particularly on sourcing issues) has discovered and presented evidence of what appears to be source misrepresentation. The evidence presented at ANI is enough for me to remove this information because it strongly suggests that the content violates several mandatory policies. Given the concerns, the material does not in my view qualify for WP:PRESERVE and I won't restore material to this article without confirmation that it complies with mandatory policy. The "as it was for the last X years" argument is not a reason for me to do something. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't revert or report your decision. (I may ask for clarification at the appropriate noticeboard, but as a good-faith disagreement about policy, not as reporting someone for violating policy.) On the other hand, I hope you can understand why I am convinced that this practice (BRRD instead of BRD) has a high potential for abuse, and that "I, Sean.hoyland, know in my heart that Zero0000 won't abuse, so it's OK for him to have his preferred version stand instead of the stable version" is itself an invitation for abuse. It requires me to agree with your judgement that Zero0000 is trustworthy and Renejs is not, without any evidence one way or the other that this is true, and without any evidence one way or the other that your judgement can be trusted in this matter. Please don't get me wrong; I am in no way implying that I have any reason to mistrust either of you -- it's just that I have a real problem with going against a long-standing practice (reverting to the last stable version) just because someone I don't know says that it is OK this time. I also am having trouble with your request that I consider what clearly is a content dispute to not be a content dispute based upon your judgement that one party in the dispute is right and the other party is wrong. The content in question has been through four reverts by four editors in the last few days. Don't tell me that a content dispute has not erupted. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that this is a content dispute and the normal way to deal with content that has been in an article for years is to leave it in pending the resolution of the sourcing issues. I also have my doubts that sean would be making the same argument he's making now if a pro-Israel editor were the one trying to remove content.

That said, Zero is indeed meticulous about sourcing and if he says the material is not in the source then it's highly unlikely it's in the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's wrong. If it had been you rather than Zero who had posted the findings at ANI my position would be the same. If I edited, made comments and content decisions according to my personal POV things would look very different I can assure you. No one has said anything that changes my view that this material should, as a matter of policy, stay out until the WP:V compliance issues are resolved. Trying to understand why an editor would think it is okay to restore material when they can't verify that it complies with mandatory policy just because it has been in the article for a long time is not a question that concerns me because I think it is inconsistent with core policy. I can understand why an encyclopedia shouldn't contain content while reasonable concerns raised by reasonable people who understand policy are being addressed. I would rather cut to the chase and discuss the real issue here. For example, are there concerns that article content is perhaps being compromised by agenda driven religious editors whose views make them remove content that negatively impacts on a religious narrative ? It shouldn't matter but for interest, I am an atheist, quite happy to describe myself as an antireligionist, I don't subscribe to the view that I need to respect people's views just because they happen to be related to religion as opposed to say cooking, nor do I think freedom of religion is a basic human right any more than taking heroin is a basic human right, so I'm about as biased and bigoted as it gets on religious issues. Luckily for Wikipedia I don't edit according to my personal views, so bear that in mind if there are any concerns about my motives for removing this material. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope when you wrote taking heroin is not 'a basic human right', the whole emphasis was on basic. As a human rights campaigner, I'm worried.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon's position on this is wrong in policy. The source given for this material not only doesn't contain it but shows that it is wrong (the average grade is actually far less than 14%). When the only source provided for something says it is wrong, WP:V mandates its removal and there is no case whatever for maintaining it in the article. Citation-needed tags are for plausible material that can likely be sourced, not for established falsehoods. Otherwise someone could invent thousands of phony claims cited to an obscure source and demand they remain until a "consensus" is reached on each one; it would be a complete disaster. As for checking my claim, as most of you would have seen in AN/I, I offered to email a scan to anyone who asked. In 10 years on Wikipedia I have never refused to provide a source if I was asked for it, by friends and foes alike. Guy has not asked to see the source but still thinks it is fine to question my trustworthiness; this is not acceptable behavior.

