![]() | Keturah has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 16, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Keturah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Keturah appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 July 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
In the article it is stated that the Midrash holds that Keturah and Hagar are the same person, far be it from me to challenge that formally since I don't know enough about the subject, but the reference to her children in this article, 'She bears him six sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.' seems to contradict her also being Ishmael's mother. Also I was wondering about Hagar and Ishmael as they were sent away after Sarah's request and they eventually settled in the Desert of Paran (according to the article on Hagar here on wikipedia). Even though I read somewhere else that Ishmael had visited his father's burial it would seem that the situation of Hagar being sent away sort of excludes her and Keturah being the same person (and thus Keturah / Hagar marrying Abraham after Sarah's death). If I read several sources of information on Hagar right she was an Egyptian handmaid to Sarah, somewhere else, in the wikipedia article on Abraham, I read: 'Sarah was his half-sister and Keturah was a patrilineal parallel cousin.' Of course Keturah being Abraham's cousin wouldn't make it impossible for her to be from Egypt, but I thought Abraham originated (according to popular tradtion / religious sources) from Ur in present day Iraq and that by going to Caanan he left his family behind. This would then seem odd to me together with her being family from his father's side and also from Egypt. Once again I don't know enough about the subject, that's also why I refrained from editing the main article, but does anybody have an opinion on whether this should affect the content of this article and how???. Mlodewijk 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
KETURAH sons are Javanese and Malays, stupid...... Malays were not practice hindu and shaminist before. Malays practised Abraham's religion , i.e before conversion to Islam, same as your Mormon. This history is recorded via mouth to mouth, since long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.91.34 ( talk) 10:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I just finished doing a major rewrite of this article, and I've nominated it to be considered for Good Article status. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BenLinus1214 ( talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I will take this one. It looks OK, but it's a little short, no? Just letting you know that I might have some comments on where to elaborate a bit. Then again, I might not. BenLinus 1214 talk 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments
The article currently says this: "Some Jewish scholars have believed Keturah to be the same person as Abraham's concubine Hagar, but this view is not universally held.[4]"
The sentence has a fair bit of potential to mislead a reader if that reader is not familiar with the distinction between traditional rabbinical Jewish commentary and modern historical-critical commentary. In rabbinical commentary, all sorts of things are proposed that are considered far-fetched, and generally ignored, in modern mainstream commentary on the Bible. In this case, this is one of those cases. In modern mainstream scholarship, you won't find anyone saying that Keturah was Hagar.
The cited source itself rejects the reading as having "no basis in the text", so the sentence in the article itself should not treat this as if it might be a mainstream scholarly idea. In order to be clearer to the reader, to uphold Wikipedia's commitment to the WP:RS policy, and to more carefully follow the cited source, I think the sentence should read, "The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi, and some previous rabbinical commentators, related a traditional belief that Keturah was the same person as Hagar, although this idea cannot be found in the biblical text." Alephb ( talk) 10:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
For the etymology of Keturah's name, this article (like too many) relies on Easton's Bible Dictionary. Easton's Bible Dictionary is a convenient source because it's entirely online, but it's not a reliable source in the sense required by Wikipedia policy WP:RS. It's from 1893, and it contains plenty of unreliable stuff. It's not a reliable source now and it wasn't a reliable source when it was written; it consistently places the author's religious beliefs ahead of the best scholarship of the time. In particular, it's bad for etymologies, because Easton routinely took etymological speculations and passed them on as if they were fact. Alephb ( talk) 10:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Up till now, this article has been written as if Keturah were a person about whom historical information might be found. However, in recent decades biblical scholarship has mostly abandoned the idea that these are historical characters, so I've added a note to that effect, with a source, to the "Sources of Information" section. It would be misleading to readers to pile up a variety of ancient sources that mention Keturah, all dependent on Genesis, without giving them some indication of how these sources are viewed in mainstream scholarship. Alephb ( talk) 11:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The same sort of problem occurs in the lead, with according to WP:LEAD is supposed to function as a concise stand-alone introduction to the topic. If the lead simply says that Keturah was Abraham's wife, without alerting the reader to the fact that the existence of Abraham and similar characters is generally rejected by modern scholarship, that would be a problem. The lead also goes into whether Keturah was the same person as Hagar, which likewise gives she impression that we are dealing with a historical character here. I'll add the same kind of notice to the lead as to the sources of information section. Alephb ( talk) 11:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keturah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewin
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: I removed this without checking the article history [1]. I am sorry to have become involved in such a controversy without checking the article history. I am not planning any further reverts. Before you restore this please consider the source does not mention Keturah or anything related to Keturah. It says "known history in and around Canaan" referring to discrepancies of the timeline. Dartslilly ( talk) 20:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Keturah has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 16, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Keturah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Keturah appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 July 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
