Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:14, 11 December 2011

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Israel may be able to help!

Old discussion

Modern Nazareth article?????? Not one line about Jesus or even Tourism or Christian pilgrimages. 3 full lines about THIS:

"The temporary walls surrounding the square were torn down by protestors the night that Haim Habibi, an Israeli Jew, and his Christian wife and daughter conducted an attack on the Church of the Nativity while worshippers were gathered in prayer for the coming Easter holidays. "

Really, is the temporary wall THAT important or were you using it to bring in propaganda to further your own agenda? Is an un-named undedicated newly built temporary wall worth four times this:

"The majority of Nazarenes are Israeli Arabs, about 35-40% of whom are Christians and the rest Muslims."

OH, MY MISTAKE. USER Tiamut added in order to clarify about the MOSQUE CONTROVERSY regarding building a NEW MOSQUE.

"changes to the introduction in light of recent developments on the mosque controversy"

Not only is the incident unrelated to the Mosque controversy, it isn't even directly related to the TEMPORARY WALL. The wall was destroyed by Arabs. Lets count the degrees of removal. Jew causes - Riot by Arabs - who destroy wall - around public square - in place of MOSQUE. 5 Degrees of removal in order to include bad news about a Jew.

Please, if you are going to add something, make it RELEVANT information on IMPORTANT topics. I'm not even going to take it down, I want everyone to see Tiamuts brilliant work involving 5 degrees of removal.

• First of all, that addition was directly relevant to someone else's posting on the Mosque controversy which was included in the introductory section and did not to seem to bother you then. Second of all, the tearing down of the wall surrounding the plaza which was finally constrcuted in place of the Mosque was directly relevant to the conclusion of that controversy. It is no longer a controversy in Nazareth, thank god. Finally, please sign your posts. It is very rude to make unfounded accusations, assuming bad faith, without providing the accused (me) a chance to reply to you directly, unless your only purpose to slander me. Thank you! Tiamut 12:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Question? Why are "Jack Finegan" and "Anonymous of Piacenza?" hyperlinked? Nothing comes up in Misplaced Pages on those two names? And why is there such an emphasis on Jack Finegan's work (the huge citation)? There are many other notable archaeologists with competing theories. I will be re-working the history site, removing some things that there now and adding other sources, with a focus evidence, not propagandizing one person or another's claims to Nazareth, which this article in its present form seems to be doing. But if someone can answer the question above so I know if I can remove the hyperlinks, that would be great. Tiamut 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As my research into the history of the early Christian Church and The Bible gets deeper the more it appears that Nazareth did not exist until more modern times and that Nazareth is a distortion (deliberate?) of Nazorean/Nazarene, a word used to describe a certain set of beliefs different from the mainstream Jews.

Where did you read this? Please say "Not in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, nor in The Messianic Legacy -- I didn't get it from Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln." Mirv 18:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To clarify: The claim in the first paragraph above is one of Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's The Messianic Legacy (p. 46; '96 Arrow Books paperback), and also in Holy Blood, Holy Grail (p. 341, p 411; '96 Arrow Books paperback); neither book provides any kind of citation for this claim, natch. If either of these are the source for a claim that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' time, or that Jesus never lived in Nazareth, don't bother. (If you have a more reliable source, then feel free to chew me out, but don't cite conspiratorial crackpots as factual sources.) --Mirv 18:52, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Youre obviously further into this than I. My primary reference is from the Rosecrucians and I dont yet know if they are crackpots or not. As regards the orthodox mistakes about Iscariot, they do suggest something similar to Schonfield's reference in The Passover Plot: Jesus wasnt dead when lowered from the cross, for what that is worth, and Schonfield is the one who writes that Nazareth was an area, not a town, where a small number of people lived without temple. Given the plethora of contradictory writings about that time, and the apparent authenticity of the Nazarae/Nazarene distinction, I am stirred to follow that information to find more about Nazareth's history. There are a number of references to that area being occupied by Essenes, as well, and of course lots of folks suggesting Jesus was an Essene or was trained by the Essenes.

There are something more interesting about this old discussion than Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln. I consider that for a christian person who takes the bible as the most reliable source, it is quite clear that to argue that Nazareth was not a city in the time of Jesus, seem counterbiblical. It is quite clear that Nazareth is refered to as a city also in the Greek text. Before I go on, I must say, that I don't find it "unscientifical" to hold the Bible as a more, or at least as reliable historical document as any other historical document. The nature of a text as canonical is on the other hand a very curious phenomenon, to me. Biblically concerned christians should though be aware that translations into the different languages tend to be quite conservative in regard of the different nations theological traditions, or traditions of translation, in ways that need continuous scrutiny. One thing is the sacredness to consider, in regard of the holy Bible as such, another thing is that the old languages of the Greek (or Latin and Hebrew for that matter) were in themselves regarded with much more reverance, e.g. sacredness, than language tend to be regarded with in our days. Language and grammar was profoundly tied to cosmology, as is for instant still attested by the vedic traditions and Sanskrit. The question in matter is what it meant to be a nazarene? What was the meaning of the prophecy attested to the matter of Jesus being a Nazarene in the scripture. In the Gospel of Matthew it says of Joseph, Maria and Jesus who during the reign of the Herod lived in Kairo, Egypt: Matthew chapter 2 verses 22 and 23: "But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father, Herod, he was afraid to go there. Being warned in a dream, he withdrew into the region of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." I find that people who are very conservative, or defensive in their views of the Bible, read the Book of their imagination rather than the words actually there, and refusing to understand the depths of it also. Sometimes christians defend a christianity that are at odds with even the Book they hold sacred. Of some strange reason it is controversial to teach that Jesus was Messiah, even among christians today, as if his political position as claimant to the thrones of Israel and Judah was contesting his position as Son of God. Even though the fundamental claim by the so called "conspiratorial crackpots" also is that Nazarene very well may refer to that Jesus came from a Jewish backround pertaining to the nobel Nasi, meaning prince in Hebrew, it is not necessarily unbiblical. The more interesting question, especially since my day of writing this is the first day of the Hanukka, is whether Jesus comes from the House of Shammai or the House of Hillel, if not a third lineage? Thus we may find new platforms for interreligious dialogue. I found the book "The Holy Grail and the Holy Blood" very interesting when I read it as a teenager twenty years ago. I was a bit disappointed with it in the end, I recall. I then thought that they're conclusion, in regard of the meaning of the holy grail, was somewhat materialistic. That sort of irritated me. Today I find that they are also quite totalizing in their attempts to identify their view onto what was or not. But I'm not sure that they should be excluded as a reference. It smells a little bit like burnt books to argue like that. And I hope that we can avoid that. I would rather suggest that we in these discussion fora make decent comments on the quality of the references we use. I'm saying this in spite of being very critical in my views on the book here in question. I agree that it is a book with possible dangerous elements. some would say it draws on anti-semittism because of how it uses the protocols of Zion as source material. But as I recall it (?) many years later, the authors were actually dealing with the problematics of 'the protocols' in the book itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nazareth vs. Nazarene

I've inserted the word some into the following passage before the word historians:

However, historians have called this into question,
suggesting instead that it is based on a mistranslation
of Greek sources. Such historians argue that Iesou
Nazarene was not "from Nazareth", but rather that his
title was "Nazarene."

As it was, the passage suggested that there is general agreement among historians that this theory is correct. Also, I reccomend that at least one historian who supports this theory be sited or the entire passage be deleted.

• It is a somewhat garbled rendition (it is not a mistranslation issue, because "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" each appear in the Greek of the New Testament ) of a view held by, among others, Alfred Firmin Loisy. I have cleaned up the reference and added the name of Loisy. --Peter Kirby 12:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is up with this article?

Why is this article mostly devoted to arguing that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century AD? (Also, don't, well, the gospels mention Nazareth as existing, and weren't they, um, written in the 1st century AD?

Matthew 2:22-23 "But when heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:/And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

Mark 1:9 "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan."

Luke 2:4 "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem."

John 1:46 "And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see."

It seems most unlikely that the gospel-writers would have made up a non-existent city, doesn't it? john k 23:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And I suppose you know exactly when the gospels were written because you are the original editor..? they could esily have been written in the 2nd or 3rd century. Besides, they are full if contradictions. Druworos 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels don't have many contradictions... and they all agree on this point. --24.147.128.141 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is not just religiously, but also historically inaccurate and not up to date on the most recent archaeological finds in Nazareth that support a heavy Roman presence at the time of Jesus. I have added one article, but the entire thing needs a rewirte. Nazareth is a real life city today and not just some Bible myth. It would be good to include some more facts on the present and less on trying to prove Jesus did not exist. He's not the only thing to have come out of Nazareth. Tiamut 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You try to prove that your so-called Jesus from the so-called town of Nazaret existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.66.208 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some info about history of Nazareth

you guys should do research before posting anything Here is the link check this out http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm

This link does indeed provide references to other work, which would prove that Nazareth wa ssettled at the time. What's interesting about it, however, is that it states that the region had many Jewish towns and villages, setled 'by Hellenized Syrians'. Surely, Hellenized Syrians are not Jews. Indeed, it would seem to corroborate another somewhat conspiracy-ish theory, that Galilee in general was inhabited by non-Jewish populations, as the name would allegedly stem for Galil-ha-gojim, and thereby, Jesus either wasnt Jewish, or wasnt of Nazareth. I cant really provide any reliable sources on that, but I certainly find it intersting that the above link clearly states 'Hellenized Syrians'. Not to mention that this might also explain links between Jesus's teachings and Epicurian and Platonic thinking. Druworos 06:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place for pushing a particular interpretation over others, or original research. I have no idea what the mainstream historical view on the existence of Nazareth in Biblical times was, but I do not believe that it is that Nazareth does not exist. (I think I would've heard about that.)

