This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
No subject "needs" an article but this word is interesting enough to have one in an encyclopedia. Also since there are two possible meanings this acts as a disambiguation page.
79.79.88.161 (
talk)
18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
I would rather have it turned into DAB instead of stub. Etymology can be transferred to Wiktionary.
BTW Nasrani was still used by Middle Eastern Christians until 50 years ago, it doesn't necessarily carry derogatory connotations.--Kathovotalk13:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
No nasrani has been used for very long as nerogatory. Any middle east first class witnesses will tell you that.
So then we are settled. the word 'Nasrani' is not explicitly used for St Thomas Christians. I believe it should have its own page. Although it will be a stub now, it would be good for you to put in all those references in there. Thanks.
122.106.151.224 (
talk)
10:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)reply
In my opinion,the Saint Thomas Christians might have been named as Nazrani.I even posses 100 years old documents saying or officially calling Syrian Christians of Kerala as Nazrani. I would like to develop this site more into their customs, beliefs, rituals etc. Thanks
Mandrake_the_Magician (
talk)
00:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Sorry I can't see any other way to close this. Discussion could continue on whether the redirect
Nasrani should be retargeted. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nasrani (disambiguation) →
Nasrani – Up until the ISIL painting of Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over the Christian gateposts of Mosul in 2014 it's possible that the South Indian use of "Nazarene" to redirect to Kerala's
Saint Thomas Christian castes really was the main use in English sources. But that isn't the case since 2014, as Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It is strange, in that you are (or were) arguing that the Arabic term "Nasrani" was the primary topic, which is a matter of changing the redirect, not moving the dab page. If you're saying there is no primary topic, then yes, the dab page should move to
Nasrani. You only just altered the dab page, but adding
Arab Christians isn't appropriate; the article doesn't appear to mention the term "Nasrani", and the term actually refers to Christians beyond Arab Christians.--
Cúchullaint/
c20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Deleting the reference to
Arab Christians from the dab page twice does not change the fact that "Nasrani" in WP:RS English sources is a term used for Arab Christians in some Arab Countries whereas westerners are more likely to be referred to by other terms. Hopefully once this RM goes ahead you'll permit Arab Christians to be listed on the dab page so readers can choose between all four relevant articles.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Seriously, the whole point of a dab page is to let readers find relevant articles... If you want to add a mention of Nasrani into the Arab Christians article go ahead.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
23:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
No, the issue in this sub thread is whether the article
Arab Christians should be mentioned on the disambiguation page. As for whether the move should occur as proposed, I remain unconvinced at the moment.
older ≠
wiser10:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
To my knowledge, "Nasrani" never means "Arab Christians" specifically. It means "Christian", in some cases Christians who are minority communities in their areas (most notably the St Thomas Christians), but I doubt there are many sources supporting the claim that it refers to
Arab Christians as a whole.--
Cúchullaint/
c04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
In Iraq "Nasrani" means local Christian, as opposed to "Salibi", western Crusader. In any case this is rather academic. We've already seen that
Saint Thomas Christians are in no sense the main meaning of Nasrani, so this is simply arguing pointlessly other whether Arab Christians goes in the main section of the dab or in the See also. I can't believe any editor, however difficult, would object to Arab Christians being listed in the See also section.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, "Nasrani" in some contexts can be used to distinguish "local Christians" from foreign Christians, but it's used that way regardless of whether they're Arab Christians or not, as the St. Thomas Christians example proves. In other cases it means foreign Christians (or even any non-Muslim foreigner).