As I noted in AN/I, the source also does not argue that 14% is too steep for ancient dwellings. What was not appropriate for AN/I (since my report was about dishonest behavior, not about content) was the additional observation that the claim it was too steep actually comes from Rene J Salm's book (an unreliable source) and was proved wrong by archaeologist Ken Dark in his review (cited in the article). Please look at Gamla to see an example of a Jewish village of the same time period on a slope about 3 times the slope of where the ancient village is believed to have been in Nazareth. Another example of houses on a steep slope (as Dark mentions) is Khirbet Qana quite close to Nazareth. Rubbish claims from amateur conspiracy theory books deserve only one fate; they should be hunted down and expunged. Finally, though it is none of your business, I've been an atheist for the last 2/3 of my life and have excellent skeptical credentials (twice an invited speaker at a national skeptics conference). Unfortunately a sizable contingent in the skeptics community will accept anything that is good for beating up religious people, when they should be following the evidence regardless of the consequences. Zero^talk 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "When the only source provided for something says it is wrong, WP:V mandates its removal and there is no case whatever for maintaining it in the article" wrong, wrong, wrong. You are one party in a content dispute. Renejs is the other party in the content dispute. You say that the only source says it is wrong. Renejs says that the only source says it is right. You are begging the question by asking me to conclude that Zero0000 is right by starting with the assumption that Zero0000 is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I have no reason to think that either Zero0000 or Sean.hoyland are being biased here. Instead I believe that Sean and Zero are, in good faith, conmpletely misunderstanding an important Wikipedia principle here -- that we don't allow an editor to add or delete material when another editor objects to the change, reverts, and wishes to discuss it and seek consensus. I am quite certain that if I asked for clarification that on this several experienced admins would tell Zero and Sean that they are misinterpreting policy. The problem with me doing that is that in this particular case is that their misunderstanding of policy probably led to a good result, which would muddy the water if I used this as a test case for policy clarification. Also, it doesn't look like Renejs is going to discuss this (but Sean didn't know that would happen when he reverted), which would make the point moot. Because of these factors I have decided not to push the issue, but I will almost certainly do so if in the future Sean reverts another edit that restored a page to the last stable version before a content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is not a content dispute but a dispute over a violation of policy. The statement regarding the slope of the hill and how the slope disqualifies the assertion made is not found in the source cited, but the conclusion is derived from the source. If that is true then the problem is that of Original Research. A violation of Original Research is not protected under WP:PRESERVE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If WP:BRD applies at all to this case, my edit was the "R" part. But anyway that's not a policy or even a guideline. WP:ONUS, on the other hand is a policy. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." Simple as that. Zero^talk 00:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time of my decision to restore that last stable version before the content dispute all I had to go on was two edit comments by two editors. Zero0000 wrote "The given source is fake". Renejs wrote "The reference is in Bagatti. It's not at all fake. Just check it." (The source is only available by taking a trip to a good library, so I could not simply look it up myself.)

Subsequent events lead me to believe that Zero0000 was right, the material was original research (syntheses, to be exact) and that the material should be removed. Apparently, no matter how many times I say this, other editors here somehow do not hear me, as DonaldRichardSands did not hear me before writing the above, and attack a straw man instead of my actual argument. I believe that this is being done in good faith rather than purposefully fighting straw men; once you have an idea of what someone is arguing in your head, it is hard to back up and examine whether that was actually their argument, and seeing other people make the same error reinforces the false belief.

Given the information available to me at the time, my decision to restore that last stable version before the content dispute was proper, and Wikipedia does have a policy of leaving the article in the last stable version during an ongoing content dispute rather than deciding without evidence that one of the disputants is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We all have our memory lapses. You have forgotten that you already replied to my detailed description at AN/I at 01:24, 19 July 2012 (remember, your bold accusation of lying with that whopper about the number of edits I've made, I'd want to forget it too if I was you) more than five hours before you corrected your typo there, wrote to Renejs about it, and only then reverted my edit at 06:54, 19 July 2012. So perhaps your comment "all I had to go on was two edit comments by two editors" is not exactly what happened and you might like to refactor it. And I'll assume you didn't notice my offer to save you a "trip to a good library" with a simple email, so maybe refactoring that would be good too. Zero^talk 07:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy regarding the removal of information which appears to be doubtful or false.

Template:Verify source says:

"Use this inline template tag to label ostensibly sourced text which appears doubtful or false and to request source verification.

Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:

1. If it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, use this template to ask for source verification.
2. If it is doubtful and potentially harmful, move the information to the talk page and ask for a source.
3. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, remove the information immediately, without the need of moving it to the talk page first."