As it stands, this article is POV and needs improvement. For the nonexistence claims, could we find a source that doesn't obviously have an axe to grind here? I am hardly going to take the American Athiest Press as a primary source when it comes to a question on the origins of Christianity. --Saforrest 20:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Judea, and Jerusalem in particular was put where the two parts of the Hellenized world met, The Ptolomeic and the Seleucid Empires, that followed from the Conquests of Alexander the Great. Judea was also hellenized. The Book Hellenistic Religions by scholar Luther H. Martin is quite convincing --Xact (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Added historic quotes and archaeological data

The greatest flaw in my edit is that a full paragraph is quoted from Jack Finegan (an expert in archaeology of the NT). If some wordsmith has the patience to refactor that paragraph, without plagiarism and without dropping important information, that would be appreciated.

A few errors and infelicities of expression were corrected, such as the fact that the Caesarea inscription was found in 1962, not 1961. I have found a book referencing the quote from Epiphanius, which is from the Panarion Haereses, or "Medicine Chest Against All Heresies." I possess the translation of that work (it is not online) and can check it when I return to the office.

People who believe that Nazareth did not exist in the first century may not be thrilled with the edit. The argument that there was no Jewish settlement there because tombs are found in the surrounding area is faulty; by the same logic, Jerusalem did not exist in the first century. The quotes from Jack Finegan and Richard Carrier, and of course the archaeology itself, provide some evidence of a first century settlement at Nazareth. I have replaced the weasel-word references to "some historians" and placed references to two particular writers, Loisy and Zindler, in their stead. Zindler's principal arguments for the non-existence of Nazareth are given, and Loisy's position is described.

Aside from that, ancient quotes from Julius Africanus, Conon, Jerome, and the Anonymous of Piacenza are added. --Peter Kirby 12:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Date Clarification

In the Nazareth In History section the following sentance is used

"In 1962 a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea, dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century"

Are we talking about 3rd century CE/AD or BCE/BC? Enigma 07:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazareth Village

The article links to http://www.uhl.ac/nazareth.htm, describing a visitor center called "Nazareth Village". The official webpage for Nazareth Village is "www.nazarethvillage.com".

This is still whacked out

Archeological sites on Nazareth have found Roman settlement there around 50 AD. More to the point, Jack Zindler's arguments don't make much sense. Jesus' birth in Nazareth was one of the biggest inconsistencies that early Christians had to deal with, since the prophets said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Thus you have two totally different stories (in Matthew and Luke) that explain how Jesus got from Bethlehem to Nazareth in his early life. If the Christians wanted to invent a Messiah, it seems likely that they would have invented someone who was born in the right place.

Zindler has been cut down to a minimum in this article, but as it stands it's rather like reading a decent article on the Jesuits with one paragraph representing the views of Jack Chick in the middle. That paragraph should simply be dropped. Atterlep 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think his views can be mentioned in a short paragraph inside the descriptive text with archaeological and historcial finds as a counter-view to those, but not a whole section. Do you want to do it? Or should I? Tiamut 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous verses in the gospels stating unambiguously that Jesus was from Nazareth. Even the Jesus Seminar acknowleges that Narareth was his hometown. Zindler's theory is based on is the fact Jesus is often referred to in Gospels as a "Nazorean," (usually translated as "of Nazareth") which is nonstandard form in Greek. But surely the Gospel writers had a better understanding of what this word means than Zindler does. In contrast with, say, the Bethlehem nativity story (required to fulfill a major prophecy), there is no motive to claim that Jesus was from Nazareth if this was not in fact the case.Kauffner 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a rewrite

As so often happens to me, I went into an article I was just browsing for fun, intending only to fix a few obvious typos... and wound up shuttling huge swaths of text all over the place, rewriting a good deal, and even introducing my own text. *sigh* I'd just like to point out that I worked about 2 hours at being unbiased and NPOV; I'd like to think my edit history shows I have little other agenda when editing.

Obviously, there's a bit of debate over the existence of Nazareth as such in the first century. I've tried to make this an article about the history of the town, with due weight given to arguments over it's name. Also, I'd point out that the section on the Easter murder rampage and the 1948 happenings need work - the first should be better integrated, perhaps with more information about other interesting things that have happened in town (surely some have), and the second is from a controversial source, Verso Books.

Being certain I've offended all interested parties at once, I apologize, and assure you my only concerns are balance and accuracy for Misplaced Pages (as I perceive them). At the very least, I feel the structure of the article is now improved. Ya'll keep on debating the relative merits of those two guys named Jack. :) (BTW, as a technical aside, all the archeological evidence in the world does not attest to the actual name of the town) Eaglizard 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Attack

If you watch TV you know there was a rocket attack in Nazareth today, I suggest after enough information has come through and been comfirmed this be included.Tjb891 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent reorganization of article and pending deletions

This first set of changes does not totally correct NPOV problems in this article, but I think it is some improvement. Primarily, the focus was reorganizing the article chronologically, but the edit also included the following changes:

• The reference in the first paragraph to disputes about the Biblical events associated with Nazareth is much too prominent for a poorly supported idea. As someone else noted, the American Atheist Press isn't the best qualified to make historical judgements, especially not when the texts also concern religious matters. I think the current initial paragraph accurately points out why Nazareth is noteworthy without taking a stand on the truth or falsehood of the New Testament.
• The religious mixture of the population is an emotionally charged issue, but the numbers seem accurate based on tourism sites without obvious axes to grind. I moved this information away from descriptions of current events into the new "Geography and Population" section to avoid the perception of taking sides on the settlement issues.
• The extended quotes related to archaelogy unbalance the article, so I replaced them with their (apparent) intended conclusions about the presence of Jews in Nazareth, and kept the references for anyone who wants to read extra details.
• The new "Ancient History" section combines the old "Historical references" and "New Testament" parts. I think their original separation violates NPOV, since it indicates the New Testament text is not historically accurate, unlike the Old Testament, Talmud, and Josephus. I think the new arrangement depicts all texts equally without asserting a specific religious viewpoint.

• The claim in the old "Historical references" section that references to Jewish settlement don't occur until 300 A.D. contradicts even the non-biblical sources cited in the article, so I removed the sentence. The remaining argument about the name of the town is still preserved, though moved to the archaeological section.
• I think the description of events in March 2006 definitely violates NPOV guidelines in the apparent connection to the controversy over the construction of a mosque near the Basilica of the Annunciation. It fails to mention that the construction was proposed in 1999 and refused in 2002, so it's of extremely doubtful relevance to occurrences four years later. I plan to rework or delete this entire item.
• Also still to come: some events in Medieval histories, and brief description of the major shrines, which are significant tourist attractions in Nazareth.

Comments or suggestions are welcome.

--StephenMacmanus 12:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed text from "Modern History" section

The description of the capture/surrender of Nazareth during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War included the following text:

The surrender was formalized in a written agreement, where the town leaders agreed to cease hostilities in return for promises from the Israeli officers including brigade commander Ben Dunkelman, the leader of the operation, that no harm would come to the civilians of the town. A few hours later Chaim Laskov gave order to Dunkelman to evacuate the civilian population of Nazareth. Dunkelman refused to obey these orders. In sharp contrast to the surrounding towns, the Arab inhabitants in Nazareth were therefore never forced to evacuate (Blaming the Victims, Edward W. Said and Christopher Hitchens, Verso Books, 2001, p. 86-87).

I think this claim isn't entirely appropriate for two reasons. First, I think the comparison of Nazareth's population to other towns is off-topic and more appropriate for an article on Palestinian refugees. Second, using Hitchens and Said as the only citation is not neutral, since both the authors are well-known opponents of Israel's current occupation of the disputed Palestinian territories. At the very least, I think a more neutral source regarding this order is necessary to restore the text to the article.

--StephenMacmanus 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First: thank you for trying to clean up this article; it was was much needed. However, I´m not in agreement with your removal of the above paragraph. First: it is the Israeli journalist/translator/writer Peretz Kidron that is the source of the story (as is clear from the Ben Dunkelman article), the story is just most available to the English-speaking audience in the above book (which is a collection of articles, edited/collected by Hitchens and Said. And the comparison of Nazareth's population to other towns is really not off-topic, indeed, if anything it should be expanded. This because before 1948 the population of Nazareth was mostly Christian. During the 1948 war many of the villages/towns in the surrounding area were "depopulated". Most of these towns/villages were Muslim. Many of the people from these places escaped to Nazareth. This changed the the population from a Christian majority to a Muslim majority. I will therefor reinsert the above inf. -but it should probably be expanded with something about the consequences..i.e. that the forced evacuation of surrounding villages changed the population in Nazareth to a Muslim majority. Regards, Huldra 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed tone of "Current Events" section

I removed the more inflammatory statements related to the March 2006 events in the Basilica of the Annunciation, and replaced the references with working links. Likewise, I deleted the reference to Hezbollah's public statement, and supplied the most straightforward article with no opinions stated. Responses to the events seem more appropriate for the existing article on the 2006 conflict, which is already linked.

--StephenMacmanus 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

yahhhhh

Common or Christian Era?

