Talk:Abraham

Baha'i

I see the new section about it that was added; but wonder if this is in due weight. Unfortunately I see such sections on so many religion related articles and often wonder how come such an obscure (other than on Wikipedia) group has so prominent coverage everywhere (this is even true in templates). I will not remove it in case I am wrong, another editor can determine this. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There's something like 6 million followers of the Bahai religion on the earth. If every group of 6 million people got this kind of coverage, anything Bible-related would get very cluttered. For example, Kimbanguism has about 6 million followers, and I don't see "the Kimbanguist perspective" given prominent coverage all over Bible-related articles. I imagine for most articles like this, a reasonably short Jewish/Christian/Muslim three-way coverage would be enough. Alephb (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. There could be Hinduism or Buddhism too if they were relevant (which is not the case here). PiCo removed the section for now, thanks. — PaleoNeonate — 05:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Hi @PaleoNeonate:, @Alephb:, and @PiCo: -Just for a comment, 6 million Baha'is is not the only notability issue. See also Growth of religion, and note that it is distinctive in how it is present in almost every country on the planet. This is highly distinguished from Kimbanguism which is highly localized, and also Kimbanguism is simply a branch of Christianity so it is a false comparison as the notability of Kimbanguism would be in the context of Christianity and not other religions. So are there other 6 millions member religions with an large international presence that is an actual independent religion and not just a denomination? Smkolins (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be right. One of the examples of new religious movement I'm more familiar with is the Jehovah's Witnesses. In many articles it was generally considered inappropriate to mention them (an ~8 million notable international group); if the topic is important enough in relation to them, a short mention in a Christianity section usually suffices. Apparently the Baha'i would also have a presence in Canada, although I yet have to know any, despite my friends of various ethnic and religious backgrounds. On the other hand everyone I know have at least heard of the JWs. I have learned of the Baha'i's existence from Wikipedia, and in most cases when reading on topics that only seemed minimally related to them. I was told once that the reason may be that they do not consider themselves part of any of the world's great religions, and could be represented as a separate one. I have a lot to learn, but unfortunately the little that I so far read about them that was considered scholarly (from the WP articles) was also from faith members. One was mostly a rant against categorization of syncretism (although it seems obvious to me that it consists of yet another syncretic new religious movement, historically derived from Islam). In various demographic statistics charts, even the JWs are often mixed in "others", I also often see the same about the Baha'i. In both cases this is probably explained by the fact that they're less than 1% of a country's population... I also realize that this is probably not the best place to have a central discussion about this however, I'll stop here, but I would also be glad to know where this type of discussion would be most appropriate (preferably other than the Baha'i Wikiproject's talk, but who knows). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are a non traditional branch of Christianity so, again, would be in context as minority view of a very large religion and JWs are well known, in my view, because of their practice of some of them going door to door. Baha'is rarely do that. Everything - everything - in wikipedia should be driven by good sources and what they have to say in proportion to the overall subject. If the sources are vetted by responsible publishing institutions why does it matter if the writer was a Baha'i or Christian? How about a Jewish editor? You mention it being derived from Islam. Cannot Christianity historically be seen to be derived from Judaism; but that surely fails to grasp the breadth and depth of Christianity and the authenticity of Jesus' experience. So returning to the point, given that the Baha'i Faith is a distinct religion, and is notable in a couple of ways but surely not size, are a few lines supported by some sources? We're talking about a few lines of text plus the cites. I've gone through the effort of cleaning up the citation syntax, better sources/urls and those points and removed the link-rot:

Bahá'u'lláh, the prophet of the Baha'i Faith, affirms the highest religious station for Abraham and generally for prophets mentioned among the other Abrahamic religions, and has claimed a lineage of descent from Abraham through Keturah and Sarah. Comparisons are also made between the sacrifice of sons, and journeys of Abraham and Bahá'u'lláh from east to the Holy Land.