In the article it is stated that the Midrash holds that Keturah and Hagar are the same person, far be it from me to challenge that formally since I don't know enough about the subject, but the reference to her children in this article, 'She bears him six sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.' seems to contradict her also being Ishmael's mother. Also I was wondering about Hagar and Ishmael as they were sent away after Sarah's request and they eventually settled in the Desert of Paran (according to the article on Hagar here on wikipedia). Even though I read somewhere else that Ishmael had visited his father's burial it would seem that the situation of Hagar being sent away sort of excludes her and Keturah being the same person (and thus Keturah / Hagar marrying Abraham after Sarah's death). If I read several sources of information on Hagar right she was an Egyptian handmaid to Sarah, somewhere else, in the wikipedia article on Abraham, I read: 'Sarah was his half-sister and Keturah was a patrilineal parallel cousin.' Of course Keturah being Abraham's cousin wouldn't make it impossible for her to be from Egypt, but I thought Abraham originated (according to popular tradtion / religious sources) from Ur in present day Iraq and that by going to Caanan he left his family behind. This would then seem odd to me together with her being family from his father's side and also from Egypt. Once again I don't know enough about the subject, that's also why I refrained from editing the main article, but does anybody have an opinion on whether this should affect the content of this article and how???. Mlodewijk 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
KETURAH sons are Javanese and Malays, stupid...... Malays were not practice hindu and shaminist before. Malays practised Abraham's religion , i.e before conversion to Islam, same as your Mormon. This history is recorded via mouth to mouth, since long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.91.34 ( talk) 10:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I just finished doing a major rewrite of this article, and I've nominated it to be considered for Good Article status. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BenLinus1214 ( talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I will take this one. It looks OK, but it's a little short, no? Just letting you know that I might have some comments on where to elaborate a bit. Then again, I might not. BenLinus 1214 talk 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments
The article currently says this: "Some Jewish scholars have believed Keturah to be the same person as Abraham's concubine Hagar, but this view is not universally held.[4]"
The sentence has a fair bit of potential to mislead a reader if that reader is not familiar with the distinction between traditional rabbinical Jewish commentary and modern historical-critical commentary. In rabbinical commentary, all sorts of things are proposed that are considered far-fetched, and generally ignored, in modern mainstream commentary on the Bible. In this case, this is one of those cases. In modern mainstream scholarship, you won't find anyone saying that Keturah was Hagar.
The cited source itself rejects the reading as having "no basis in the text", so the sentence in the article itself should not treat this as if it might be a mainstream scholarly idea. In order to be clearer to the reader, to uphold Wikipedia's commitment to the WP:RS policy, and to more carefully follow the cited source, I think the sentence should read, "The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi, and some previous rabbinical commentators, related a traditional belief that Keturah was the same person as Hagar, although this idea cannot be found in the biblical text." Alephb ( talk) 10:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
For the etymology of Keturah's name, this article (like too many) relies on Easton's Bible Dictionary. Easton's Bible Dictionary is a convenient source because it's entirely online, but it's not a reliable source in the sense required by Wikipedia policy WP:RS. It's from 1893, and it contains plenty of unreliable stuff. It's not a reliable source now and it wasn't a reliable source when it was written; it consistently places the author's religious beliefs ahead of the best scholarship of the time. In particular, it's bad for etymologies, because Easton routinely took etymological speculations and passed them on as if they were fact. Alephb ( talk) 10:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Up till now, this article has been written as if Keturah were a person about whom historical information might be found. However, in recent decades biblical scholarship has mostly abandoned the idea that these are historical characters, so I've added a note to that effect, with a source, to the "Sources of Information" section. It would be misleading to readers to pile up a variety of ancient sources that mention Keturah, all dependent on Genesis, without giving them some indication of how these sources are viewed in mainstream scholarship. Alephb ( talk) 11:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The same sort of problem occurs in the lead, with according to WP:LEAD is supposed to function as a concise stand-alone introduction to the topic. If the lead simply says that Keturah was Abraham's wife, without alerting the reader to the fact that the existence of Abraham and similar characters is generally rejected by modern scholarship, that would be a problem. The lead also goes into whether Keturah was the same person as Hagar, which likewise gives she impression that we are dealing with a historical character here. I'll add the same kind of notice to the lead as to the sources of information section. Alephb ( talk) 11:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keturah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewin
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: I removed this without checking the article history [1]. I am sorry to have become involved in such a controversy without checking the article history. I am not planning any further reverts. Before you restore this please consider the source does not mention Keturah or anything related to Keturah. It says "known history in and around Canaan" referring to discrepancies of the timeline. Dartslilly ( talk) 20:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)