Throughout the article both "CE" and "AD" are used sporatically to refer to years in the post–Jesus era. According to the MoS, only one notation is to be used for an article. Instead of reverting to the original era notation used here, I will post discussion as to what method of era notation the general Wiki–public thinks should be used here. Since this is the birthplace of Jesus I will vote for "AD", but I welcome discussion. If no discussion ensues, I will revert to whatever the original notation was (I have not yet checked to see what it was) — OLP 1999 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AD/BC was the first notation used in this version . (BC was in a quotation, but the AD was in article text.) Earlier versions did not refer to specific years early enough to require distinguishing the two eras. (Nazareth was Jesus' boyhood home, and the place where Mary was living when Jesus was miraculously conceived. His birthplace is traditionally Bethlehem.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Given TCC's information, if no further comments supporting "CE" arise within the next little while, I will make "AD/BC" the only era notation in this article, as per MoS— OLP 1999 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Palestinians

User:Noon objects to this template going on the article because, in his words, "Template is linked to *everything* related to Palestine, therefore not appropriate for an israeli city". I don't think this really follows, but I sympathise to a certain extent - the template is certainly very broad. Yet Nazareth is one of the most important centres of Palestinian cultural and political life anywhere, not just inside Israel. While I'm still tending to the view that the template should be included, can anyone suggest a third way? Palmiro | Talk 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no third way. The template is completely valid here particularly since it mentions everything. The history section includes mention of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, etc. Most Nazarenes identify as Palestinian. The template does not challenge that Nazareth is an Israeli city (that is written at the top of the page so no one can be confused into thinking this is not the case) and it helps readers understand the interesting position of Palestinian citizens of Israel who are both "Palestinian" and "Israeli". I am going to revert. Excluding just because this is a city located in Israel is POV pushing. The identity of Nazareth's inhabitants cannot be disputed. Speaking as one myself of course. :) Tiamut 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Palmiro | Talk 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use the template to organise topics related to the historical/geographic entity, as opposed to the current political/cultural grouping, then it would have to be totally remade. We've all been around a while and gone through all these debates before, do we really need to rehash them? Tewfik 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik. The template does not assert that Naareth is part of a geogrphical entity called Palestine. It is named "Palestinians" for god's sake. Nazareth is a town of over 60,000 people, most of whom identify as Palestinian; i.e. part of the Palestinian people, a national/cultural grouping. I know this fact intimately since I live in Nazareth, carry Israeli citizenship and identify as Palestinian myself. Including this template on the page is not a POV move. It is important in order to highlight the cultural/national identity affiliations of the people in Nazareth. There is no question that Nazareth is currently a part of Israel and this is stated clearly on the page with the geographical Israeli template there to underscrore this point as well. There is equally no question howvever, that Nazareth's inhabitants overwhlemingly identify as Palestinian. The template definitely merits inclusion to reflect this interesting paradox. The reader benefits from such information. Do not make this into a political debate when it is in fact about reflecting a rather complex reality. Tiamut 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are not identical, regardless of your personal views. Nazareth is a city in Israel, an Israeli city, not a city in "Palestine", the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank, or Gaza. Have you decided to put all sorts of Lebanese, Syrian, and Jordanian cities into this category as well? What next, will Dearborn, Michigan be in category "Arab cities"? Jayjg 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs and Palestinian are of course not identical, but most non-Bedouin and non-Druze Israeli Arabs self-identify as being Palestinian. I would think this would include the Arab population of Nazareth? I'm agnostic about whether a Palestinian related template should go in this article, though. john k 01:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your interpretation of my motive and the menaing of the template is totally wrong. No one is claiming that Nazareth is a city located in Palestine. That it is an Israeli city is beyond dispute and well reflected in the disambiguation sentence at the top and the template for Israel at the bottom (beyond the many references in the main body of the text). There is however, a people living in the city of Nazareth. They do not call themselves "Israeli Arabs". That might be what you call them, but being one of them, I know for a fact that most of them call themselves Palestinians. Indeed, they are Palestinians, they are related to the Palestinians in the West Bank, gaza, the refugee camps and in the wider Diaspora. This is a fact that should not be ignored or downplayed. The template, entitled "Palestinians" correctly was placed in this article to illustrate that fact, not make geographical claims. Also, if you noticed, the template includes the history of the many different empires that ruled the geogrphical area formerly known as Palestine and now known as Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It also provides links to culture, music, food all of which are relevant to the Nazareth article since all Nazarenes are Arab Palestinians who eat, listen to the same music, and do the same dances as their Palestinian brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world. Making this out to be some kind of war over territory violates WP:AGF. Neither myself, nor Palmiro are claiming Nazareth as part of a Palestinian state. Those are intentions you, Tewfik and Noon have attributed to our inclusion of this template. Please try to understand that its inclusion is to enrich the readers experience and not make some kind of political point, as you are asserting. And by the way, if there were a large section in a Dearbon, Michigan article on the sizable Palestinian population there, I might try to include the template too. If its directly relevant to the article's content and enriches the readers understanding, I don't see why not. Respect.Tiamut 23:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary placement of this template on various cities is not logical; you might think that Nazareth is a Palestinian city, but it is an Israeli city. The situation of Arabs in Nazareth differs from that of those in Palestinian refugee camps in almost every way, and your personal experience is not really admissible as a source. Jayjg 01:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely it is possible for something to be both an Israeli city and a Palestinian city. Jerusalem, for instance? That being said, Nazareth is not like Jerusalem. It'd probably be best to leave cities in Israel proper as, well, Israeli, even if they are largely inhabited by people who see themselves as Palestinian. john k 01:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the nauseating arrogance of User:Jayjg's remarks, it should be obvious to most people that living in a refugee camp is not a condition of being Palestinian. As John Kenney says, it is possible for something to be both an Israeli and a Palestinian city. Nazareth is a city which has played a major role in the Palestinian historic experience and in the creation of a Palestinian identity in general, and most notably inside Israel, since 1948. One need only think of the work of Emile Habibi or Tawfiq Zayad, or the role of the Israeli Communist Party in the city, for this to come to mind. I would like to think that editors acting in goodwill might try to see how Misplaced Pages could attempt to relfect this reality rather than positions imposed by ideology. An approach based on encylopaedic principles rather than the dictates of political stances could surely find some way of reflecting Nazareth's role as a Palestinian cultural and political centre of the first importance as well as its position as one of the main cities of the Israeli Galilee. Palmiro | Talk 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How about you leave aside the uncivil personal attacks instead? Jayjg 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, but templates are a very rough tool. I wonder if this might better be accomplished by material in the article text, rather than a template which is bound to generate controversy. Moreover, the template itself is incredibly broad, and doesn't really seem all that useful. I think a small template that was something like "Israeli Cities with important Palestinian Heritage," or something like that, might be better. john k 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. A few comments: Jayjg, my personal exprience was not the main thrust of my argument. I merely mentioned it so as to indicate that I deeply familiar with Nazareth, its inhabitants, and their identity construction process due to the fact that I live in Nazareth, both my parents are from there and our ancestry here goes back hundreds of years. That aside, I am not claiming that Nazareth is a Palestinian city; i.e., as in a city located in a geogrphical entity known as Palestine. Nazareth's current geographic location is arguably in Israel (I say arguably considering that Israel has no defined borders - but that is another discussion). The template name is "Palestinians", as in a people known as Palestinians. That Nazareth is composed of people who call themselves Palestinians is beyond any doubt. See the following examples:

1) The Arab Human Rights Association, a local NGO based in Nazareth , the section on "Palestinian Citizens of Israel";

2) Journalist and writer Jonathan Cook, who lives in Nazareth and is married to a Palestinian woman explains the difference in his perspective from other foreign correspondants based in Israel writing that, "From Nazareth, the capital of the Palestinian minority in Israel, things look very different. There are striking, and disturbing, similarities between the experiences of Palestinians inside Israel and those inside the West Bank and Gaza. All have faced Zionism's appetite for territory and domination, as well as repeated attempts at ethnic cleansing.

3)Overlooking Nazareth by Dan Rabinowitz covers the topic of Palestinians in Israel

The main point (and this is addressed to all involved in the discussion, hi Palmiro, welcome john k) is that the identity of Nazareth's population is largely Palestinian. This identity coexists with their identity as Israeli citizens living in a city within Israel's (yet-to-defined) borders. They lived in this city as Palestinians before Israel was created and they continue to live in the city, identifying largely as Palestinian, after it was created. This is a significant fact and it is related to complex historical and political processes over the course of many centuries, arguably millenia. People may be very confused by this information. Luckily, a group of people went to the trouble of creating a template called "Palestinians" to address this very kind of confusion. The reader can peruse the historical links, cultural links, political material, read up on current geographical realities, and even explore the Kingdom of Judah and Israel in that template. I don't see how including it misleads the reader in any way, nor can I understand the opposition to its inclusion by Jayjg, Noon, or Tewfik. Assuming good faith, I will ascribe this to a conflation of the term "Palestinians" with the contentious issue of a "Palestinian state". Putting the template here is not some kind of attempt to create a virtual Palestinian state, it is merely an honest effort to reflect Nazareth's complex reality and provide the reader with options to explore further should they wish to. Respect. Tiamut 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the template is a very rough tool for doing this. Isn't there a better way to accomplish the same thing? john k 11:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some consider Arab-Israelis to be Palestinians. That's certainly a valid opinion. Others don't agree. Moreover, the identity "Palestinian" post-dates the creation of the State of Israel; indeed, it owes much of its existence to the create of the State. The template itself is a typical, though more subtle, form of propaganda. I'm not objecting to its inclusion in all sorts of articles, thought I really should, but at a minimum it really won't do to assert that Nazareth is a Palestinian, not Israeli, city. Jayjg 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see who it was who asserted that Nazareth was not an Israeli city. Tiamut explicitly remarked that "The template does not challenge that Nazareth is an Israeli city (that is written at the top of the page so no one can be confused into thinking this is not the case)"; I suggested that we should "find some way of reflecting Nazareth's role as a Palestinian cultural and political centre of the first importance as well as its position as one of the main cities of the Israeli Galilee"; the first paragraph of the article as it stands makes no mention of the city's Arab population but refers pretty clearly to its being in Israel. Am I missing something? Palmiro | Talk 11:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, most Israeli Arabs consider themselves to be Palestinians. That's not really the same thing as "some" considering them to be such - national identity is normally considered to be a matter of self-identification, so it's really a matter that only Israeli Arabs themselves get to have a view on. That being said, Nazareth is not an article on Israeli Arabs. It is an article on a city in Israel, which happens to be inhabited mostly by Israeli Arabs. Perhaps it would do to have some kind of "Israeli Arab" template, or something similar, in articles on Israeli cities with majority Arab populations. john k 11:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a useful solution. Palmiro | Talk 11:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Arab citizens of Israel (and what an odd title that is), there are 9 cities in Israel in which Arabs are a majority, of which Nazareth is the largest (it doesn't list the others). john k 13:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John K for concisely reminding us that identity is not bounded by boundaries or citizenship, but rather self-crafted, in everyone's case.

As for Jayjg, it is historically inaccurate and just plain insulting for to say that Palestinian national identity "post-dates Israel" and "owes much of its existence to the state of Israel". It's quite amazing how patronizing you can be. Millions of refugees disposessed, a nation stillborn and still not yet free because of Israeli intransigence and we're supposed to thank Israel too for making us a "nation". Give me a break. If anyone is spouting propaganda, it is you. Read Rashid Khalidi's, "Palestinian Identity: The construction of Modern National Consciousness," and get back to me.