References

Smkolins (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Christianity has roots in Judaism, but it is one of the world's great religions. Just like Islam is one of the world's great religions. Unlike the JWs (a minority yet notable denomination), and unlike the Baha'i (also a minor religion that seems even less notable). For now my impression is that it seems undue weight to add it, but that's only my view, not the consensus. I'm glad to let others comment, if they also want the material I agree to include it. For your other question about the sources written by members, it is always nice to read material written by scholars who have no conflict of interest and have the expertise to do comparative studies. Just like Wikipedia articles are ideally written by editors who lack a conflict of interest in relation to the subject they are writing about. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 03:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If there is something notable to be said about a Baha'i view of Abraham in suitable secondary sources, a brief section might be warranted. Comparison with JWs is not really suitable as one is a religion and the other is a denomination. JW isn't even a branch of Christianity, it is one group of the Bible Student movement, which is itself a branch from Adventism, which is derived from Protestantism. As for whether JWs, or similarly small denominations, should be mentioned in an article, it depends on the context and scope of the article. If their view on a particular matter is distinctive and is discussed (note that 'mentioned in passing' does not mean 'discussed') in secondary sources, it merits a section. If their view is very similar to that of a group of related denominations, it might be suitable to mention them in a list of groups, but not to restate their view in a separate paragraph. If their view on something is identical to that of most denominations, they would not merit mention at all. The last two criteria (identical or similar to another denomination) do not apply to Baha'i as a religion, but may be analogous if the scope of an article were discussing denominations of Baha'i (if that's even a thing).--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion depends on the context and importance. Out of curiosity I have also verified if Britannica mentions the Baha'i in their Abraham Hebrew patriarch article, but they also don't. That said, their article is shorter than this one. —PaleoNeonate - 05:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is an important part of wikipedia just as is seeking concensus building. And all formal institutions keep on eye on conflicts of interest which is one reason they are trusted. In that context questioning the legitimacy of a scholar is not normal. People do not get a standing of recognizing their work because of their affiliations or beliefs, but because of the recognized content of their scholarship among the community of practice. Smkolins (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This small selection of sources may be of use:

• "Why 'Abrahamic'?". Lubar Institute for Religious Studies at U of Wisconsin. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
• Lawson, Todd (13 December 2012). Cusack, Carole M.; Hartney, Christopher (eds.). "Baha'i Religious History". Journal of Religious History. 36 (4): 463–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2012.01224.x. ISSN 1467-9809. Retrieved 5 September 2013.
• Collins, William P., reviewer (1 September 2004). "Review of: The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam / F. E. Peters. – New ed. – Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 2004". Library Journal. 129 (14). New York: 157, 160. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 13 September 2013.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Smkolins (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting extended confirmed protection.

There has been a disproportionate amounts of vandalism done to Patriarch related Wikipedia articles. In past 10 edits, (16:10, 13 June 2017‎ - 18:57, 6 June 2017‎, five edits have been purely IP vandalism, four have been purely reverting vandalism, and as the math will tell you, that only leave one actual edit being made to the page. With that in mind, I checked the first page of logs, 8/20 edits were vandalism, wherein in two IPs made multiple unconstructive edits, so 2/6 IPs in question were destructive multiple times. I took it another step further, I reviewed the last 100 edits made to the page, my results were as follows:

• 100 total edits, 10 Apr 2017 - 13 Jun 2017
• 23/100 edits were considered vandalism - 22 out of those 23 edits were made by IP users.
• 19 edits were purely reverting vandalism done by IPs, and on that note, the count is truly 18, because the 19th edit I have counted (which coincidentally was also the very edit made 100 edits ago) was reverting IP vandalism that was made before the 100 edit period began counting, so take that as 24 IP vandals in the 100 edit period)
• 10 edits were the result of an edit war instigated by IP editors
• In the 23/100 vandal edits, many IPs vandalized repeatedly, one IP made 2, another IP made 2, another IP made 2, another IP made 2, and another IP made 4. So 12/23(24) edits were made by the same user(s).

This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: Why not semi-protection? I see no pending request for protection, would you like me to file one? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Request made here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 06:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Result here: pending-changes protection for 6 months applied by Lectonar. —PaleoNeonate - 07:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Abrahams Age seems incorrect.

The dates of Abraham's life indicate 335yrs yet the bible states 175yrs

Genesis 25:7 These are all the years of Abraham's life that he lived, one hundred and seventy-five years.

Is there something I scripture that I am not understanding, maybe age of Abram added to Abraham? Even then the ages would be well short of 335.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.152.164 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017‎

No, there's nothing about Abraham's life that indicates 335 years. The biblical number is 175 years. Alephb (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarah's relationship to Abraham

Why is Sarah depicted as being Abraham's half-sister? There is nothing in Genesis that indicates that this is the case.