Talk:Nebuchadnezzar I

Merge with Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon

I don't know which spelling is preferred. It looks like Pashe and Isin are the same dynasty. TimBentley 23:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Found this in youngs literal bible - noting that the spelling is different

"18. `Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, Hath caused his force to serve a great service against Tyre, Every head [is] bald -- every shoulder peeled, And reward he had none, nor his force, out of Tyre, For the service that he served against it." (Darwinerasmus (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)).

References

Move?

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Nebuchadnezzar I → Nabu-kudurri-usur I – (currently a redirect to the other page).

• Unfortunately the incorrect naming of this Babylonian monarch has caused confusion with the later king of Biblical notoriety. As this one has no Biblical relevance, it would be a historically neutral position to correct his name to Nabu-kudurri-usur. BigEars42 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What, confusion with Nebuchadnezzar II? Spelling their names differently would cause more confusion. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Once again wiki gives historicity to a character not, by any standards, mentioned in "historical" sources

Recyclopeding mistakes Same goes for the alleged first Allexander, the so called first Haxamanis, the first Ptolemy & etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move

Since the correct spelling is Nebuchadrezzar, I propose moving this page to Nebuchadrezzar I. However it might be more convenient to discuss it at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II#Proposed move. Richard75 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per discussion here and at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II. If revisiting this in the future, please use the procedure shown at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves and note Wikipedia:Correct; showing a preponderance of use in Wikipedia:Reliable sources would likely be necessary in order to gain consensus for this sort of change in the face of split usage. Dekimasuよ! 05:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Nebuchadnezzar I → Nebuchadrezzar I – The correct spelling is Nebuchadrezzar; the second n is an error which crept into the Bible (which uses both spellings). There is a source for this in the article. (This has been discussed before here.) For consistency I suggest discussing the proposal at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar_II#Requested move 21 December 2019. Richard75 (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. It seems that more reliable sources like books (here and here) and independent media (like National Geographic) use this option (however both can be found). --Less Unless (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose How, then, do you explain sources like this that still use the spelling used in the article? If both are equally viable names, the commonly known one should be used._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

They are not equally viable; one is accurate and one is wrong. The source you cited uses the wrong one, as do many people, because it is a common error. That is not a reason for Wikipedia to join in. Richard75 (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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