John K, I appreciate your efforts to find a compromise solution here. I was trying to think of an alternate template, but honestly, it's just not feasible. A template entitled "Israeli Arabs" would be inaccurate since most Palestinians with Israeli citizenship reject that term. One called "Palestinians in Israel" would be confusing. And both would divorce this population artifically from the Palestinians in the occupied territories and in the Diaspora. Similarly, I thought about a template entitled "Diaspora Palestinians" or "Palestinians in the Diaspora", but that would not cover Palestinian citizens of Israel because while they are located in place known today as Israel, they are Palestinians living largely on the same land they were before the state changed around them, so they cannot be in the Diaspora. What I don't understand is the reticence to include this template. If we were talking about a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, could we not use it? Would people say it was inappropriate? No. I don't think so. And there are "refugee camps" in Israel in a sense too. Nazareth itself has a qarter called the al-Safafira quarter where the internally displaced former Palestinian residents of Saffuriya, now Tzippori live. Why can't we alert people to the fact that they are Palestinians? Is it technical then? Just too big? Or too controversial. It's a good template that helps people understand the connection of Nazareth to the Palestinians, as a people, still living inside of it, with a new citizenship, Israeli. Why can't we let people know the facts? Tiamut 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not a template entitled "Arab citizens of Israel" as per the article title? The Palestinians template is indeed very broad - and also very large. I am not sure that it is well-suited for pages such as this. Palmiro | Talk 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Palmiro's suggestion is a good one that we could probably all agree with. That would be the best venue for organising these articles - anyone who follows the link to the main page would see quite clearly the different identifications existant in that population. Tewfik 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above, it's an artificial distintion that glosses over the fact that Arab citizens of Israel are Palestinians, connected to same group of people in the West Bank, Gaza and the Diaspora. I would be willing to work on such a template to see how it develops, but I stress that it should include planty of information that highlights this connection so as not to mislead the reader into thinking this is another group of people entirely. Tiamut 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been reflecting on this issue a lot and am going to have to withdraw my approval for the seperate template idea. The template "Palestinians" has been successfully appended to the Arab citizens of Israel article where there are no objections to its inclusion. I do not see why it should be objectionable to place it in this article, considering that the vast majority of the population identifies are Arab citizens of Israel who identify as Palestinian. I feel the strongest objections raised so far are based on personal political considerations, rather than encyclopedic or NPOV bases. The exceptions to this are John K and Palmiro whose points are more based on logistical issues due to the size of the template. So, I have a technical question. Is there a way to collapse parts of template that would expand when clicked on so that the template does not take up half a page? Thanks. Tiamut 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind. If it's the name that bothers people, I have drafted a template called Template: Arab citizens of Israel. It contains some of the same links as the Template:Palestinians (which is partially why I am against the idea, it seems redundant). But I encourage you to take a look at it. I would like to link it to this an other articles as soon as possible. Tiamut 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a template could be more narrowly tailored to the subject of Arab citizens in Israel, as opposed to Palestinians more broadly. I think the links to history before 1948 should be removed, for instance, and that there ought to be links in the template to cities like Nazareth that are majority Arab. There ought to be a link to the general article on Palestinians, but I'm not convinced that there ought to be one to various things that are Palestinian. That kind of thing. john k 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

While acknowledging your opinion, I have to counter that it is tailored to Arab citizens of Israel. They have a shared history, culture, religious diversity, etc., with Palestinians. Making a template on Arab citizens of Israel defined as narrowly as you have suggested would be redundant since the article Arab citizens of Israel already covers much of that information. I eat Palestinian and Arabic food, listen to Palestinian and Arabic music, my relatives live all over the world, some as refugees, some in the occupied territories, some in Palestine. I don't see why this information cannot be provided to the reader regarding the inhabitants of Nazareth. Shouldn't people be aware that they are not some ahistorical entity known as Arab citizens of Israel, but in fact share common characteristics with the wider Palestinian people? Their experience as Palestinians is just as valid as that of others, even if they do hold Israeli citizenship. Frankly, I would vote to delete a template on Arab citizens of Israel if it attempted to forge an artificial distinction between this population and those of their wider national/cultural group. I was against creating the template for that very reason, but thought I would give a try as a compromise position. But it's very frustrating to be told that the largest Palestinian inhabitated town in Israel should not be identified with Palestinians via a perfectly legitimate template that people with strong POVs attempted to delete 24 hours after it was created and now try to prevent people from using. (This is of course does not describe your actions) Respect. Tiamut 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If at all any additional template is appropriate, I would be inclined to agree with john k's idea for a specific Arab citizens in Israel template. The confusion and inaccuracy of adding the "Palestinian" template is highlighted by one of the statements you made above: "my relatives live all over the world, some as refugees, some in the occupied territories, some in Palestine." The complex relationship between "Arab citizens in Israel" and "Palestinians" is discussed on its appropriate page, and tagging this as if that discussion didn't exist would be extremely unhelpful. Tewfik 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I mistakenly wrote "Palestine" instead of "Israel" in that last quote, thanks for pointing that out. As for the template on "Arab citizens of Israel" as I wrote above I have already created it, and you can edit it to reflect the points you are raising. My point to John K was merely that I found such an exercise redundant given some of the overlap in information that is bound to occur if the template is faithfully constructed to provide an overview of who "Arab citizens of Israel" really are; i.e., Palestinians (nationally, culturally) who are Israeli citizens. Tiamut 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is worthwhile not to conflate "Arab citizens of Israel" with "Palestinians who are Israeli citizens." As I understand it Bedouins and Druzes in Israel have not traditionally considered themselves Palestinian, or been considered Palestinian by others. Beyond that I think the question is "what will a template accomplish?" The idea should be to allow readers to find useful articles on similar topics, not to mark out a topic for some nationality. john k 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think John K's points here are useful and I would support them. Palmiro | Talk 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily questioning that this author made this claim about an Egyptian origin of the term Nazareth, but in view of evidence elsewhere in the article that the town came into existence long after Egyptian hegemony in Palestine this seems far-fetched. Is this one of these crank theories? PatGallacher 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Events section- edited

I edited the section describing the disputed land issue from the late 1990's. The new text i entered, appears below, aiming to clarify this issue.

This site used to be the home of a school built during the Ottoman rule. The school was named al-harbyeh (in arabic means military), and many elderly people in Nazareth still remember it as the the school site, never the less, the same site still contains,the Shihab-Eddin shrine, along with several shops owned by the Waqf (Muslim community ownership.This means the land is partly waqf (Islamic religious endowment)land. The school building continued to serve as a government school until it was demolished to allow for the plaza to be built. The initial argument between the different political factions in town (represented in the local council), was on where the borders of the shrine and shops starts and where it ends

K. Suleiman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalil.Suleiman (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Nazareth photos & review

I recommend that an external link will be added to biblewalks.com/sites/nazareth.html The site adds an overview, and maps to various sites that are reviewed in Nazareth. Each site contains many original photos, information, references, which will be useful for the readers. Biblewalks 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --82.11.180.7 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC){| class="wikitable" |- Insert non-formatted text here yo yo by conner wu |}

New Testament Times and Associations

Around line 55 it states:

In John 1:46, Nathaniel asks, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" The meaning of this cryptic question is debated. Some commentators suggest that it means Nazareth was very small and unimportant. But the question does not speak of Nazareth’s size but of its goodness. In fact, Nazareth was viewed with hostility by the evangelists, for it did not believe in Jesus and “he could do no mighty work there” (Mk 6:5). emphasis mine

I cannot figure out what "it" is describing, I am pretty sure Nazareth as a place couldn't believe or disbelieve in Jesus. I was going to somehow rewrite this to make sense but I am not even sure what it is trying to say. Dureo 07:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

self-published passages

I just reverted these edits pushing a novel point of view which seems to be based on a self-published website (in the diff). If other sourcing which meets the policies on Reliable sources and Attribution cannot be produced, these passages cannot be reinserted. Tewfik 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-scholarly sources like Shahin

Stop deleting the edits I have made that have updated the history section to be in line with the most recent archaeological discoveries made in Nazareth. A newspaper article from the Guardian on the discovery of Mary's Well and Shahin's "Palestine: A Guide" are sufficient enough sources for the changes I have made. There is no specialty knowledge necessary to say that there is a bathhouse in Nazareth and that archaeologists who have visited it say it is a Roman era bathhouse and that this has implications for the understanding of NAzareth's history. Further, you deleted (once again) many unrelated edits I made for clarity. The section had contradicted itself over and over previously due to Renejs (talk · contribs) rather one-sided interpretation of Nazareth's history (i.e. her thesis that it did not exist at the time of Jesus and that therefore Jesus did not exist). Tiamut 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've asked you to stop reverting my edits. I've made a number of changes, but nothing seems to good enough for you. The version you are restoring is internally contradictory. My edits helped clarify the contrasting information there. The paragraph on etymology you keep restoring is completely unsourced and you keep removing the fact tags I placed there (after putting Shahin as a source and you rejecting here validity as such). Could you just stop it? It's really very disruptive. Tiamut 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What is actually disruptive is to source stuff to Shahin, or to write stuff based on Shahin that is unsourced. Please stop. Jayjg 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hypocrticial for you to claim Shahin is a not a valid source and then restore unsourced material in the etymology section and delete the fact tags I appended after your objections to Shahin's info on the subject. It makes it seem as though your objection to poor sourcing is not based in policy, but rather in a selective vendetta against Shahin and my edits. Tiamut 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be frank, Tiamut; I've had it with your continual use of bad sources, justifications for doing so, uncivil comments because I don't like your bad sources, etc. How many times must we repeat that romantic books written by amateurs in the 1920s don't count as reliable sources?? And yet your continually repeated response is "I don't understand why that's a bad source", as you do with all the bad sources you have used. I'm taking a stand, here; no more messing around with books written in the 1920s, or travel guides written without one footnote. Did you notice that your edits on Palestinian people finally started sticking when you started using reliable sources? This isn't rocket science. Jayjg 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be equally frank Jayjg. I've had it with your obfuscation, and incivility, your disruptive editing that deleted everything I add when you take issue with one source, mass reverting, rather than respecting that it takes time to add things to articles. Placing fact tags on sentences you think need better sources or just deleting the sentences that use those sources while retaining other unrelated edits would do wonders for our editing relationship. I have asked you about this repeatedly. Also, as I have stated above, you have yet to explain why keep restoring completely unsourced material in the etymology section and removing the fact tags I placed there. Please stop hurling insults yourself and listen to what I'm asking you so that we can actually work together without spitting at one another. Please. Tiamut 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The "mass reverting" was in response to your continual use of multiple bad sources, even when it was explained again and again why they were bad. When someone deletes a poorly sourced statement because it is dubious, the solution is not to insert the same sentence with a "fact" tag on it, which is exactly what you did with the etymology section. Instead of speculating, find what reliable sources say, then insert it. Jayjg 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I realized this debate has probably died down now, but I'd like to call attention to the etymology section again. In my mind, it lacks citations. From the discussion above, citations from "Sahin" are unacceptable. Thus I have chosen to use Paul Carus (1901), which specifically references the etymologies of both "Nazareth" and "Nazir." Hopefully this will be a valuable contribution to the article. Ronocdh (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, since the Carus source does not agree with the meaning in the current version of the Misplaced Pages article (i.e., Carus states that the two etymologies cannot be related), I will not make the change to the page yet, and will instead wait awhile to see whether anyone replies on the discussion page. Input welcome! The source I am referring to can be viewed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=mPIaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=nazir+nazareth&source=bl&ots=c6Be19NZt7&sig=o25XJrbhJJnlQsVyHolXZfHpTPI&hl=en&ei=fblBSu3KN8-Ltge46aiWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 Ronocdh (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the additions you are talking about would be valuable. You should go ahead and add them and we could edit things out afterwards. The current version is unsourced so there would be no problem replacing it with sourced text. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish anti-Christian violence during the Persian conquest