[1] As such
Arab Christians isn't an appropriate dab entry (I don't personally care if it's listed in the "see also" section if it will end this silly discussion).--
Cúchullaint/
c14:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As noted above, if indeed it were true that "Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians", then
Nasrani should be the title of the article about that topic, a redirect to it, or a redirect to the subsection of the article that covers it. I see no argument to make this a dab page. That said, after 5 minutes of research, it's not clear to me whether there is a primary topic, much less what it is. It might be the
Saint Thomas Christians to which this currently redirects, it might be the Arabic term for Christians (I see no evidence that it means Arab Christians), or it might be nothing. But somebody, ideally the one making the proposal, needs to figure this out and post the evidence and findings accordingly. Until then, I see no reason to change the status quo. --
В²C☎20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Well it is true, and looking at
news sources from 2015 to date will confirm it. Why should "Nasrani" be a redirect to
Saint Thomas Christians a church in India when the most common meanings of Nasrani are (a) Arab Christians, (b) the Quranic Arabic name for Christians. Those opposing are supporting a redirect to something which is a rare and marginal use. Why? There's nothing to figure out here. Look at the news sources.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
You are incorrect. "Nasrani" is a term for any Christian, not Arab Christians specifically. Your own search confirms this.
[2][3][4][5][6] By nature, Arab Christians will be included when the context is Arab countries, but the term isn't exclusive to Arab Christians and I've never seen a source that defines it as you're claiming. The article
Arab Christians certainly doesn't make that claim, meaning it's not an appropriate dab page entry.
But all that is besides the point you appear to be trying to make re
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As I said above, I don't object to changing the redirect away from the
Saint Thomas Christians, but you need to be clearer about what you're trying to do. At first you were arguing that "Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning", in which case
this is the primary topic, and
Nasrani should redirect there. But you seem to want the dab page to move to Nasrani instead, which would be fine if there's really no primary topic. However, you've given no argument that anything challenges the Arabic term as primary, apart from your claim that "Nasrani" also means
Arab Christians specifically, which is incorrect.--
Cúchullaint/
c14:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Obviously someone speaking in Arabic could equally describe American Christians as "Masihi/Nasrani" when speaking in Arabic. But an American visitor to Iraq would not be described in any sense as "a Nasrani visitor", wheras you do now get people in the Middle East using the term "Nasrani village" and so on to mean local Christian. I hadn't heard it used in this sense until 2 years ago. But there you go.
Support. I've done a lot of work in the past disambiguating links to Nasrani etc. The St Thomas Christians page should keep the immediate redirects from other spellings such as
Nasranees,
Nazrani people. However, Nasrani continues to be linked with multiple intended meanings. I agree that it's time to move the primary meaning down into the main list on the disambiguation page, and for "Nasrani" links to go to that page. –
FayenaticLondon09:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I again searched all the Wikipedia pages that refer to Nasrani. I have created a redirect
Nasrani (Arabic term for Christian) and linked 15 mentions of "Nasrani" to that page – about the same number as for the film. It is a fact that the overwhelming volume of mentions of Nasrani within Wikipedia are for St Thomas Christians. However, the usage within Wikipedia does not reflect the balance of current usage in general media, and the latter should determine whether there is a
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The disambiguation hatnote at
Saint Thomas Christians should be kept for a variant redirect e.g.
Nasranis. –
FayenaticLondon16:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Nasrani (disambiguation) →
Nasrani – move over the redirect to India's
St Thomas Christians as no
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The ISIS daubing of red Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over Christian gateposts in Mosul in 2014 has faded from the media, the ن logos are gone from Twitter and Facebook, but even so Nasrani still more commonly relates in GBooks to Christians in Arabic speaking countries than
St Thomas Christians in India. Apart from helping readers, having the dab-page at the baseline will also help the dab-bot. See comments last year from Fayenetic London re cleaning up mis-links.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. I opposed this last year, but it seems it was agreed to by all parties that the St. Thomas Christians are not the primary topic of the term "Nasrani". A dab page at that name probably makes the most sense, certainly more than the current status quo.--
Cúchullaint/
c19:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support again, for the same reasons as above (30 March 2017). The balance of usage of "
Nasranis" also looks somewhat marginal, but I am prepared for that and other redirects to remain pointing to St Thomas Christians. –
FayenaticLondon19:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
No subject "needs" an article but this word is interesting enough to have one in an encyclopedia. Also since there are two possible meanings this acts as a disambiguation page.