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't quote any policy. The core policy [WP:V]] says: "To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with . Material that fails verification may be tagged with or removed." It failed verification (and even worse, it contradicted the source) so removing it was explicitly allowed. WP:V also says "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.", which is true in this case. There is simply no way to argue that material contradicting the only given source should remain in articles, it would be a travesty of good editing practice. In fact any other material in this article whose real source is Salm's book should be removed too. It can go back if anyone finds a reliable source for it. Zero^talk 01:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So can anyone say the magic words "which is true in this case" and then be allowed to delete anything they choose without any discussion from someone else who might have evidence that it isn't true in this case? Or is this absolute power to delete anything they choose without seeking consensus reserved for you alone?

Again you are assuming that "Zero0000 claims that it is true in this case" is the same as "the community has been allowed to examine the evidence presented by Zero0000 and the evidence presented by whoever opposes him and decide whether it is true in this case." IT ISN'T TRUE JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS. THE REST OF US GET TO EXAMINE YOUR EVIDENCE BEFORE DECIDING AND TO TREAT IT AS POSSIBLY TRUE AND POSSIBLY FALSE IN THE MEANTIME. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? You put into an encyclopedia article material that you cant confirm, and you're yelling at the person who has actually seen the source? No, it does not work like that. It is one thing reverting some random without comment blanking, it is quite another to, after somebody (anybody) says that a source directly contradicts what is cited to it, re-insert material that you have not even attempted to verify. You dont get to decide that because you dont have access to a source that maybe its true and that an encyclopedia article should contain things that may be correct(!); either verify the source yourself, or get out of the way of people that are trying to remove bogus material from articles. nableezy - 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have restated the argument so as to arrive at your desired outcome. In particular, your statement "You [cannot] put into an encyclopedia article material that you can't confirm..." completely misstates my position. The standard is different for newly inserted material and material that has been in the article for five years, as this material has. When two editors disagree about newly inserted material, it stays out while they discuss it. When two editors disagree about newly deleted material that has been in the article for years, it stays in while they discuss it.

The larger problem is where you say "after somebody (anybody) says that a source directly contradicts what is cited to it, [you cannot] re-insert material that you have not even attempted to verify." I am very interested in how you, without seeing the source yourself, decided to believe that Zero0000 is trustworthy when he says the material in question is not in the source and how you, without seeing the source yourself, decided to believe that Renejs is not trustworthy when he says the material in question is in the source. And you know this...how?

The alternative is that you believe that anybody can delete anything simply by claiming that it isn't in the source. This implies that I can delete the following properly sourced statement in the article...

"An 8th century AD Hebrew inscription, which was the earliest known Hebrew reference to Nazareth prior to the discovery of the inscription above, uses the same form"

...simply by saying that page 110 of R. Horsley;s Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee doesn't say that. And that everybody has to accept the deletion just because I said so. And, of course, I can pick a dozen statements in the article that have sources that are not immediately available online, so in five minutes I could make you either spend days chasing sources or accept my deletions.

As I have said several times, in this particular case Renejs later indicated that the material was a synthesis, which is a valid reason for deletion (it is a case of nobody disputing Zero0000's claim that it isn't in the source), but what you and others are claiming is that, back before Renejs said that and was asserting that the material is in the source, that I was required to accept Zero0000's claim and reject Renejs' claim. I just want to know on what basis you decide who to favor when editors claim different things about the source.