Renejs added text based on an article by C. Kopp, who quotes Eutychius (876-940) about a massacre of Christians by the Jews in 614. I was loath to trust the words of a German text written in 1938 alleging massacres of Christians by Jews. Renejs, who I am sure is an expert on this topic, assures me that C. Kopp, or Eutychius at least, is a trustworthy source for this.

According to Elliot Horowitz, , the reason I've never heard of the Byzantine sources that describe the Jews as killing tens of thousands of Christians after they allied with the Persians in 614 is because modern Jewish and Israeli historians have been very biased on this point. I want to know what other people think about the text. nadav (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Our article about the Jewish alliance with the Persians is Revolt against Heraclius. nadav (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation reverts

A revert war over this would be a perfect candidate for WP:LAME. This version is fine. nadav (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Emmett material

Much material from Chad Emmett's book has suddenly been included in the article "Nazareth" at Tiamut's insistence. I think this material is inappropriate for two reasons: (1) Emmett is a sociologist, and his book is about modern Nazareth and relations between Muslims, Christians, and Jews living there. His cursory remarks about the early history of the town have no place in a contentious section entitled "Earliest history & archaeological evidence," one which must rely on the evaluations of experts. If Emmett's expertise is included at all, it would be in the section on "Current events." (2) Emmett's views on ancient Nazareth, though largely traditional, are contradicted by a careful review of the primary sources (Bagatti, Viaud, and more recent studies) as shown by the references I have added to his statements. Those references, plus the necessary rebuttals, have resulted in the tedious and unfocussed article as we see it now (mid-July 2007).

It is my opinion that the section on "Earliest history & archaeological evidence" would be best served by dropping all the Emmett paragraphs entirely. The views of this sociologist have no place in this section. However, if Tiamut insists on including Emmett's views, then I must insist upon including referenced rebuttals to those views.Renejs 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Serious revision

This article is in very bad shape. It is garbled, confusing, and full of contradictions and unsourced statements. There is way too much name-dropping of researchers. This information belongs in the reference, not in the body of the text. This article does not deserve a B-class rating (even if it once did). It needs major revision.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Emmett15" :
  • {{cite book|title=Beyond the Basilica:Christians and Muslims in Nazareth|author=Chad Fife Emmett|year=1995|publisher=University of Chicago Press|page=xvi|isbn=0226207110}}
  • {{cite book|title=Beyond the Basilica:Christians and Muslims in Nazareth|author=Chad Fife Emmett|year=1995|publisher=University of Chicago Press|page=15|isbn=0226207110}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Doubts regarding Nazareth's existence at the turn of the era

The doubts exist, and they should not be removed from the article. This sentence is well sourced with three citations, and other doubting scholars could easily be cited. However, perhaps a better place for the sentence is in "Contrary views" at the end of the article. The article does require tightening (abbreviating).-- Renejs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renejs (talk • contribs) 03:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "doubts exist" in the minds of some amateurs with their own axes to grind. No actual archaeologists have any such doubts, which is why I've added a note to this effect at the end of the Zindler section. Exactly why an amateur and non-archaeologist like Zindler gets such billing in this article when his criticisms are a joke and there is NO controversy on the subject amongst properly qualified scholars and professionals is a mystery. I have footnoted my addition with references to three scholarly peer-reviewed works that show that Zindler's armchair criticism has no basis in reality. Let wary readers decide who they should listen to: a kooky amateur with no archaeological experience or qualifications or professionals who have excavated First Century sites in Nazareth. Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, I kept my references to the Jewish archaeologists - we wouldn't want accusations of some kind of bias, now would we? Thiudareiks (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policies re: "only credentialed scholars"??

For whomever you are- - deleting referenced information from this article, not signing in, and trying to set wiki policies instead of reading them- - here are the wikipedia guidelines re: contributors and credentialing: "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Misplaced Pages articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Misplaced Pages's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal." See <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:About> In any case, the sentence under contention is well credentialed and thus is not "substandard." Cheyne and Eisenman (referenced) were/are published academics & PhD's. The third, F. Zindler, has published a book in the field. His views are the subject of the last part of this article ("Contrary Views"). Of course, the sentence under contention is disputed- - but so is much that has to do with Early Christian history.Renejs (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Don't make me laugh. The wiki policies isn't an excuse to promote lunatic fringe views like a non-existent 1th century Nazareth or the Jesus-myth. Cheyenne is somebody from the late 19th century, Eisenman some Dead Scrolls conspiracy weirdo and Zindler's qualifications are totally irrelevant (a biologist). I'm removing this pseudoshistorical nonsense until its backed up by credentialed sources.

Madiggan 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy about whether Nazareth was inhabited in the First Century amongst archaeologists. None. The "lunatic fringe views" here are those of Frank Zindler and Rene Salm - one of whom is a Jesus Myther with an anti-Christian axe to grind and the other has his own private theory about Jesus coming from India. Zindler is a biologist. Salm is a former piano teacher. On the other hand we have objective Jewish archaeologists who have actually excavated or surveyed First Century sites in Nazareth, like Zvi Gal, Richard Freund and Nurit Feig. If the actual archaeologists have no doubt the place was inhabited, why should anyone pay attention to a biologist and a piano teacher? What were you saying about "lunatic fringe views" again? Thiudareiks (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Section "Nazareth & the Messianic Claim"

This proposed section adds nothing to the already long discussion of Nazareth. It repeats information regarding Mt. 2:23 (see section "Contrary Views") and also has a number of misspellings. The Jewish view of Jesus might be included in a Wiki article on Jesus, of which there are many. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Jesus#See_also for an initial list.Renejs (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Turn of the era" references

None of the three references deleted has any force for a settlement at the turn of the era. Zvi Gal ("Lower Galilee During the Iron Age", Eisenbrauns, 1992) surmises the area covered during the "Early" Roman Period from the locations of kokh-type tombs, which came to the Galilee after mid-I CE. (On this critical issue see the work of specialist H-P. Kuhnen, "Palaestina in Griechisch-Roemischer Zeit," (Munich, C. Beck, 1990, pp. 254-55). Feig and Yavor also excavated kokh tombs, i.e., post-50 CE burials, as Feig herself notes. The Feig tombs, incidentally, are not in the Nazareth basin, but are 2.6 km away from where Bagatti excavated. They belonged to a different village ("Nazareth Tiriah"). Renejs (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Renejs, while I respect your intimate knowledge of this subject, I feel your edits have rather consistently tried to buttress the point of view that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century, to the detriment of the article. There are a number of scholars who disagree with that opinion.

For example:

• The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (2006) , in discussing the first century Galilee on page 305 states:

  Ongoing archaeological work in Nazareth has revealed surprising evidence of stone masonry and viticulture. Although the extent of archaeological investigation thus far is quite limited (owing to the fact that modern Nazarreth is a large inhabited city), all indications at present suggest that Nazareth of late antiquity - in close proximity to a major highway linking Caesarea Maritima in the west to Tiberias in the east - was an active and productive center, whose inhabitants would in all probability have had no need to seek employment in outlying areas. Portraits of Nazareth as a sleepy, isolated village are the stuff of pious imagination and hagiography, not critical study.

• The Uttermost Part of the Earth (2005) page 145 notes:

  Archaeological evidence that Jesus's Nazareth was higher up in the hills than the present town. It appears to have been settled some time during the thrd century BCE during the Hellenistic era when the Ptolmaic Empire ruled Palestine. The town was of absolutely no importance in classical times, its modern importance resulting strictly from having been Jesus' home.

• Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (2005) states:

  Although sparse ceramic remains from the Early to Late Bronze Age and the Late Iron Age were found, there is no archaeological evidence of built structures from these period, aside from tombs. The primary structures and material remains derive from the town of the Late Hellenistic to Late Roman periods, a Byzantine church and monastery, minor Early Islamic period remains and acrusader church and monastery.