79.79.88.161 (
talk)
18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)reply
I would rather have it turned into DAB instead of stub. Etymology can be transferred to Wiktionary.
BTW Nasrani was still used by Middle Eastern Christians until 50 years ago, it doesn't necessarily carry derogatory connotations.--Kathovotalk13:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)reply
No nasrani has been used for very long as nerogatory. Any middle east first class witnesses will tell you that.
So then we are settled. the word 'Nasrani' is not explicitly used for St Thomas Christians. I believe it should have its own page. Although it will be a stub now, it would be good for you to put in all those references in there. Thanks.
122.106.151.224 (
talk)
10:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)reply
In my opinion,the Saint Thomas Christians might have been named as Nazrani.I even posses 100 years old documents saying or officially calling Syrian Christians of Kerala as Nazrani. I would like to develop this site more into their customs, beliefs, rituals etc. Thanks
Mandrake_the_Magician (
talk)
00:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Sorry I can't see any other way to close this. Discussion could continue on whether the redirect
Nasrani should be retargeted. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nasrani (disambiguation) →
Nasrani – Up until the ISIL painting of Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over the Christian gateposts of Mosul in 2014 it's possible that the South Indian use of "Nazarene" to redirect to Kerala's
Saint Thomas Christian castes really was the main use in English sources. But that isn't the case since 2014, as Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It is strange, in that you are (or were) arguing that the Arabic term "Nasrani" was the primary topic, which is a matter of changing the redirect, not moving the dab page. If you're saying there is no primary topic, then yes, the dab page should move to
Nasrani. You only just altered the dab page, but adding
Arab Christians isn't appropriate; the article doesn't appear to mention the term "Nasrani", and the term actually refers to Christians beyond Arab Christians.--
Cúchullaint/
c20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Deleting the reference to
Arab Christians from the dab page twice does not change the fact that "Nasrani" in WP:RS English sources is a term used for Arab Christians in some Arab Countries whereas westerners are more likely to be referred to by other terms. Hopefully once this RM goes ahead you'll permit Arab Christians to be listed on the dab page so readers can choose between all four relevant articles.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Seriously, the whole point of a dab page is to let readers find relevant articles... If you want to add a mention of Nasrani into the Arab Christians article go ahead.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
23:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
No, the issue in this sub thread is whether the article
Arab Christians should be mentioned on the disambiguation page. As for whether the move should occur as proposed, I remain unconvinced at the moment.
older ≠
wiser10:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
To my knowledge, "Nasrani" never means "Arab Christians" specifically. It means "Christian", in some cases Christians who are minority communities in their areas (most notably the St Thomas Christians), but I doubt there are many sources supporting the claim that it refers to
Arab Christians as a whole.--
Cúchullaint/
c04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
In Iraq "Nasrani" means local Christian, as opposed to "Salibi", western Crusader. In any case this is rather academic. We've already seen that
Saint Thomas Christians are in no sense the main meaning of Nasrani, so this is simply arguing pointlessly other whether Arab Christians goes in the main section of the dab or in the See also. I can't believe any editor, however difficult, would object to Arab Christians being listed in the See also section.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, "Nasrani" in some contexts can be used to distinguish "local Christians" from foreign Christians, but it's used that way regardless of whether they're Arab Christians or not, as the St. Thomas Christians example proves. In other cases it means foreign Christians (or even any non-Muslim foreigner).