Please consider the possibility that, in your eagerness to win an argument, you are not actually reading what I write and are instead furiously refuting something I did not write. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I am not trying to win an argument. I honestly do not care, even a little bit, about what the slope of this hill is. What I do care about is that you put into an encyclopedia article material whose veracity has been challenged without having the faintest idea of whether or not the source says anything resembling what you inserted into the article, or even if it directly contradicts what you put in to an article. We are all responsible for the material that we add to articles, and while mistakes in relying on the good faith of others in re-inserting material moved without any cause given can, and should, be forgiven, purposely inserting material whose faithfulness to the cited source has been challenged without so much as reading the cited source is, in my view, just as bad as whoever first placing material that distorts the cited source to begin with. No, material that has been challenged for distorting a source doesn't stay in while it is "discussed". Zero has offered to email any interested person a scan of the source. If he is lying about what the source says, something that even his detractors would be astonished by, then he would face the consequences for doing so. As should any person who either a. initially inserted material that directly contradicts the cited source, or b. who reinserted the material after it had been challenged without even reading the cited source. When somebody says that a source is being distorted, you don't reinsert the material unless you know that the source supports it. nableezy - 06:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more I am dismayed by the tremendous damage caused by Renejs' insertions and the subsequent confusion and edit-warring. Guy's mention of Horsely leads me to examine that small paragraph. Horsely isn't cited for what Guy claims but for a different sentence which it almost completely supports—I don't see "dates to c. 300 AD" in there, but the rest is. Horsely was first introduced by Renejs for different text and in my opinion misrepresented Horsely (but that other text is now gone so I won't argue it). The article of Avi-Yonah (which I will check) was [1] introduced by Renejs with a most interesting edit summary: "Wholesale revision of article by expert in light of his own research and publications". So Renejs admits his additions are OR and also admits a conflict of interest. It is obvious that pretty much everything in the ancient history parts of this article needs checking and if necessary revising. Zero^talk 07:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with your interpretation of policy during content disputes, I strongly agree with the above. The sources have to support the text they are attached to. If this was a typical article I would go through every citation and verify that. Alas, many of these cites are not accessible online. I think we need to seriously consider the possibility that there has been some cleverly disguised POV material put into the article over the years. I suspect that some opponents of religion may have tried to bias the reported "facts" to support the "No 1st Century Nazareth" POV, and I suspect that some proponents of religion may have tried to bias the reported "facts" to support the "Nazareth Fulfilled Prophecy" POV. Plus, the usual Israel / Palestine POV pushers may have muddied the water with their own sets of "facts". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My complaint to AN/I was archived by a bot due to inactivity and I won't resurrect it unless necessary. If I do, I'll change it to note that it is possible to use Bagatti's diagram to infer a slope of about 14% along a 100m E-W line in the center-right of the area shown, but only because the map extends to the east away from the main area and it gets steeper there. Where the line passes through Bagatti's main excavation area it is almost flat (it enters and exits the imprint of the Church of the Annunciation at the same elevation). The idea that the slope in the 1950s of such a tiny area that was built on repeatedly over a couple of millennia means anything regarding its topography 2000 years ago is ridiculous anyway, and of course Bagatti makes no such claim. (The map shown here is a redrawn version of the eastern 2/3 of Bagatti's map, you can have some fun trying to find that 14% yourself.) Zero^talk 04:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Some issues for cleanup

I'll start to list some issues here, according to what I happen to notice in no particular order. Others are encouraged to do the same, or to reply to existing ones. Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quite a few bits of the article are duplicated. For example the Caesarea inscription is in two places, not completely consistently or accurately. Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• We need a citation for "Eleazar Kalir (a Hebrew Galilean poet variously dated from the 6th to 10th century) mentions a locality clearly in the Nazareth region bearing the name Nazareth נצרת (in this case vocalized "Nitzrat")". I have a citation for the fact that Eleazar Ben Killir wrote a poetic rendition of the 24 priestly courses but not one that expressly mentions Nazareth. Who wrote "clearly in the Nazareth region bearing the name Nazareth" rather than just "Nazareth"? It never had a source. I'm especially dubious about the "vocalization" since this would have been an exceedingly early example of vocalization if true. Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The citation to Carruthers et al. [2] is actually to a 1977 book of Brown. There is a 1993 edition of Brown, which I will use to replace these references. Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The paragraph "Many scholars since W. Wrede (in 1901)...", which doesn't mention any of those scholars, seems to be entirely Rene Salm's original research and is going out quite soon unless someone suggests a good reason to keep it. Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Similarly the sentence "Nazareth is mentioned, though the exact meaning is not clear." Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The citations "Gal, Z. Lower Galilee During the Iron Age (American Schools of Oriental Research, Eisenbrauns, 1992) p. 15; Yavor, Z. 1998 "Nazareth", ESI 18. Pp. 32 (English), 48; Feig, N. 1990 "Burial Caves at Nazareth", 'Atiqot 10 (Hebrew series). Pp. 67-79." were originally added for different text and need to be checked and probably replaced. Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the sentence "Fr. Bagatti, who acted as the principal archaeologist for the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts,[71] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward.", it seems to be Rene Salm's private interpretation and not Bagatti's. Actually this is a fine example of his work. Rather than "later Roman and Byzantine", the section of Bagatti that he references is called "Pottery of the Hellenistic Roman and Byzantine Period". Zero^talk 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since the toponym is first mentioned in the Greek NT, I've always wondered why the Greek (actually 3 NT Greek terms are used) name is not at the top of the lead. Dunno what policy says. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

An old copy of the etymology section that I helped put together did start that way. Take a look here [3]. Help from someone like you Nish for that whole section again would be welcome.