• Fifty Major Cities of the Bible (2006) explains:

  While some archaeological excavations were conducted at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, the first large-scale modern excavation is the work of Bellarmino Bagatti carried out in 1955. While the Church of the Annucation was being rebuilt Bagatti was given the oppotunity to excavate in and around the structure. While there is scanty evidence of some activity here as early as the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1550 BCE) and the "Israelite Period" (pottery sherds), most of the remains date to the Byzantine Period or later. However, Bagatti did find locally made pottery from the first century consisting mostly of cooking pots, water jugs and so forth. But he did not find any trace of imported vessels. There were few material remains that could be identified as houses, but what there was indicat3ed these structures were little more than hovels with earthen floors, sometimes incorporating caves. Bagatti found nothing that could be identified as public buildings during this time, including a "synagogue".
  Based on the location of burial tombs, which would have been located outside the village proper, Bagatti estimated the size of Nazareth during this period to be about ten acres with a population between 200 and 400.

Perhaps we could work on representing the differing opinions regarding the extent of the archaeological evidence? Your formulations seem to present Bagatti's work as confirmation of your thesis regarding a lack of settlement in the first century. Others seem to think differently, as evidenced above. All significant viewpoints should be represented to achieve NPOV. Tiamut 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut- - Please see your talk page for my response.Renejs (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nazaret vs. Nazareth

The Greek text cites the name as Ναζαρὲτ.

1. How come the final ת didn't get rendered as θ instead? In (afaik) every other case, it did.
2. How come the Latin Bible (and thenceforth the English one) renders the final sound as th, even though the Greek text is the original and thus the ultimate auhority? --80.250.159.240 (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple changes at once

Dear Mr./Ms. Smith, Making a dozen or more changes at once in this controversial article is not acceptable. Each change will stand or fall on its own merits or demerits and must be substantiated if it goes beyond grammar and syntax. It is easy to revert multiple changes, and I will do so as opportunity arises. However, if one or two changes are made at a time, with references that can be checked, then you are certainly on safer ground. Renejs (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will work to ban "Smith" if tendentious edits continue

Hello "Smith," Repeated persistence in adding unsubstantiated opinion leads inevitably to an "edit war." If this is your wish, I'm prepared to work to have you banned from contributing to the Misplaced Pages article "Nazareth" in future. First step is soliciting a "third party opinion": http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. For Misplaced Pages, VERIFIABILITY determines the issue, which is an excellent criterion. So, please be on notice that you edit tendentiously at your own risk.Renejs (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Smith's edits will not get him "banned", but if they are identified as consistent vandalism, then he/she could be temporarily blocked either from Misplaced Pages as a whole or from the article Nazareth. If edit wars between you and Smith persist, then both of you risk being blocked temporarily. I've noticed his additions do not comply with the sources, and so I will warn him on his talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me, that Renejs has one ideological goal which is to control the Nazareth article and to promote Atheist views in it. That is fine. I will not collaborate however. I do not engage in an edit war. You are the one, who has been deleting my legitimized changes and additions.Smith2006 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you must assume good faith. POV will not be tolerated in this contentious article and if its general stability is affected I will block both of you. Thankfully, edit wars have ceased. Now, Smith, your edits do not harm the article, but they need to have a source to back them. Add a citation to the text you want to add and there should be no problems. --Al Ameer son (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious demographics?

I see that Nazareth is largely an Arab town, but this article should really give exact percentages of Arab/Jew/other, and more importantly how said Arab population breaks down into Muslims and Christians. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The "etymology" section should give a simple explanation of why the city is called "Narareth". What Arabs call Christians certainly doesn't belong in this section. There is also unsourced material implying that Nazareth did not actually exist in New Testament times. Even it was sourced, this material would belong under "The skeptical position", not etymology. Kauffner (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What the current inhabitants of Nazareth call it is certainly relevant. And the words in Arabic that derive from its Arabic name which are used to refer to Jesus and to Christians are also relevant and interesting. This is after all the town associated with Jesus and Christianity. Tiamut 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology is not place for theories questioning whether Nazareth existed in New Testament time. There is already another section for this called, "The skeptical position." These theories are of some interest as a counterfactual academic exercises, but they are nowhere close to mainstream and should not be presented as if they were. Judea vs. Galilee issue has no secondary source and is therefore WP:OR. Kauffner (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the OR should be removed. But I disagree with your bifurcation of the two sections. I'm working on a new version at User:Tiamut/Nazareth name. You will see that I've divided the biblical and extrabiblical references in their own subsections. I think its best to differentiate between theories and mentions in texts or on tablets. Tiamut 00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazareth and background info

In the bible,the book of Isaiah chapter 48 verse 5 mentions Nazarene.

(note) The Hebrew for 'see' is chazon receiving trance like messages.

The Hebrew for hidden things is 'netsoroth' which in Hebrew is Nazareth! What are your views on this, as you state the name Nazareth is not found in old manuscripts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.144.164 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

First house from Jesus' time found in Nazareth

This Israeli site: tells that the first house from Jesus' time was found in Nazareth.Agre22 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Hebrew

Is there some new wiki rule that prevents us from using the Hebrew name for a city in Israel? I've listed a couple of examples that show that it is quite common to have Hindi names for Indian cities, Russian names in Cyrillic for Russain cities, why is Hebrew an outcast? Los Admiralos (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew is already listed in the infobox, under Hebrew name, and in te first sentence of the introduction. Having it noted on the map as well is simply overkill. Regarding the other two examples you cited, so what? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS i8s not an argument. The inclusion of the Hebrew and the Arabic on the map alongside the English here is unnecessary and redundant clutter. Please stop restoring it. Tiamut 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So "Hebrew" is "redundant clutter", but Russian or Hindi is acceptable on this project? Is that what you are getting at? Los Admiralos (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is مكّة المكرمة redundant clutter over at Mecca? what's the obsession with Hebrew? Los Admiralos (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew and the Arabic do not belong on the map. Both are already included in the infobox and in the first sentence of the lead. There is no need to include them on the map too. (You have reverted three times now to restore them: 1st revert: , 2nd revert: , 3rd revert: ). Please stop. This has nothing to do with your obsession with Hebrew. Tiamut 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agrre that it makes the map cluttered - I'd be ok with removing it from there -don't know how, though. I disagree that it is clutter to have it in the title, so please stop removing it from there. Los Admiralos (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical Position

As a fringe theory, I have maintained its inclusion per wp:fringe. However, I have removed the large chunk dedicated to it, and some of the numerous clearly POV edits attempting to give undue weight to the theory. See wp:undue. --Ari (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, user:Renejs, do you happen to be the same Rene who has written a book published by American Atheist Press which just happens to push the exact same fringe theory you are attempting to have dominate this article? In any case, I remind you to check out the policies on fringe theories, conflicts of interest and undue weight. --Ari (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari89, you are arguing an unsourced opinion that my material is "undue weight." However, I've properly sourced material showing that many important biblical scholars have questioned both the relation between "Nazareth" and "Nazarene-Nazoraios." Some scholars, though not as many, have also questioned the existence of the "city of Nazareth" at the time of Jesus, one with an unlikely "synagogue" and "crowd" as described in Lk 4:16-30. These skeptical theories are certainly not new and, in any case, no longer fringe (the first never was "fringe").

You only recently drastically started amending this article (I see your first edit is yesterday 1/11/10 at 05:03). I've been working on this article for years--you, for one day. I resent your being a Johnny-come-lately and accusing me of "vandalism." I also question your motives and see that you've worked on The Gnostic Paul the Christ myth theory, etc., showing a very traditionalist agenda. . . In the Nazareth case, you havn't shown anyone that you understand the arguments, because you don't deal with them--you only delete and accuse. If you contest the substance of what I've added, then you need to add substantiating references for your opinion. You need to argue the material, not simply accuse me of being "fringe" and a vandal. That's cheap, and I worked hard to reference what I wrote. If you think a subsection "The skeptical position" is too much weight, you could have argued that long ago when the subsection was around with Zindler's arguments. As you see from Kauffner's discussion entries above, we've gone around this bush already about the relevance of these theories, and no one questioned that there was a place for them in the subsection "The skeptical position." Sure, it's not "mainstream," but it needs much more than a passing mention. The number and quality of the scholarly sources show that this "skeptical position" needs a subsection--just like it used to have until Gilabrand deleted it. Incidentally, I didn't immediately revert his edit, because I needed this time to source the minority view--something that's done.

Ari89, if you revert this material you clearly are the vandal, as far as I'm concerned. Argue the material, not your opinion.Renejs (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Undue weight was given. Details on the fringe theory are worked into the main body of the article. And I was working on it further before you decided to (without reason) revert a number of edits. Dedicating a section of wp:or on the topic of a fringe theory is not how its done.

2. No, I have actually edited this article before responding to your recent pov pushing.

3. I see no reason to respond to the childish personal attacks.

3. No, I will not "argue" on a Misplaced Pages page. Misplaced Pages is about wp:verifiability - not original arguments or Renejs' personal synthesis. The fringe theory is being included in the main discussion (as it currently already is, e.g. on the topic of a lack of references.)

--Ari (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Still, instead of discussing the issue you go straight back to vandalising the article. Do you not realise that the point of my edits is integrating the fringe theory into the main section on the history? Do you not realise that there is no reason to set out the individual methodology (in terms of original research) of how you have come to believe that Nazareth did not exist? This in itself is POV pushing (especially noting your polemical website on the topic), original research, and giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Furthermore, do you not realise that the fringe theory exists in the main section on the early Christian era? Etc. Stop pushing your own fringe agenda for a minute and notice what is happening. --Ari (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Whooh down!! We're talking about more than the existence or not of Nazareth. We're also talking about the linguistic connection between "Nazareth" and other important terms that occur in the New Testament (Nazarene, Nazoraios). Some scholars consider these linked (the traditional position) and others don't. That's also a major issue.

Prove your accusations. If you think the skeptical position material is "fringe"--PROVE IT. If you think it gets too much weight--PROVE IT. If you think there's original research here--PROVE IT.