[1] As such
Arab Christians isn't an appropriate dab entry (I don't personally care if it's listed in the "see also" section if it will end this silly discussion).--
Cúchullaint/
c14:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As noted above, if indeed it were true that "Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians", then
Nasrani should be the title of the article about that topic, a redirect to it, or a redirect to the subsection of the article that covers it. I see no argument to make this a dab page. That said, after 5 minutes of research, it's not clear to me whether there is a primary topic, much less what it is. It might be the
Saint Thomas Christians to which this currently redirects, it might be the Arabic term for Christians (I see no evidence that it means Arab Christians), or it might be nothing. But somebody, ideally the one making the proposal, needs to figure this out and post the evidence and findings accordingly. Until then, I see no reason to change the status quo. --
В²C☎20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Well it is true, and looking at
news sources from 2015 to date will confirm it. Why should "Nasrani" be a redirect to
Saint Thomas Christians a church in India when the most common meanings of Nasrani are (a) Arab Christians, (b) the Quranic Arabic name for Christians. Those opposing are supporting a redirect to something which is a rare and marginal use. Why? There's nothing to figure out here. Look at the news sources.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
You are incorrect. "Nasrani" is a term for any Christian, not Arab Christians specifically. Your own search confirms this.
[2][3][4][5][6] By nature, Arab Christians will be included when the context is Arab countries, but the term isn't exclusive to Arab Christians and I've never seen a source that defines it as you're claiming. The article
Arab Christians certainly doesn't make that claim, meaning it's not an appropriate dab page entry.
But all that is besides the point you appear to be trying to make re
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As I said above, I don't object to changing the redirect away from the
Saint Thomas Christians, but you need to be clearer about what you're trying to do. At first you were arguing that "Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning", in which case
this is the primary topic, and
Nasrani should redirect there. But you seem to want the dab page to move to Nasrani instead, which would be fine if there's really no primary topic. However, you've given no argument that anything challenges the Arabic term as primary, apart from your claim that "Nasrani" also means
Arab Christians specifically, which is incorrect.--
Cúchullaint/
c14:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Obviously someone speaking in Arabic could equally describe American Christians as "Masihi/Nasrani" when speaking in Arabic. But an American visitor to Iraq would not be described in any sense as "a Nasrani visitor", wheras you do now get people in the Middle East using the term "Nasrani village" and so on to mean local Christian. I hadn't heard it used in this sense until 2 years ago. But there you go.
Support. I've done a lot of work in the past disambiguating links to Nasrani etc. The St Thomas Christians page should keep the immediate redirects from other spellings such as
Nasranees,
Nazrani people. However, Nasrani continues to be linked with multiple intended meanings. I agree that it's time to move the primary meaning down into the main list on the disambiguation page, and for "Nasrani" links to go to that page. –
FayenaticLondon09:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I again searched all the Wikipedia pages that refer to Nasrani. I have created a redirect
Nasrani (Arabic term for Christian) and linked 15 mentions of "Nasrani" to that page – about the same number as for the film. It is a fact that the overwhelming volume of mentions of Nasrani within Wikipedia are for St Thomas Christians. However, the usage within Wikipedia does not reflect the balance of current usage in general media, and the latter should determine whether there is a
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The disambiguation hatnote at
Saint Thomas Christians should be kept for a variant redirect e.g.
Nasranis. –
FayenaticLondon16:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Nasrani (disambiguation) →
Nasrani – move over the redirect to India's
St Thomas Christians as no
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The ISIS daubing of red Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over Christian gateposts in Mosul in 2014 has faded from the media, the ن logos are gone from Twitter and Facebook, but even so Nasrani still more commonly relates in GBooks to Christians in Arabic speaking countries than
St Thomas Christians in India. Apart from helping readers, having the dab-page at the baseline will also help the dab-bot. See comments last year from Fayenetic London re cleaning up mis-links.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. I opposed this last year, but it seems it was agreed to by all parties that the St. Thomas Christians are not the primary topic of the term "Nasrani". A dab page at that name probably makes the most sense, certainly more than the current status quo.--
Cúchullaint/
c19:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support again, for the same reasons as above (30 March 2017). The balance of usage of "
Nasranis" also looks somewhat marginal, but I am prepared for that and other redirects to remain pointing to St Thomas Christians. –
FayenaticLondon19:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.