I'm also thrilled that Zero0000 has taken an interest in fixing up some of the history here. I've tried previously but failed. Tiamut^talk 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tiamut. Could you plunk the best version you're familiar with on the etymology into a separate section here, with any new bits, or deleted old useful bits, so a lazy old bastard like myself can get his graveyard chompers into them? A a work section, like Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nish. I don't have much time right now and to be honest, my version wasn't much better than what is there now. The main difference was the order in which the information was presented, which is encapsulated in the diff I gave you above. I don't have access or the ability to decipher the high quality sources on this subject. You and Zero are doing a great job so far though, so it doesn't look like you much need my help. Tiamut^talk 08:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article used to have the story of the legendary martyr Conon of Nazareth but it got lost somehow. Zero^talk 13:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strange's article in ABD says "In the 3d century, Nazareth still had a strong priestly character according to Midr. Qoh. 2.8." Figuring out what that means would be good. Is it Midrash Qoheleth Rabba? Zero^talk 13:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange's point comes out of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Nazareth, which in turn, on this specific point goes back to Adolf Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud, M. Lévy frères, 1868 pp.190-1

‘Cette ville célèbre comme berceau de Jésus, s’écrit dans les Évangiles Ναζαρέθ ou Ναζαρέτ; nous la trouvons avec la meme orthographe dans une élégie du fameux Eléazar ha-Kalir, élégie tirée d’ancients Midraschim aujourd’hui perdus. L’auteur, en déplorant la ruine de Jérusalem, dit: “Et aux extrémités de la terre est rejeté le poste des prêtres de Nazareth.” Cette ville possédait donc une station de prêtres qui se rendaient à Jérusalem pour le service du Temple.’ Pp.190-191.

In the footnote to this, n.5 idem, he cites the Qohelet Rabbah 2,8 suggesting that the word Niẓḥanah there might possible have to be read as Nzrnh (suggesting Nazareth?). The precise section /differing somewhat from Neubauer's in minor details) is available online here

Hadrian the Accursed said to RabbiJoshua b. Hananiah: 'The Torah says: "A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack anything in it" (ib. (Deuteronomy) viii. 9). Can you bring me three things that I ask for?' 'What are they?' 'Pepper, pheasants [φασιανός], and silk [μέταξα].' He brought pepper from Niẓḥanah, pheasants from Ẓaidan [Sidon], or, as another says, from 'Akberi, and silk from Gush Ḥalab.

So this genealogy of sources also explains where whoever fiddled here got your first point above. Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

• Many of the pre-WWII references (most added originally by Renjs) have very dubious relevance in 2012, are sometimes mis-cited, and some of them are now attached to different text from what they were originally attached to. I guess this is largely because they are too obscure for most editors to check, but they all need checking and possible replacement. I will be happy to provide a copy of sources since I can access most of them. ;Zero^talk 10:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• We have "In their scriptures, the Mandeans mention nasirutha as a place they go.". Four citations are given: (1) Carruthers et al [4] doesn't seem to have it. (2) Burkitt, Syriac Forms of New Testament Names, Proceedings of the Br. Acad. (1912) p. 392" is actually called "Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names" and a monograph edition is at archive.org. It doesn't seem to have these Mandeans either (and we should use it with caution if at all since it expresses a now-fringe opinion that "Nazareth" in the NT is a literary error for "Chorazin"). (3) "Kennard and Albright in JBL 65:2 (1946) pp. 397 ff." doesn't exist. Albright in JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature) 65:4 (1946) pp. 397 doesn't mention Mandeans. Kennard in JBL 65:2 (1946) pp. 131 has one sentence "Moreover, the Mandaeans can hardly have obtained their name Nasoraye from their Christian persecutors" and also mentions "questionable Mandaean material" in a footnote. It's a start but it doesn't support our text. (4) "P. Winter in New Testament Studies 3 (1957) 136 ff" looks like a useful source; for example it lists which spellings appear in several NT manuscripts. But it doesn't seem to support this sentence about Mandeans. Zero^talk 10:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoever polluted the text here is an incompetent who has thoroughly screwed up. nașirutha is glossed as 'priestly craft' and not as a place name, while in their traditions Nazareth is identified with Qom. See E. S. Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, Oxford University Press, 1937 reprint Gorgias Press, 2002 p.6Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm receiving a lot of unmerited obloquey here. Thanks for observing netiquette, Nishidani and others, and I'll do the same and will focus on the available evidence. I think you'll find all my edits referenced quite correctly. I did not do the Carruthers edit signaled above. The intent is, however, correct. Mandeism is a Gnostic religion, and in Mandaic "Nasiruta" is not *literally* a place people go as it is a goal to be attained. It means "esoteric knowledge only given to initiates, priestly craft and ministration" (Drower & Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary 286). As you probably know, the Mandeans were themselves called Nasuraia, or "followers of [John the] Baptist." For that information please check the same source p. 285, where you will read that Nasuraia is related to Nazoraios in Mt 2:23 which, furthermore, is definitely "not from Nazaret." Renejs (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The Church Father Origen (c. 185 to 254 AD) knows the forms Nazara and Nazaret." cited to "Comment. In Joan. Tomus X (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 80:308–309)". That should be "Patrologicæ Græcæ", slightly more expansively as "Patrologicæ Cursus Completus Series Græcæ", but if you want to know its full glorious name look at the title page of Tomus X here. They really don't make title pages like that any more. This is a vast compendium of doctorum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum (church fathers) with over 150 volumes in the Greek series and many more in the Latin series, published over a large part of the 19th century. Alas, pages 308–309 don't seem to mention Origen or Nazareth (a better Latin scholar than me might check). On the other hand "80:308–309" suggests it might be in Tomus LXXX rather than Tomus X. I didn't find that volume of the Greek series at archive.org, but I won't be surprised if it is there. Can anyone find it? If not, I'll visit my library. I'm dying to know what "'Comment. In Joan." means. Of course we could just forget it and find a modern source for the same information, but that would spoil the fun, no? Zero^talk 12:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To act speedily and prophylactically to hinder any idea of your incumbent mortality over this, "'Comment. In Joan." refers to Origen's 32 vol. commentary on the Gospel of (St.)John written 230-42. His comments just on the first 29 verses of chapter 1 run to over 300 pages. Don't worry only 9 survive. Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I see, Joanis. Tomus XIV...be right back. Zero^talk 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I see there is a catalogue of volumes here with links to them on Google books. Tomus LXXX doesn't appear to have what we need at pages 308–309 either. Actually Origen is in volumes 11–17 but I'm not going to read it all to find Nazareth. Zero^talk 12:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Found it. Tomus XIV. The Greek word Nazara is split between pages 308 and 309 and Nazaris (not Nazaret) is on the 3rd Greek line of page 309. Also the misleading "Tomus X" refers to Origen's numbering. Go here and navigate to page 208. Phew! Zero^talk 13:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I see another Nazaris and a Nazareth (with a theta) higher up on page 308. I never studied Greek, maybe these are inflections of the same word? I also see in modern source a reference to a different Origen mention of Nazara. And I have a nagging thought: given that these names appeared in the gospels, why is it significant that one of the church fathers knew of them? How could they not know of them? Zero^talk 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. Coffee with a neighbour, and got distracted by a German film. On p.308 and third line p.309 ὲν Ναζάροις, is a locative dative plural of our Ναζαρά, glossed in the Latin in any case as Nazareth in the first instance as 'in Nazaris' in the second instance. 'Nazareth' in Greek and Latin is not declinable, as opposed to the first. It's simply a reflection of the fact that the synoptic Gospels, as with almost everything, have different names for people and places as often as not, reflecting different traditions in the Jewish-Christian diaspora. In any case, if we just stick to the secondary RS that come from reputable scholars, we shouldn't bother too much about this, unless there are no secondary RS forthcoming. Good work though.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The following periodization might be useful in understanding sources: Iron II 1000–733/732 BCE, Iron III 733/732 BCE–586 BCE, Persian 586 BCE–332 BCE, Early Hellenistic 167–63 BCE, Early Roman 63 BCE–135 CE, Middle Roman 135–250 CE, Late Roman 250–363 CE, and after that Byzantine. From Jonathan L. Reed, Galileans, "Israelite Village Communities", and the Sayings Gospel Q, in Meyers, Galilee through the Centuries (1999). Zero^talk 13:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewish population

I'm sure there's a Jewish minority living in Nazareth. For one, take this article about mixed cities in Hebrew [5], I think it mentions 13% of the residents being Jews. Could a native Hebrew-speaker please check that or find another source that establishes this?--RM (Be my friend) 11:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

fringe theory

The idea that Nazareth wasn't inhabited during Jesus' life seems to be a fringe theory held by one contemporary scholar. The other references are from 100 years ago. If this is a fringe theory, we should just remove it. Here's the text.

A few authors have argued that the absence of 1st and 2nd century AD textual references to Nazareth suggest the town may not have been inhabited in Jesus' day.[54] Proponents of this hypothesis have buttressed their case with linguistic, literary and archaeological interpretations,[55] though one writer called that view "archaeologically unsupportable".[56]

Thoughts? Leadwind (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Preamble

The sentence In the New Testament, the city is described as the childhood home of Jesus, and as such is a center of Christian pilgrimage, with many shrines commemorating biblical events. would be unclear to readers outside of Christian/Jewish/Muslim world. I propose to replace it with In Christianity, the city is considered as . - BorisG (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I dunno, though I'm glad to see you back round here. The New Testament is a foundational document for Christian belief. I don't think people in the Far East, South America, Africa or Eurasia are perplexed by this, at least not in my experience. One could object that 'the city is described as the childhood home of Jesus' in the NT, on WP:SYNTH grounds, though. Most of the stories, tales and myths of Jesus's childhood are extra-canonical, or from traditions, like that of the Armenians, to cite one example, where you get rich bizarre details the Church Fathers thought must be expunged from the record. It could therefore be tweaked. The Greek texts always speak of polis (town/city) not kōmē (village) when alluding to Nazareth by the way. We might add that, if an RS can be found.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I would think students I taught in China don't know about the New Testament. I had hard time explaining what Jews are, though there may be language issues as well. However I agree we need to draw the line somewhere. On the other hand, I would not be bothered by WP:SYNTH, since in my view the lead should be a summary of the article. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Secular, scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a historical figure from Nazareth. We could just say "Nazareth was the home town of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, and as such..." Leadwind (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Assassination of Andrews

I have not checked the sources given for the Andrews assassination, but there is no doubt the date is wrong. It is all over the newspapers of Sep 27–28, 1937 (not 1936). See the Palestine Post for example. He was shot (along with a constable) on approaching church (not leaving it) at 5:50pm on Sunday (the 26th). Zero^talk 16:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nazareth in the time of Jesus

Archaeologists have found a home dating to the time of Jesus. It's a recent find but very interesting and I think this should be part of the article. [[6]] RonCram (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It is in the article already. Zero^talk 22:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The dispute of Shihab al-Din's mosque in the main piazza in Nazareth, near the Basilica of the Annunciation

I'm concerned about this section. It was recently detached from "History/State of Israel" and does not seem to fit with the structure of the rest of the article. It is repetitive, with the Pope's visit being mentioned twice. The references are not formatted in the normal way and some don't work. It uses language that does not seem neutral, such as 'petty politicians'. It also talks about Muslims as if all the world's Muslims were involved in this dispute, rather than certain individuals or groups; the suggestion that the dispute 'triggered protests from Christians around the world' may be weasel words because it reads as though all Christians were up in arms rather than giving examples of protests beyond George Bush. I hope the section can be improved to make it accurate, balanced, clear, grammatical, concise and encyclopaedic. --Wavehunter (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been bold and restored the section to "History/State of Israel" with minor improvements. The section had been written by a sockpuppet and was thus dubious anyway. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nazirite

I've read somewhere a suggestion that Jesus was originally referred to, not as a Nazarene, but as a Nazirite, i.e., a consecrated man in the Jewish tradition. Cf. Nazarene (title)#Nazirite. It's generally accepted that Jesus's brother James was a Nazirite, as well.

It has been speculated (at least) that the early church, wishing to distance Jesus from Jewish practices (or from the Temple establishment?), changed Nazirite to Nazarene (just one vowel apart in Greek), and invented the town of Nazareth to explain the epithet. That would accord well with the absence of evidence for Nazareth's existence prior to the time of Jesus. I can't remember where I read this, or I'd put a paragraph into the article about it. Would somebody familiar with the literature be so kind as to do it for me? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no agreement among scholars on the precise relationship between Nazirite and Nazarene. This article is a good summary. I don't think it belongs here, but more in some article about Jesus or perhaps Nazarene (sect). As for Nazareth being an invented place, that is a fringe theory that doesn't belong anywhere. Zero^talk 01:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nazareth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120531150741/http://www.haaretz.com/themarker/49-khatem-zuabi-ncs-software-services-1.382776 to http://www.haaretz.com/themarker/49-khatem-zuabi-ncs-software-services-1.382776

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Archeology

If someone want to write about Archeology here is a good source [7]-Shrike (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Location of Nazereth

Nazereth is a city in Israel, as is commonly known and is written in the article itself. Yet when searching "Nazereth" the text that pops up before entering the article says "City in the North District of Palestine". How does one fix this basic error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.134.165 (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This error is still in place as of 2 June 2017. Can this be corrected? One-Off Contributor (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem corrected--erroneous entry in Wikidata listing.One-Off Contributor (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nazareth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908180608/http://www.stfrancismagazine.info/ja/images/stories/DuaneMiller-oct2012.pdf to http://www.stfrancismagazine.info/ja/images/stories/DuaneMiller-oct2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193431/http://www.ofm.org/3/frat/FRAeng33.html to http://www.ofm.org/3/frat/FRAeng33.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Date of foundation of Nazareth Illit

This article says that the Jewish sector (Nazareth Illit) was declared a separate city in June 1974, but the Nazareth Illit article states that Nazareth Illit was recognised as a municipal local council in 1961. Which of these is true? Or are they both true?

- BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nazareth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308022938/http://manilastandardtoday.com/news/-provinces/161129/twinning-ties-for-baguio-and-nazareth.html to http://manilastandardtoday.com/news/-provinces/161129/twinning-ties-for-baguio-and-nazareth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

Nazareth is a city in Palestine NOT a city in Israel Farahkytib (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I would add Acts 24:5 to the New Testament;ent reference re: Tertullian. Thanks Opfella (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

There was no 'Palestinian' Aramaic in the times of Jesus and his disciples. At the time, the region was called Judea, and only came to be known as Syria Palaestina between 135 AD and about 390. The word 'Palestinian' should be deleted from this phrase. 81.145.196.34 (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MrClog (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Bronze and Iron Age

The section "Bronze and Iron Age" says, "In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area...known as the Nebi Sa'in." I have been unable to find any confirmation of this purchase in 1620. A book by Bellarmino Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, volume 1, From the Beginning till the XII Century (1971), is available at Google Books and a search of the book revealed no mention of Nebi Sa'in or of the "Venerated Area" (this may be due to the limited amount of the volume available online). In the Nazareth article, Bagatti is called "Director of Christian Archaeology", but that honorific is not mentioned in the Bellarmino Bagatti article. This section needs some serious fact-checking. A {{citation needed}} tag has been on the last sentence of the section since March 2017. - Epinoia (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this is a hangover from the book of Salm which once infested this article. There could be some truth to it but it would need to be properly sourced and moved to the correct section. Zero^talk 08:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Relevant podcast

There is a nice podcast by the excavating archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre here. Zero^talk 03:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hills?

The "Geography" section keeps mentioning hills without introducing them by name of location, it is a bit imprecise and vague. Forich (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

BCE and CE instead of BC and AD

BC and AD are christian centered terms. Better to use BC and CE 161.0.96.98 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2022

2603:8080:8505:C600:9D73:CCAE:CE34:F84B (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Nazareth was not made up until after Jesus died. It was said he was born there but before his birth there was no such place as Nazareth

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)