You've got a hard sell trying to convince ANYBODY that adding sourced material from leading scholars is "vandalism." Sorry. . . DELETING it is vandalism!Renejs (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything but an irrelevant childish comment? --Ari (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Your ARBITRARY and UNSUBSTANTIATED deletions of my relevant and well-referenced contribution are "irrelevant" and yes, "childish."Renejs (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you mean deletion of original synthesis which I placed back, with tags noting its poor nature so you would act like an adult. I guess if you give a child an inch they'll take a mile. Grow up.--Ari (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You sure like throwing mud, Ari89. THAT'S childish, kiddo!Renejs (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I've fully protected the article page while you sort this dispute out. User:Ari89 and User:Renejs have both been edit warring, and can consider themselves fortunate that I haven't blocked them both, which I would have been entitled to do. However, that wouldn't solve the problem here.

Consider dispute resolution to address the issue at hand, and also please keep calm, and remain civil, throwing accusations of vandalism around won't help anyone.

Thanks. GedUK  10:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no dispute with the article as it stands now. Resolution was probably already reached just before this article was locked. There is still some minor need for cleanup in "The skeptical position" section--(1) the paragraphs should be numbered; (2) "citation needed" after the first sentence of the subsection can be deleted (the ensuing paragraphs provide a wealth of citations).

I'm not convinced that the "previously unpublished synthesis" warning is appropriate here. Everything in the section has already been published, and references are provided. There is no "original" statement, and the "synthesis" is not new but can be found in the works cited.Renejs (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But I do. As it stands, the fringe theory is worked into the main section, and for some reason we are doubling up the information in an individual section. This is clearly undue weight given to a fringe theory (especially whose only active proponent is you and your website?).

And the original synthesis tag is appropriate as the arguments provided are original research and synthesis. Firstly, if you claim that those four arguments are what are used by proponents of this marginal theory, you need a citation from a reliable source stating this. Similarly, your citations appear to misrepresent the respective authors (some which are over 100 years old cited as if they are current consensus) to forward an argument that they do not make. --Ari (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari89, you've got tunnel-vision on the "no-Nazareth" thesis. "The skeptical position" deals with something else and equally important: doubt that the word "Nazareth" relates to Nazarene-Nazoraios. This view is not fringe at all. Major names in New Testament research doubt the relation. Incidentally, I've checked 2 of the 3 references you added here. They are irrelevant and do not deal with THIS issue, but assert that Jesus indeed came from Nazareth.

Skepticism regarding the non-existence of Nazareth is now found in "Archaeology" well down the page. In fact, it's at the very end of that section, expressed in a single sentence by Cheyne: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a 'city called Nazareth' in Jesus' time." This is a minimalist presentation of the thesis and should not keep you awake at night. It is old and gaining ground among liberal scholars . You maynot like it, but still to be restored to the article are the sentences: "However, some modern scholars argue that Nazareth may be, in fact, where Jesus was born , while others argue that Nazareth didn't exist at all . The critical question now under scholarly and polemical (atheist and Christian) debate is when exactly and at what stage in the Roman period Nazareth came into existence, that is, whether settlement there began before or after 70 AD (the First Jewish War)."

It's clear that the debate has been opened, and the Wiki article should reflect that. Doubts are now being expressed by a GROWING number of liberal scholars. The doubts refer firstly to the relation of "Nazareth" to "Nazarene" and "Nazoraios," and secondly to the existence of Nazareth in I CE.Renejs (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} A trivial change in "The skeptical position" section would be very helpful and I'm sure has consensus: changing the "#" to actual numbers (1,2,3,4) at the beginning of each paragraph. This will help tidy up the section. Renejs (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The hash marks (#) are wikicode for automatic numbering, but the blank line between each one meant it reset. I've fixed this. GedUK  11:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we change to partially protected or remove the protection altogether? It's been a while... gidonb (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New picture for infobox

I'd like to replace the picture of the Basilica of the Annuciation is the infobox with a panorama of the city instead. The photo there currently is better suited to be in the infobox for the church itself, rather than for the city of Nazareth. I took a photo today that I think would be a good candidate. If no one disagrees, I'd like to request an admin to make the substitution. Here it is:

Tiamut 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

and yet the Basilica is the most prominent and known monument in the city, while the panorama doesn't show a distinct feature of the city. DrorK (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Drork, the Basilica is in this picture at right of center. Nazareth is a city, not a cathedral. Tiamut 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari89's wholesale & unjustified deletion of "The skeptical position" section

Reversion to 03:59, 5 April 2010. There are several obvious reasons:

(1) ARBITRARINESS. Removal of entire section by Ari89 is censorship and a gross disservice to readers of Misplaced Pages, who have a right to all the relevant and provable facts on Nazareth. Ari89 must present evidence for the deletion of EVERY sentence (and every word) removed, especially when those are referenced by accepted experts. He may not think the non-dominant view is important, but others certainly do, as evidenced by the many scholars who are cited in "The skeptical position" which Ari89 has now tried to arbitrarily remove. He calls it a "fringe theory," but that is an incorrect characterization, as there are qualified and published theologians (is Ari89?) who disagree with him and with his characterization (as do I, and I happen to be an expert on Nazareth archaeology). The restored "skeptical position" section itself shows where Ari89 is wrong on many counts. More correct is that the no-Nazareth thesis is a minority view, which is why it doesn't begin section 3.2, "Early Christian era." No Nazareth at the turn of the era may be a "fringe theory" according to Ari98's definition of "fringe," but he is certainly in no position to dictate to the world what is and is not "fringe." It is not "fringe"- - it is minority and non-dominant. Today, the no-Nazareth view is well-known (as opposed to only a few years ago), and Misplaced Pages owes it to readers to reflect ongoing publications and the current state of the debate, with MULTIPLE SIDES represented.

(2) Ari89 TRIES TO REMOVE THOROUGHLY REFERENCED MATTER. "The skeptical position" section cites a multitude of well-known scholars in particulars and systematically corroborates the no-Nazareth thesis with facts of four kinds: (a) historic (lack of reference in Josephus), (b) linguistic (Nazoraios cannot be derived from Nazareth"), (c) literary ("The 'city called Nazareth' seems to be a geographical imagination; it is unmentioned in the Old Testament, in the Talmud, in Josephus, or in the Apocrypha"; and "No ancient historians or geographers mention before the beginning of the fourth century"; and (d) religious ("it would certainly be unusual if they were referred to as "people from Nazareth. This makes it probable that originally, prior to the connection with the name of the locality Nazareth, the term was the name of a Jewish sect or heresy derived from the root "observe" , and meaning "observant," "devotee," a term later used of the Christians."

(3) FALSE CLAIM. Ari89 falsely states that the no-Nazareth thesis "has been weighted into the main text appropriately"- - but it certainly has not. In any case, I do not agree with his view of that deletion of "The skeptical position" section is "appropriate" in this matter, nor do I see why anyone else should.

(4) SECOND FALSE CLAIM. Ari98 falsely states that his action of deleting the "Skeptical position" section was done "per discussion." However, a review of this discussion page shows him to be confabulating.

Section reinserted as it was before, to describe what is (arguably) the scientifically verifiable position, while leaving adequate scope to what is currently the majority view.Renejs (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed so I will not spend much time explaining this. (1),(2) and (3) What you call the skeptical position is a fringe theory, and this fringe theory has been worked into the main history section. We are not going to have a content fork of alternative fringe history attached to the end of the article just because you think this is how scholarship should be. It is about representing the debate as it stands, not a platform for the specific fringe theory you adhere to. --Ari (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Renejs,

1. Ari was referring to previous discussion.

2. WP: fringe shouldn't usually make up a large part in an article, nor do such sources belong as the major sources for the article.

3. You are clearly pushing a strict P.O.V. and are very vague in your actual discussion of the topic when debating material inclusion.

His edits should stand as correct. NJMauthor (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Woa. I suggest taking a look at Renejs' editing history. NJMauthor (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a fringe theory, it does not deserve its own section, and Ari's edit should stand. Actually, I don't really see the purpose of this theory, unless one is trying to push a POV. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The material you've deleted is certainly not "fringe" because it's well-referenced to reputable scholars! You've arbitrarily deleted important and pertinent citations by Bultmann, Cullmannn, and others, each with multiple references to show that they weren't simply writing in a vacuum. Look, skepticism about Nazareth goes back many generations. It's not "my" position or new at all. You're trying to delete a hundred years of skepticism because you want to defend the majority view. But wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's not opinion-based but evidence-based, and that's why "The skeptical position" needs to be there and prominently so. When you delete material, you have to show one of the following (a) why it is clearly wrong; (b) why it is clearly not relevant; (c) why it is clearly redundant; or (d) why it is clearly unlikely ("fringe"). This has to be unambiguous for a deletion to be made, otherwise what is ambiguous and still possible becomes a minority view. If that possibility has the backing of reputed scholars, then it is certainly not "fringe." We're not primarily talking Nazareth archaeology here, either. You're trying to delete important linguistic, historical, etc. material.

Look, it's not enough to accuse me of being "fringe." You have something much more difficult (and impossible) to do: to show that the material you're deleting is itself "fringe"! I challenge you to refute the following for starters: "O. Cullmann wrote that "According to Acts 24:5 not only Jesus, but also the Christians were called NAZORAIOI; it would certainly be unusual if they were referred to as "people from Nazareth. This makes it probable that originally, prior to the connection with the name of the locality Nazareth, the term was the name of a Jewish sect or heresy derived from the root "observe" , and meaning "observant," "devotee," a term later used of the Christians." This is important information about Nazareth and early Christianity that we can't merely delete but must deal with.

The referenced linguistic, historical, etc. material in "the skeptical position" is not *my* opinion, is not new, and (by definition) is not fringe. Any scholar who studies the difficult issue of Nazareth will admit that there is at least some room for multiple views here, and this has been carefully noted for a long time. Finally, one should always be suspicious of people who delete wiki material (rather than add to it), especially material which is well referenced to noted scholars. Please do not insert your head in the sand in these changing times: the skeptical position is not new, and it is not "fringe"! Renejs (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:UNDUE. A minority opinion, which you readily admit this is, should not be given so much weight in an article. nableezy - 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." According to this definition, the belief that Nazareth didn't exist in the early first century qualifies as fringe for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Eugene (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Word's to avoid

I just misspoke (mistyped?) in my last edit summary. "claimed" isn't WP:WEASEL, it's WP:CLAIM. Sorry about that. Eugene (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I just found this on the IAA Web site. How much more "official" does it get? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nazareth does not exist, how are you saying that it does?

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David: (Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. (Luke 2.39,40)

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

This is a recurring complaint here. Sufficed to say that mainstream archeology accepts the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century. Eugene (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that the core of the modern day city has not been systematically excavated. The only excavations have been on the ground of the Basilica of the Annunciation when it was rebuilt in 1967, at Mary's Well when it was rebuilt in the late 1990s, at a store beside Mary's Well when it was being renovated around the same time (see Ancient Bath House of Nazareth, and most recently, this last year on the grounds of a convent. Thee is much yet to discovered. Tiamut 15:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Félix Bonfils

Ok, note for when this article is no longer protected; this postcard, now in the article, is actually based on a picture by Félix Bonfils (died 1885); it should be noted. Huldra (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no authority on the Yardenna Alexandre discovery ever dates it to explicitly the life time of Jesus

Such an explicit date is mere conjecture, as the article cited for the source here in this Misplaced Pages entry does not specify the discovery to the lifetime of Jesus, but rather, to the "Early Roman period" which includes that time frame, but is not exclusive to it and goes on well into the 2nd century. This article here- http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Residential_building_time_Jesus_Nazareth_21-Dec-2009.htm

says that "The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, "Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE". Sorry, but 67 CE is three decades too late for the time of Jesus. So while this is definitely an important historical find, trying to assert that this was from the life time of Jesus is conjecture and demands a source be linked with an explicit statement from an authority stating as much. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.18.26 (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources to state it was from the time of Jesus, you can contest that and I agree with you that such a precise dating at a preliminary stage may very well be dubious. However, our job is not to do original research, but to report what the sources state. --Ari (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What came out of Yardenna's own mouth isn't original to me. However, the wording of the previous edit puts words in her mouth without citing an explicit statement, as I have already pointed out. She never says it was from the life time of Jesus, she merely said it shed light on what life was like in that time. The writings of Josephus do that too, they show us what life was like at that time, yet his writings nor Josephus himself date to the life time of Jesus. The site was dated to early roman based on the pottery sherds. And Yardenna herself gave 67 CE as the most probable date for the pit in which the pottery was located. That's from her own mouth, so again I say, that's three decades too late.

I'll leave in the part about the life of Jesus, since "early roman" is inclusive of, although not exclusive to, that time. However, I am going to add the word "might" to clarify that it MIGHT be to the time of Jesus. I hope then, we can finally come to terms on this article and let it be. Sound okay to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.18.26 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nablus & Nazareth,photos and one more link that needed to be added

This week a delegation group from Nablus (Including Nablus Muni.) came to Nazareth to build a relationship between the two cities (Econmey and etc.) one of the resault of the meetings between the two municipalties is to have a "twin city" realtionship between the two

Another issue .. I'm trying to upload a photos that I toke from my camera and put it in this page but it's all the time deleted. I'm trying only to improve the photos... By the way i'm updating the logo of the municipality (puting the new logo) and it also had been deleted

The page of "azareth, The Magical City" on FB is now recognized from the Nazareth Munivipality and should be added http://www.facebook.com/Nazareth5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anan Maalouf (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to replace pictures

I want to replace some of the pictures on the page of Nazareth on wikipedia ... most of the pictures are old\appropriate for Nazareth City

All photos were taken by me, but my problem is that I'm new on wikipedia and I don't all the liescens and stuff....

I also think that we need to add some lines about the last Pope visit and about the biggest Amphitheatre in the middle east in Mount Precipice

I will be happy if anyone can help with my problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareth City (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

10x for bringing new photo and updating a caption. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Nazareth Flag

• Nazareth Flag

Can anyone add the Nazareth Flag ?

Etymology & Palestinians

One etymology is far more widely accepted than the others, so it should get WP:DUE prominence. In the international news, the word "Palestinian" almost always refers to non-Israelis, i.e. the Arabs in Gaza, on the West Bank, and in the refugee camps. Moreover, the description "Arab citizens of Israel" is a satisfactory explanation of the nationality of these Nazareth residents by itself -- and it links to an article that elaborates on the complexities of this issue at great length. Kauffner (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the etymological theories are just that - theories. Why would we highlight one theory that is not conclusive from among many theories in the lead of all places?

About "Palestinian" as an identifier for this population ... the two sources cited for the information in the lead use "Palestinian". Indeed, most Arab citizens of Israel identify as Palestinians. Per MOS:IDENTITY, within articles, we should use the labels that the people in question prefer themselves. Given that both the sources and our policies agree, I see no valid reason we should not use Palestinians here, at least some of the time. Tiamut 18:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Tiamut that self identification is important to note here but I don't think it's crystal clear what the Nazareth arab poplation are identifying themselves and I don't think we should assign them labels when it's not perfectly clear. Cause I think the vast majority see themselves as Israeli citizens and arabs at least no? But I don't think everyone identify as palestinian. Here's the charts for the arab self identification for Israeli arabs overall from the Israeli arab article:

By the way do you know how to spell this; Makam el nabi Sain Mosque in arabic? I only know the words المسجد & نبي. It's a Nazareth mosque. Thanks! Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider that poll to represent the best scholarship on identity issues among Arab citizens of Israel. It should really be replaced with this source, which gives a more comprehensive analysis and reflects the other material cited to high quality reliable sources in our article on the subject. The fact is that the vast majority of Arab citizens prefer to identify in whole or in part as Palestinian. The sources we have discussing the Arab citizenry of Nazareth also use the term "Palestinian Arab" or "Palestinian" to refer to them. This means that use is in ine both with our guideline on identity (MOS:IDENTITY) and with our policy of WP:V. Tiamut 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to treat every etymology theory as equal. Some are more widely accepted than others. I went to the MOS link that was given and I didn't see anything relevant. The residents might self-identify as a long list of things and not every self-identity needs to be given, or at least not all of them in the same sentence. The word "Palestinian" has been added repetitiously, twice in the lede although the lede is only four sentences long. Kauffner (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that one speculative etymological theory is more widely accepted than others. And even if that were the case, I don't see the need for speculation of any kind to be included in the lead. There are far more important facts not currently represented there that could be and highlighting one nconclusive theory on the etymology of the city's name seems wholly unnecessary and undue. Tiamut 17:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

When u mention it, regardless of nationality/ethnicity anyone finds this sentence; The Mayor of Nazareth is a Palestinian Christian a bit excessive? It really doesn't belong in the lead, the mayor's name is already in the infobox, so maybe this should be somewhere in the history section or a government section if at all, but really not the lead. What do you think? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to include mention of Ramez Jaraisi being a Palestinian Christian in the lead. That should be moved into the body of the article. I'll do it if you like. Tiamut 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though I don't think it is the best solution, I don't find Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel unacceptable. So it's fine for me. But I still think the mayor part is a bit farfetched. First of all it seems as it's just thrown in there without any regard to the flow of the text really & doesn't add anything. Secondly I think writing that he is a Palestinian christian might imply that he is a non-israeli palestinian which he is not, but writing he is a christian palestinian arab citizen of israel is a bit tedious. Thirdly we already said close to 100% of the popoulation is palestinian arab israeli so it would be like writing the mayor of Tel Aviv is Jewish, doesn't really belong in the main article unless there is something surrounding it, I still think it could be interesting to note that he is christian since they are in minority in Nazareth. And forthly do we know what his self-identification is? Cause now we are talking about an individual and that's a different story. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 12:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Krašovec, 2010

It's generally recognised in the study of Classical Greek that the representation of consonants which Greek doesn't distinguish is not (a) accurate or (b) consistent. Egbert J. Bakker A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language 2010 gives a good introduction, and Jože Krašovec The transformation of biblical proper names also 2010 a detailed survery of Semitic/Aramaic/Hebrew place/personal names into Greek. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nazareth intro.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nazareth intro.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth did not exist in 1 CE

"There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles appeared before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first one didn't come into existence until about 40 years after the hypothetical death of Jesus. Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming that Nazareth existed as an insignificant and easily missed village (how would they know?), thus no one recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Nazareth, they always refer to it as a city, never a village, and a historian of that period would surely have noticed a city. (Note the New Testament uses the terms village, town, and city.)"

Drawing on only the Gospels is not enough proof that Nazareth existed prior to 100 CE and was not founded and expanded because of the bible's influence. 71.86.157.30 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion on the failings of Ken Darks' critical review of Rene Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth which is the basis of considering the book WP:FRINGE. 71.86.157.30 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs and Palestinians

In the international press, the word "Palestine" refers to the Palestinian Authority (or before the PA was created, to the PLO.) "Palestinians" are thus Arabs without Israeli citizenship living under Israeli or PA jurisdiction. To refer to Israeli Arabs in Nazareth as "Palestinian" implies that the PA has, or should have, authority in this city. The phrase "Israeli Arabs and Palestinians" Googles up plenty of hits, which make sense only if Israeli Arabs are not considered Palestinians. Here is an example from the New York Times. (See the last line of the article.) It doesn't make any difference how these people refer to themselves. Kauffner (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

See Israeli Arab#Self-identification. Zero 07:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The survey you cite says that only 43 percent of Muslim Arab citizens of Israel consider themselves Palestinians. How they respond to surveys isn't really relevant anyway. And none of the survey data is specific to Nazareth. Kauffner (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification does matter when discussing people as individuals or groups. More importantly however is that more than one high quality RS used to write this article refers to the population as Palestinian Arab. One even says the town is "almost exclusively Palestinian Arab". Are you disputing the reliability of the sources? Tiamut 08:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oic. Exclusively Palestinian Arab and no Israeli Arabs at all? All I can say is, do you read the stuff you write? Kauffner (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You claim to know the meaning of "Palestine", but you give it inaccurately, then you use that to infer (aka original research) the meaning of "Palestinian" and get it completely wrong. You won't get anywhere with this line. Zero 15:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The survey that you yourself does not support idea that a majority of Israel Arabs can be called "Palestinian", never mind 100 percent of Nazareth residents as Tiamut has preposterously claimed. Kauffner (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel